From: kazi@oin.cis.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi)
Subject: Re: Ganga Water sharing
Keywords: Farakka Barrage
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 02:29:28 GMT

In article <1hiqf7INN3of@hsc.usc.edu> banerjee@hsc.usc.edu (Samit Banerjee) writes:
>In article <1992Dec26.221338.3361@udel.edu> kazi@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi) writes:
>
>>   The parliamentary elections held, following Ershad's ouster, under
>>   the aegis of a non-partisan interim government were universially
>>   acknowledged to be the freest elctions in recent memory. Bangladesh
>>   is now entirely a democratic country with a freely elected 
>>   government.
>
>Well I was commenting on what I had read in the press. Even Jimmy Carter
>who was there as an envoy said that massive tampering with the votes
>and ballot boxes had taken place aided by a largely sympathetic government
>machinery. Part of the reason, according to him, why the Awami League did
>not win more sets, inspite of widespread support.

I am sure you are confusing two elections. There were widespread tamperings
during the two parliamentary elections conducted during the Ershad regime.
I haven't read of any reports about Jimmy Carter's statement and so I
am unable to comment on that. However, all other international observers,
the press as well as parliamentary groups form Australia and Canda, and
members of the international HR organizations Freedom House amongst others,
had commented on the general fairness of the elections held. From my
personal experience, I would be doubtful whether the government machinery
would be sympathetic to a BNP government. The BNP drew it's core support
from the young voters. However, I am not discounting the fact that
irregularities have probably occurred, and this is something quite common
to our subcontinental political scene. The basic premise of my argument
is that for all practical puposes, Bangladesh has a sovereign parliament,
democratically elected, and the seat distribution accurately mirrors
voter preferences. Ergo, Bangladesh is a democratic country.

>But that is not the real issue. In the twenty years of your Independence,
>you have had two major dictatorships Zia (1975-1982) and Ershad (1982-1990)
>spanning fifteen years between them. Both Zia  and Ershad were from the 
>military.
>
>Given these facts, tell me if I am completely off base in claiming that 
>BD is a military dictatorship.

Yes, completely off base. Bangladesh WAS a military dictatorship but is
one no longer and hopefully will remain as such.

>>2] Neither can Bangladesh be called a theocratic state. True, Islam
>>   has been made the State religion, as opposed to declaring Bangladesh
>>   an Islamic state. This would be equivalent to the UK having 
>>   Anglicanism as the state religion. Though the secularity of
>>   the constitution has been amended in this way, in all other
>>   respects the Bangladesh is democratic and secular. 
>
>Secularism as I understand it, is an equal indifference on the part of the 
>state for all religions. If the state religion is Islam, then the 
>apparatus of the state must be used to enforce the tenets of that religion.
>That is *NOT* secularism. Even if the state did not do this, the fact
>that any one religion is preferred over another, destroys any claims
>of secularism.

As the current constitution stands, of course you cannot call Bangladesh
a secular country, just as you cannot call the United Kingdom a secular 
country, both having a religion expressly mentioned as a state religion. 
However, this does not make Bangladesh a theocratic state, since IMO in a 
theocratic state the civil and criminal laws would be derived from religious 
canons.

>>   The laws
>>   of the land derive from secular laws [derived from the British
>>   common law] and not the Sharia.
>
>That is true and I agree. That is why BD may not be a fundamentalist
>state, but it sure is not a secular country either.

Agreed. 

>>Hence your adjectives of Bangladesh being a fundamentalist and military
>>dictatorship are either outdated or inappropriate.     
>
>No, I disagree. I have explained my reasons above.

And my explanations as to why I do not agree with you are also given above.
Can we agree on this? Bangladesh WAS a military dictatorship and ISN'T
a secular country (as per political definitions), but NEITHER is it a 
fundamentalist country.

>>Well, since Bangladesh is a democratic country we should see an improvement
>>in Indo-Bangla ties, shouldn't we? 
>
>Yes we should. But the GOI seems to be preoccupied with the economy and
>other events at home to really extend it's hand of friendship.

Of course, all nations are dominated by it's own internal interests, 
but a friendly gesture in this direction would go a long way to dispel
the Indian-Bogey-Man attitude that prevails in Bangladesh. (and not
without reason too). Hopefully, the political leadership of both
countries would be magnanimous enough to make certain gestures that
would eliminate the distrust that exists between the two nations. 
One such gesture was made by the Bangladesh Prime Minister, Begum
Khaleda Zia, when on her recent trip to India she acknowledged the
the problem of illegal immigration. There are many irritants that
sour the relationship between both countries, and even though each
nation is quite aware of the problem, each is loath to accept the
existence of those problems in public; such as the assistance to
insurgents etc..

Based on my initial impressions, if I were the PM of Bangladesh, I
think I would be able to say, "I can do bussiness with this man (PVNR)".
(With apologies to Thatcher. :-))

>Samit

- Zunaid Kazi
  kazi@cis.udel.edu


Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh