U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–391PDF 2015

BANGLADESH’S FRACTURE: POLITICAL AND

RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 30, 2015

Serial No. 114–46

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

MATT SALMON, Arizona Chairman 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

AMI BERA, California 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

GRACE MENG, New York 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Ms. Lisa Curtis, senior research fellow, Asian Studies Center, The Davis 

Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, The Heritage Foundation ........................................................................................................................ 5

Mr. Ali Riaz, Ph.D., professor, Department of Politics and Government Chair, 

Illinois State University ...................................................................................... 16

Mr. Jay Kansara, director, Government Relations, Hindu American Foundation ........................................................................................................................ 32

Mr. Steven D. Fleischli, president, U.S.-Bangladesh Trade and Relations Association ................................................................................................................ 42

Alyssa Ayres, Ph.D., senior fellow for India, Pakistan, and South Asia, Council on Foreign Relations ....................................................................................... 51

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Ms. Lisa Curtis: Prepared statement ..................................................................... 7

Mr. Ali Riaz, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................................... 18

Mr. Jay Kansara: Prepared statement .................................................................. 35

Mr. Steven D. Fleischli: Prepared statement ........................................................ 45

Alyssa Ayres, Ph.D.: Prepared statement .............................................................. 54

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 78

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 79

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 80

(1)

BANGLADESH’S FRACTURE: POLITICAL AND 

RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM 

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o’clock p.m., in room 

2255 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Matt Salmon (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SALMON. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will come to 

order. We often speak of the rebalance or pivot to Asia solely in 

terms of the large nations such as China and India. 

But today we are going to turn our attention to Bangladesh, a 

nation that may be discussed less often than its larger neighbors 

but is nevertheless significant to our increased engagement in the 

region. 

Today, we are going to discuss why it is critical that we keep a 

close eye on Bangladesh and why Bangladesh’s security has significant bearing on regional security, thus on our efforts to rebalance. 

But first, I would like to take a moment of silence for those 

whose lives were lost and destroyed in the tragic earthquake this 

past weekend, affecting so many in the nations of Nepal, India as 

well as Bangladesh. 

Thank you. Okay. Bangladesh does have a unique story, a very 

inspirational one. A moderate voice in the Islamic world that is 

home to 166 million people with a Muslim majority, all within a 

geographic space the size of Iowa. 

While roughly 80 percent of the population lives on less than $2 

a day, we recognize the earnest advances that the country has 

made with consistent GDP growth averaging 6.2 percent over the 

last decade, something that we would love to have right now. 

Bangladesh’s fractious democracy is dominated by two competing 

political factions—the Awami League, led by Prime Minister 

Sheikh Hasina, currently in power, and Bangladesh National 

Party, or BMP, led by former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia. 

These powerful leaders rule their parties like fiefdoms and corruption continues to be a major issue. Tensions between the two 

parties has often been high but since the most recent parliamentary elections in 2014 the escalation of violence between the two 

sides has been especially appalling. 

2

Polarization between Awami League and BMP has reached new 

levels and politically motivated attacks have begun to target everyday people, including commuters and students. 

We have seen assaults on journalists and horrific firebomb attacks on buses. Today, I hope to hear from our distinguished panelists about the violence committed by both parties to draw attention 

to this issue and make clear our state of disdain for the use of any 

type of violence as a means to convey a political message. 

Both parties should know that democracy requires more than 

just lip service. If Bangladesh wants to refer to its own political 

system as a democracy it must be a democracy in substance. 

But since the Awami League took power in January 2009, significant changes to the electoral process were made including the removal of independent and neutral caretaker government during 

elections. 

This led to the boycott of the 2014 elections by the BMP and 

sparked the current spates of violence that we are seeing today. As 

it now stands, Bangladesh is in the midst of a serious political security crisis. 

Just this past Tuesday, the BMP once again boycotted elections, 

this time at the municipal level citing polling irregularities. The 

U.S. Embassy in Bangladesh echoes our concerns saying, we are 

disappointed by widespread, first-hand and credible reports of vote 

rigging, intimidation and violence. 

Incidents like this may lead to a further break down of order 

that could open space for Islamic militants or could force the military to take control once again. 

Today, we will discuss both political and religious extremism. To 

be sure, there are links to draw between them. However, it is also 

important to distinguish between the actions attributable to political and religious violence. 

Bangladesh has been a security partner in the combat against 

extremist terrorist groups as they currently have eight or more 

major Islamic extremist groups within their borders, many with 

ties to international terrorist networks. 

In addition to tackling terrorism through law enforcement, Bangladesh also uses strategic communication to counter violent extremism especially among youth through Madrassas and other religious institutions. 

Bangladesh is a current partner and a key partner in the struggle against Islamic extremism and we hope to continue this collective effort with Bangladesh and other valuable partners throughout 

the world. The Bangladesh government has also established the 

Rapid Action Battalion, or RAB, which has been very effective in 

counter terrorism efforts. 

However, during changes in political power the two competing 

parties have been known to use the RAB for politically motivated 

attacks on the opposition. 

We need to pay close attention to these types of junctures where 

a political crisis hampers the noble counter terror efforts in Bangladesh and do whatever possible to ensure that the domestic political turmoil does not negatively impact this critical mission. 

3

At our hearing today, and as our committee continues to engage 

with the Asia Pacific, I hope our members keep in mind the significance of Bangladesh for the United States. 

Bangladesh’s geographic position at the crossroads of India, 

China and the rest of South Asia is of growing importance. For example, Bangladesh has long been a trading partner with the 

United States and we enjoy amiable trade relations through ongoing bilateral trade investment agreement. 

We also have a strong interest in supporting our fellow—a fellow 

democracy, particularly in the Muslim world. What really is at 

stake in Bangladesh is the struggle for the ideological foundation 

of a nation between those that would emphasize secular ideas and 

Bengali ethnic identity and those that seek a firm Islamist ideology. 

In Bangladesh there is great potential. We have the opportunity 

to support a society that embraces nonviolent competition and one 

that shirks religious extremism. 

We should signal to the country that we support ideals such as 

respect for human dignity and freedom of expression no matter 

one’s political disposition, creed or religion. 

The people of Bangladesh deserve that. This is a timely discussion and I hope to gather valuable information and ideas today to 

better inform Congress’ policy toward Bangladesh and I give my 

sincere thanks to my colleagues and our witnesses for joining me 

today, and I yield to the ranking member. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for remembering the people of Nepal at the beginning of this hearing. 

Bangladesh is the second largest predominantly Muslim country 

in the world. It is also a country with a nearly 10 percent Hindu 

minority. A hundred and sixty-six million people of whom 60 million live in extreme poverty. 

The United States needs to dedicate ourselves to human rights, 

democracy and economic development in Bangladesh and that includes support for those who will protect the workers who all too 

often we see in a particular disaster or a caved in building. 

But we have to remember that there are still less spectacular destruction of ongoing poverty and labor abuse. It may not be the 

kind of scene that gets international press attention, but 60 million 

people living in extreme poverty deserve our attention. 

And there are 200 labor unions in Bangladesh but we need to see 

more support for organizations that protect workers there and, of 

course, it is up to consumers to be aware of the effect of their consumption decisions. 

We also have a stake in Bangladesh achieving a moderation and 

not being taken down the road of some would call it Islamic extremism, some would call it a corruption of Islam. 

In particular, note that Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh, the 

JMB group, has reportedly infiltrated from Bangladesh into border 

districts of India to make contacts with sympathizers and several 

madrassas focusing on recruitment and fund-raising. 

It has sought to recruit 150 men to carry out attacks and sent 

50 improvised explosives to Dhaka and Assam areas as the Islamic 

State has grown and we are seeing both it and al-Qaeda trying to 

bolster their ranks in Bangladesh. 

4

In addition, Bangladesh faces a particular challenge because over 

200,000 Rohingya from Burma, or Myanmar, have fled into Bangladesh, feeling persecution in their home country, and of course 

this creates an opening for the terrorist groups to try to recruit, to 

try to turn refugees into—exploit the anger and try to turn them 

into terrorists. 

This is, of course, an ongoing problem and according to the Hindustan Times, pan-Islamic groups have attracted a few of these individuals, promising them to help carry out retribution against 

Myanmar. 

The fact remains that Bangladesh’s government and, of course, 

it is split and there we do have significant concerns about democracy there. But the Bangladeshi government has been a partner of 

the United States in fighting terrorism. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses as to how we can 

see a Bangladesh that protects its Hindu minority, that is a partner for us against Islamic extremist terrorism and is growing both 

economically and in terms of its dedication to democracy and 

human rights, and I yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Ranking Member. 

We are in the appropriations season and it is incredibly chaotic 

today. We are going to be called for a vote probably in the next 10 

minutes and so I know that members want to make opening statements and I am trying to juxtapose everything today and I am 

going to deeply apologize that we are going to just limit the opening statements to myself and the ranking member just in the interests of time and I do want to get to the panel very badly. 

That is why we are here, and for those members I deeply apologize. I thought we were going to have a little bit more flexibility 

today than we are having and this is so important. 

So I would like to introduce the witnesses. We are very fortunate 

to have Lisa Curtis, a senior research fellow from Heritage Foundation’s Asian Study Center, Dr. Ali Riaz—is it Riaz? Did I pronounce 

that right? Joins us from Illinois State University where he is chair 

of the Department of Politics and Government. Thank you. 

Jay Kansara is here from the Hindu American Foundation where 

he is the director of government relations and I understand that 

you recently returned from Bangladesh, and Steven Fleischli, correct? Joins us from Bangladesh Trade and Relations Association 

where he is president, and Alissa Ayres joins us from the Council 

on Foreign Relations where she is a senior fellow for India, Pakistan and South Asia. 

And without objection, the witnesses’ full prepared statement 

will be made part of the record and members will have 5 calendar 

days to submit statements, questions and extraneous materials for 

the record. 

Ms. Curtis. 

5

STATEMENT OF MS. LISA CURTIS, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, ASIAN STUDIES CENTER, THE DAVIS INSTITUTE FOR 

NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY, THE HERITAGE 

FOUNDATION 

Ms. CURTIS. Yes, thank you very much for inviting me here to 

testify on Bangladesh—a very important issue. I commend your 

subcommittee for bringing this issue to everyone’s attention. 

The political tensions between the ruling Awami League government and the BNP opposition are threatening to derail economic 

and social progress in the country and certainly the brutal murders 

of two liberal bloggers in the last 2 months has reminded us of the 

threat of Islamist extremism in Bangladesh and the possibility that 

extremists could take advantage of the current political unrest. 

On January 5th, the opposition engaged in protest demonstrations. This was on the anniversary of the flawed national election 

of last year. The protests quickly turned violent and particularly 

disturbing was a series of petrol bombings on buses that killed or 

injured hundreds of innocent bystanders. 

As many as 7,000 opposition activists have reportedly been detained in jail and 20 opposition supporters have allegedly died in 

extrajudicial circumstances. A senior opposition official, Salahuddin 

Ahmed, has reportedly disappeared from him home on March 10th 

after being taken by men who identified themselves as police. 

Unfortunately, Tuesday’s municipal elections in Dhaka and 

Chittagong have also been marred by allegations of rigging and 

voter intimidation and the opposition pulled out of those elections 

midway through the process. 

There had been hope that these municipal elections would help 

restore faith in the democratic process but instead they seem to 

have further vitiated the atmosphere between the government and 

the opposition. 

The U.S. had previously held Bangladesh up as a model of a 

large Muslim country with a functioning democracy. Moreover, 

Bangladesh has made significant social and economic gains over 

the last decade. 

Life expectancy has increased, infant mortality has decreased, female literacy has doubled and economic growth has averaged 

around 6 percent annually. 

All of this is now at risk. The political unrest is occurring at the 

same time that the government is cracking down on the leading 

Islamist political party, the Jamaat-e-Islami. 

The Jamaat is currently banned from participating in elections 

and its top leaders have either been executed or are facing death 

sentences for their roles in siding with Pakistani forces during 

Bangladesh’s 1971 war for independence. 

Now, the trials of the Jamaat leaders have found some favor 

with a segment of the Bangladeshi population, especially the young 

urban middle class and we saw this during the Shahbag movement 

in 2013 when protestors gathered to object to what they considered 

overly lenient sentencing of those accused of war crimes. 

Sheikh Hasina’s efforts to crack down on radical Islamists and 

to emphasize the secular principles of the country’s founding are 

certainly welcome. 

6

But closing down the Jamaat entirely could backfire. The government should consider whether cracking down on peaceful avenues 

of political participation could reinforce the violent elements of 

Jamaat and therefore make the problem even worse. 

So how can the U.S. help Bangladesh avoid further political unrest? First, I think the U.S. needs to be more proactive in encouraging dialogue between the government and the opposition and this 

includes being more vocal in criticizing both the opposition’s violent 

tactics and the government’s failure to provide adequate political 

space for the opposition. 

Second, the U.S. should facilitate a civil society dialogue that involves the younger generation and is aimed at empowering local 

groups to advocate for nonviolent politics. 

Such a dialogue could involve a variety of political, economic and 

religious civic organizations and could even involve the Jamaat-eIslami younger members and emphasize the importance of respect 

for religious minorities and ensuring the political process is reflective of modern Bangladesh’s achievement including the increase in 

Bangladeshi women’s participation in the social, economic and political life of the country. 

Thirdly, the U.S. should incentivize Sheikh Hasina to create the 

conditions for political stability through the prospect of greater 

U.S. trade and investment. 

The U.S. is the biggest export market for Bangladesh. So, certainly, expanding those exports and attracting more U.S. investment is a goal for Dhaka and the U.S. should make clear that political stability returning to the country would encourage Washington 

to facilitate more trade delegations to the country. 

There is much at stake in the political future of Bangladesh and 

the U.S. has to be more proactive in convincing the government 

and opposition to resolve differences through dialogue, noting that 

both political parties stand to suffer if political tensions continue. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Curtis follows:]

7


94391a-1.eps
8


94391a-2.eps
9


94391a-3.eps
10


94391a-4.eps
11


94391a-5.eps
12


94391a-6.eps
13


94391a-7.eps
14


94391a-8.eps
15


94391a-9.eps
16

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Dr. Riaz, I think that you will probably be the last one that testifies before we end up having to go vote if the vote schedule stays 

the way it has been predicted. 

So could you go ahead and make a statement? And then if that 

is—we will probably get buzzed, you know, while you are speaking 

but we will wait until you conclude to leave. 

Thank you. And it won’t be that we left because we didn’t like 

what you said. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ALI RIAZ, PH.D., PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT CHAIR, ILLINOIS 

STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. RIAZ. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Salmon, Ranking 

Member—Congressman Sherman and the committee. Thank you 

for the invitation to discuss the political situation in Bangladesh. 

In the past 11⁄2 years, Bangladeshi politics has experienced a tumultuous period. The period is marked by two episodes of heightened violence—that is in late 2013 and early 2015, a flawed national election in 2014, unremitting heavy-handed actions by the 

government between 2013 and 2015 and highly-rigged city corporation elections and actions which took place in 28th of February, 

2015, all of which raised serious concerns regarding the future trajectory of the country’s political, particularly the prospects of democracy. 

The uncertainty that has gripped the nation since 2011 has not 

disappeared. It is the absence of the trust among the major political parties, lack of consensus on the modus operandi of holding an 

inclusive national election and dearth of institutions to protect the 

fundamental rights of the citizens including exercising the right to 

vote freely that together sustains this uncertainty. 

In the past 3 years, a number of disturbing trends have emerged 

which reflect the sorry state of the human rights situation in the 

country. In recent years and particularly since 2014, the restrictions on freedom of assembly, movement and speech have shrunk 

the democratic space significantly. Violence and intimidation have 

become the primary modes of political expression. 

The belligerent rhetoric of the ruling party and its supporters 

contributed to the likelihood of the emergence of regimented system of governance akin to authoritarianism. 

Unrestrained use of force on the part of the government along 

with the high degree of surveillance, growing number of 

extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances have created a 

culture of fear. 

The opposition parties, particularly the major opposition, BNP, 

have either participated or encouraged violence as a principal 

means to press for its demands for a fresh national election. The 

nature and scope of violence has changed for worse. 

Innocent citizens have been targeted. It is evident that the opposition’s tactics have failed to mobilize citizens in its support. There 

have been no public inquiries to find the perpetrators of these 

arson attacks and bring them to justice. 

The government ruling party and the regime supporters have 

tried to justify severe measures in the name of restoration of peace 

17

and stability at the expense of democracy in general and particularly the fundamental rights of the citizens. Furthermore, the regime supporters have also argued that economic development 

should be privatized over democracy. 

Both are highly discredited approaches and should be noted in 

earnest. The relentless belligerent posturing have contributed to 

the polarization of this society and encouraged extremists rhetoric, 

resulting in further violence. 

This allows non-state actors to take advantage of the situation 

and pursue their radical agenda. The brutal murders of bloggers 

Rajib Haider in 2013, Avijit Roy and Washiqur Rahmanin in 2015 

demonstrate that political uncertainty, heightened violence and absence of the rule of law provides the environment in within which 

militants can fester and become a threat to society. 

These incidents also show that the country has become a dangerous place for those who dare to make critical comments about 

Islam. Islamist militants groups such as Ansarullah Bangla Team 

or Harkat-ul Jihadal Islam find opportunity when the state’s security apparatuses lose their focus. 

Bangladesh has achieved remarkable success since 2007 in curbing militancy. But democracy deficit, recurrence of violence within 

mainstream politics and state repression may undermine this 

achievement. 

Now what can be done? I would quote Professor Rehman 

Siobhan, a scholar of Bangladesh—‘‘Move to restore predictability 

to the lives of the people has to move forward through the political 

process rather than dependence on street violence or the coercive 

power of the state. The end result must be a political settlement 

which recreates a more inclusive political order underwritten by a 

fairly acquired democratic mandate.’’

To achieve these goals, it is imperative, number one, steps are 

taken to ensure a fairly acquired democratic mandate for governance. 

Erosion of fundamental rights must be stopped and democratic 

space for democratic constitutional parties are restored, freedom of 

assembly, movement and speech guaranteed in the constitution be 

adhered in essence and to the letter, unaccountable and excessive 

use of state’s coercive power including extrajudicial killing and enforced disappearance be brought to an end. 

All parties, including the opposition parties, unequivocally denounce violence as a means to achieve political goals and, finally, 

institutions to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens including exercising the right to vote freely be restored. 

With that, I think at this point the United States and the international community has a responsibility to ensure that these 

things are done and done in a fairly manner so that Bangladesh 

should not be running into a spiral which would take it in a downward slope. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Riaz follows:]

18


94391b-1.eps
19


94391b-2.eps
20


94391b-3.eps
21


94391b-4.eps
22


94391b-5.eps
23


94391b-6.eps
24


94391b-7.eps
25


94391b-8.eps
26


94391b-9.eps
27


94391b-10.eps
28


94391b-11.eps
29


94391b-12.eps
30


94391b-13.eps
31


94391b-14.eps
32

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Dr. Riaz. 

It looks like we are going to get to another panelist. 

Mr. Kansara. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JAY KANSARA, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT 

RELATIONS, HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION 

Mr. KANSARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and 

respected members of the subcommittee. It is a privilege for me to 

appear before you today. 

The Hindu American Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy and 

human rights organization, has been closely monitoring the political and human rights crisis in Bangladesh for several years. 

I would like to acknowledge the tremendous work of my colleague, HAF senior director and human rights fellow, Samir Kalra, 

who is the author of our annual human rights report. 

Bangladesh has been engulfed by political turmoil and large 

scale violence since 2013. While the Awami League government 

has contributed to this unrest through its repressive policies, the 

primary responsibility for the violence and instability specifically 

targeting minorities falls upon the main opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, and its largest coalition partner, the 

Jamaat-e-Islami. 

Earlier this year, I visited Dhaka to survey the conditions of religious minorities. On this trip I witnessed first hand the political 

unrest and its detrimental impact on the daily lives of ordinary 

Bangladeshis, specifically referring to the hartals. 

During this trip where I was joined by HAF volunteer, a native 

Bengali speaker, Utsav Chakrabarti, we also met with dozens of 

civil society leaders, human rights activists, minority groups and 

three members of Parliament, all of whom expressed serious concern with the rising tide of religious intolerance, extremism and a 

burgeoning threat of pro-ISIS activity in the country. 

The escalation of attacks on religious minorities which began in 

2013 were still fresh on the minds of Hindus, Christians, Buddhists 

and secularists whom we met with. 

In late January 2013, after the International Crimes Tribunal 

began announcing convictions of high-level Jamaat and BNP officials, supporters of these organizations engaged in large-scale violence and rioting that plagued Bangladesh for several weeks in a 

campaign of intimidation directed specifically toward Hindus. 

This resulted in more than 100 deaths and hundreds of injuries. 

Jamaat and Islami Chhatra Shibir activists reportedly also set off 

bombs in the capital city of Dhaka aimed at causing panic among 

ordinary citizens. 

The Hindu community in particular was systematically attacked, 

more than 47 temples destroyed, approximately 1,500 homes vandalized or burnt to the ground and in the aftermath of this violence 

Amnesty International also noted that the Bangladesh Hindu community was at extreme risk. 

The Hindu majority—excuse me, the Hindu minority were similarly targeted by Jamaat-e-Islami and Islami Chhatra Shibir in the 

run-up to the elections during 2014 when an estimated 495 homes 

were also damaged and 585 shops were looted and 169 temples 

33

were vandalized, this according to the Bangladesh Hindu Buddhist 

Christian Unity Council. 

Parliamentarian Chhabi Biswas from the Netrokona-1 District 

described to us in our meeting the warnings he received from radical Islamists to stay silent during election violence targeting members of the Hindu community. 

As a result of his refusal to comply, his car was bombed on December 24th of 2014 by BNP activists. Mr. Biswas narrowly escaped death and fortunately is still serving as a member of Parliament. And as recently as April 22, 2015 in the run-up to the execution of Mohammad Kamaruzzaman at least three Hindu temples 

were attacked in the aftermath of that. 

Women are especially vulnerable as well during bouts of anti-minority violence. Thousands of Hindu women have been sexually assaulted or raped by members of Jamaat-e-Islami and its affiliates. 

According to first hand information received from the women’s 

wing of the Bangladesh Hindu Buddhist Christian Unity Council. 

Most of the current unrest can be traced back to the coalition 

that began in 2001 of the BNP and Jamaat alliance where even 

more significant violence targeting Hindus occurred. 

Moreover, activity by militants and radical organization such as 

Harkat-ul Jihadal Islami, a State Department designated foreign 

terrorist group, and Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh significantly increased during the BNP regime. These organizations are 

closely linked with Jamaat and have collectively created an atmosphere of violence and intimidation. 

As long as Jamaat and other Islamist groups are allowed to operate with impunity, Hindus and other religious minorities as well as 

atheists remain in critical danger. 

Hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi Hindus have fled to India 

over the past 13 years and potentially could obtain citizenship 

soon, according to statements by the recent Indian government. 

Three weeks after I left Bangladesh, Avijit Roy, a Bangladeshi 

writer and blogger, was killed in front of the heavily guarded 

Dhaka Book Fair and only a mere 5 weeks after that Washikur 

Rahman was also murdered by machete-wielding assailants. 

Many times, these—when any suspects are apprehended they 

often state that they are acting under the orders of madrassa officials or imams and they have no idea what a blog even is. 

The attacks on Roy and Rahman are not isolated incidents but 

rather reflective of a systematic attempt by radical Islamist groups 

to undermine the nation’s secular fabric. 

It is my hope that—and those of Bangladeshis that the U.S. will 

work to, number one, declare Jamaat-e-Islami and Islami Chhatra 

Shibir a foreign terrorist group, any officials from Jamaat that 

have engaged in severe violations as defined by U.S. laws be denied 

entry into the U.S. and any of these officials who may live in the 

United States currently should be investigated. 

The U.S. Government should strongly condemn all political violence and attacks by Islamist groups and work constructively with 

the current Bangladeshi government to ensure that these attacks 

on religious minorities cease in order to bring—and also bring justice to past victims of violence. 

34

Finally, all future military and economic aid to Bangladesh 

should be conditioned on the improved status for religious and ethnic minorities including increased representation of minorities in 

various levels of all—of Bangladeshi public life, and this is especially true for the military and civil service apparatus. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kansara follows:]

35


94391c-1.eps
36


94391c-2.eps
37


94391c-3.eps
38


94391c-4.eps
39


94391c-5.eps
40


94391c-6.eps
41


94391c-7.eps
42

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

We would ask people to restrain the clapping. We generally don’t 

do that in the committee hearings. Thank you. 

Mr. Fleischli, we should have time for another presentation. Dr. 

Ayres, we will probably wait until we come back after the votes to 

go to you. 

But Mr. Fleischli, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MR. STEVEN D. FLEISCHLI, PRESIDENT, U.S.-

BANGLADESH TRADE AND RELATIONS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member Sherman 

and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity. 

It is truly an honor to appear in front of you today. 

I will be summarizing my written statement which I requested 

be submitted for the record. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. My name is Steve Fleischli and I live in St. Louis, 

Missouri. I have travelled to Bangladesh for many years, for the 

first time starting in 2007. I have walked the floors of factories. I 

know many workers and I have got Bangladeshi business associates. 

In Bangladesh I have been integral in the development of new 

factories, more than 5,000 jobs in the textile industry and with exports of more than $40 million per year to the United States and 

other countries. 

Because I care deeply for the future of the U.S. and Bangladesh 

relationship and believe in the potential for continued growth in 

Bangladesh, I co-founded the U.S.-Bangladesh Trade and Relations 

Association. 

UBTRA, as we call it, is a new business organization that advocates for human rights, workers’ rights, political accountability as 

a basic frame work for building and enabling an economic environment for business in Bangladesh with the United States. Bangladesh has made some progress in economic development for sure. 

Trade and international investment have played an integral role 

in bringing industry to the country and spurring unprecedented 

economic growth. 

However, there is still a major need for improvement in Bangladesh in the sphere of political accountability and labor and 

human rights. Recent violence in Bangladesh resulting the loss of 

life and property including many—including American citizens 

speaks to this urgent need for reform and reconciliation. 

Just 2 days ago, the elections in three city corporations—Dhaka 

North, Dhaka South and Chittagong—were marked by violence, intimidation and vote rigging, as you noted earlier, as well as a boycott from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. 

Allegations of irregularities were received from many different 

polling station including in Chittagong, the second largest city and 

the main seaport of Bangladesh and the port of which I have two 

factories that I ran. 

As a CEO of a textile company, I manage two factories within 

that Chittagong export processing zone. My company exported to 

multiple major U.S. discount, department and mass merchant 

stores from 2008 until 2012. 

43

Today, I have the opportunity to again invest in factories in this 

same zone but because of the instability, after upwards of 2 years 

of planning I will not make that investment quite yet. 

Similarly, the violence and perceived impediments to trade and 

investment in Bangladesh have hampered UBTRA’s ability to grow 

its membership among U.S. and Bangladeshi businesses, in particular with small and medium-sized enterprises. 

Other global corporations with interests in both countries as well 

as among stakeholders such as the youth and the diaspora. 

The basic tenets of UBTRA we applaud the recent approval by 

the House of Foreign Affairs Committee, H.R. 1891, a bill to extend 

the African Growth and Opportunity Act, the generalized system of 

preferences, the preferential duty treatment for Haiti and for other 

purposes. 

WE support extension of the GSP program through 2017. However, we strongly oppose that Bangladesh receive benefit of that 

GSP until such a time that Bangladesh has fully implemented all 

the required reforms and actions that have been set forth in the 

Bangladesh Action Plan of 2013 provided by the Obama administration. 

UBTRA asserts that while improved trade relations are a desirable goal, at no point in time should they supersede human rights 

and worker safety initiatives. 

UBTRA supports the right of Bangladeshi workers to work in a 

safe and a healthy environment. We believe that a responsible 

trade policy is one of the key aspects to preserving the rights of 

Bangladeshi workers and citizens and seek to promote a responsible trade relationship between the United States and Bangladesh. 

ULTRA is concerned about the election process in Bangladesh 

which, as noted above, is plagued by political violence and boycotts 

by prominent political parties. We believe the formulation of a 

democratic and free society forms the backbone for an efficient and 

responsible economy. 

Regarding labor and human rights, in Bangladesh there is a lack 

of respect for fundamental human rights that is a major barrier to 

growth in the U.S.-Bangladesh business relationship. 

Over the past decade, various highly respected human rights organizations including Amnesty International, Human Rights 

Watch, the Asian Human Rights Commission and ODHIKAR, a 

preeminent human rights NGO in Bangladesh, have documented 

extrajudicial killings, kidnappings, torture, election interference 

and corruption. 

Overall, ODHIKAR had documented 2,216 extrajudicial killings 

that occurred between 2001 and 2013 in Bangladesh. Closely tied 

to the broader human rights culture in the country, our concern is 

for worker safety and rights. The 2013 Rana Plaza and 2012 

Tazreen fire disasters tragically highlighted the disastrous working 

conditions that are pervasive in the Bangladeshi manufacturing 

sector. 

A new report from Human Rights Watch details the continuous 

violations of workers’ rights, allegations of illegal anti-union tactics 

and the inadequacy of reforms and company interventions to date. 

Just last week, Secretary Kerry and the U.S. trade representative Michael Froman along with other high-level U.S. Government 

44

officials and EU officials issued a statement detailing the work that 

remains to improve labor standards and working conditions. 

In particular, both parties support efforts to continue reforming 

labor laws in consultation with the ILO, complete all factory safety 

inspections and register unions efficiently and with transparency. 

Unless significant changes are made in the handling of labor organizers and civil society activists, the trade relationship will suffer. 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Fleischli, are you close to wrapping up? Because you are about a minute over now. 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. Okay. I get——

Mr. CHABOT. You want to make a concluding statement or something? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. Yes, I will make a real quick conclusion. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. At the end of the day what UBTRA would like 

to see happen is there has been a lot of talk lately from the U.S. 

toward Bangladesh but there needs to be actual physical action. 

Our recommendations or ideas would be reducing FMF and 

IMET funding—potentially, we currently fund police training of the 

Bangladeshi police here in the U.S. as well as military training 

here in the U.S.—continued suspension of the GSP benefits, and 

any other military and trade sanctions that might be possible to 

help change the direction of the current situation of Bangladesh. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fleischli follows:]

45


94391d-1.eps
46


94391d-2.eps
47


94391d-3.eps
48


94391d-4.eps
49


94391d-5.eps
50


94391d-6.eps
51

Mr. CHABOT. And as I mentioned before, we have a series of 

votes. We have three votes, which generally we are looking at 

about 1⁄2 hour before we would be back here. 

If you want to go out in the hallway, we won’t be in session here 

again for about 1⁄2 hour and as soon as we get back, we will get 

started and we will go to you then, Dr. Ayres, and then we will ask 

questions. 

If there is no further business before votes, we will be in recess 

here for about 1⁄2 hour. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CHABOT. The committee will come back to order. I want to 

thank everyone for being patient with us, and Dr. Ayres, you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ALYSSA AYRES, PH.D., SENIOR FELLOW FOR 

INDIA, PAKISTAN, AND SOUTH ASIA, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN 

RELATIONS 

Ms. AYRES. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member Sherman, Congressman 

Chabot and members of the subcommittee, thank you very much 

for the invitation to appear before you on political and religious extremism and Bangladesh. I am honored to be part of this distinguished panel. 

My comments summarize my more detailed written testimony 

submitted for the record. Bangladesh has been in the news for terrible reasons. On March 30th, Washikur Rahman was hacked to 

death in Bangladesh’s capital city, Dhaka. 

The month before, Avijit Roy was hacked to death as he left the 

Dhaka Book Fair. In 2013, Ahmed Rajib Haider was hacked to 

death with machetes, also in Dhaka. All three were bloggers targeted by radical Islamists for their atheist views. 

These murders occurred in the context of political unrest so I will 

offer a few words about the political and economic situation before 

returning to discuss Islamic extremism. 

Bangladesh’s politics are hurting its economy. Bangladesh is a 

country of 160 million people of whom approximately 90 percent 

are Muslim. 

Bangladeshi politics are polarized at the best of times but particularly in the last 2 years. In last year’s national election one 

major party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, refused to participate, which resulted in a landslide reelection of the Awami League. 

The BNP abstained because elections were overseen by the Bangladesh Election Commission rather than a neutral caretaker government. 

All efforts to mediate by Bangladeshis, foreign diplomats and 

United Nations failed. On January 5th this year, 1 year after the 

election, the BNP began renewed public strikes against the government, adding transportation blockades to its tactics. 

The BNP hopes that street pressure will achieve fresh elections. 

But public strikes in Bangladesh often result in violence. Since 

January 5th, more than 120 people have been killed. 

Contributing to the polarized situation, the BNP chairperson, 

Begum Khaleda Zia, faces graft charges and was effectively held 

under house arrest for weeks earlier this year. The government has 

52

cracked down on the opposition and on the media, and the ongoing 

international crimes tribunal, seeking accountability and justice for 

the horrible crimes committed during Bangladesh’s liberation 

struggle in 1971 adds further fuel to this combustible mix. 

All of this is now hurting the economy. The IMF lowered its economic growth forecast for Bangladesh to 6 percent, noting that the 

resurgence of unrest in recent months is taking a toll on the economy. A World Bank official told the Los Angeles Times that the 

larger economic toll of political unrest could be as high as $2 billion. 

The garment industry, a major employer, is facing a 30 to 40 percent downturn in orders by one estimate. This is all linked to the 

instability rising from extreme political polarization—Islamist violence in Bangladesh. 

Bangladesh has come a long way since 500 bombs exploded simultaneously in nearly every district in the country in August 

2005. Successive governments have focused on tackling terrorism 

and have been largely successful. Still, three disturbing developments bear watching. 

First, the Hefazat-e-Islam emerged as a force in 2013 with austere demands that included a blasphemy law with the death penalty, punishment for ‘‘atheist bloggers’’ who insult Islam, prevention of men and women from what they called free mixing and ending of what they called an anti-Islam women policy. 

The second concern relates to the dispossessed Rohingya people. 

There have been reports in Bangladesh and in India that the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, responsible for the Mumbai attacks of 

2008, have been trying to recruit Rohingya refugees. 

Third, the dramatic spread of the self-proclaimed Islamic State 

into South Asia and the announcement last fall of a new Indian 

subcontinent subsidiary of al-Qaeda have captured attention. 

In January, Bangladeshi authorities arrested four men suspected 

of Islamic State membership. Last September, a British citizen of 

Bangladeshi origin was arrested in Dhaka under charges of recruiting for the Islamic State. 

Recommendations for U.S. policy: I will provide four, and more 

detail about my recommendations is in my written testimony. 

First, support the requested increase in resources focused on democracy and governance programs in U.S. assistance to Bangladesh and consider supplementing further. 

U.S. assistance to Bangladesh has been concentrated in health, 

food security and climate change. The resources available to provide democracy and governance support are small compared with 

the outlays for these three categories. They are also very small 

compared to our support for these categories in Pakistan. 

Two, continue and expand the growing U.S.-Bangladesh counterterrorism and security cooperation. This has been a very successful 

area. Bangladesh seeks our assistance, is trying to do more and can 

benefit from our continued support. 

Relatively small amounts of assistance can go a long way, particularly on topics like community policing, anti-money laundering, 

counter terrorist financing and strengthening capacity within the 

justice system. 

53

Three, deepen security consultation with India about Bangladesh. Regularly consultations covering security matters in South 

Asia should be continued and enhanced, especially given the developments discussed above, which India watches closely. 

And finally, four: Continue looking for ways to incentivize political reconciliation in Bangladesh. Finding a way to bridge the 

chasm between Bangladesh’s two major political parties and a deep 

personal enmity that drives their differences had proven Sisyphean. 

The United States should look for positive incentives to emphasize more robustly such as the prospect of a Millennium Challenge 

Corporation threshold program should Bangladesh reach a better 

situation of governance and law and order. 

We should also continue to impress upon the Bangladesh government as well as the opposition the enormous opportunity costs to 

the country from its ongoing political stalemate. It is a country 

with a spirit of entrepreneurship and huge unrealized promise. A 

better political environment would position Bangladesh for great 

things. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ayres follows:]

54


94391e-1.eps
55


94391e-2.eps
56


94391e-3.eps
57


94391e-4.eps
58


94391e-5.eps
59


94391e-6.eps
60


94391e-7.eps
61

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, and now members of the 

panel will have 5 minutes to ask questions. 

I will begin with myself, but I am going to use part of my 5 minutes to give the opening statement that I would have given had we 

not turned immediately to the panel. But this is part of my 5 minutes so they can start the clock. 

Bangladesh has long represented a moderate secular nation, as 

has been stated, which has worked hard to pull itself out of extreme poverty. 

It has become an important security partner for the United 

States in the fight against terrorism and Islamic extremism in 

South Asia as well as a partner on humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping operations and maritime security. 

However, ongoing political turmoil has plunged the nation in a 

political security crisis. While some have said that in Bangladesh 

this is politics as usual, I am afraid we are witnessing a troubling 

course of events. 

When I was in Dhaka before the national elections last year, I 

met with both Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia, and I had met with 

them before previously when I had been there a number of years 

prior. 

I met with both of them at that time, separately both times, and 

it was evident at that time that both sides sat at an impasse, 

which is still the case, unfortunately. 

Sheikh Hasina insisted provisions were in place to conduct a fair 

election, and we know that didn’t really happen. Following this 

past week’s city council elections, which are now marred by evidence of irregularities and intimidation, I am concerned about the 

roiling violence that has increased since the beginning of the year 

and what this all means for Bangladesh’s democratic tradition. 

I believe Bangladesh has great potential, as the chairman mentioned in his opening statement, but it has much standing in the 

way of its continuing progress, as we have heard here this afternoon. I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony this afternoon. It has been very helpful to us. The things that the panel 

members have heard, we will convey to our colleagues who didn’t 

have the opportunity to be here this afternoon. Also through our 

staffs, we will make sure that all the other members of the Foreign 

Affairs Committee are able to benefit from the testimony that we 

have heard here this afternoon and their written testimony will be 

made available as well. 

Now, for just a couple of questions: There have been a string of 

high-profile murders of journalists, as was mentioned, and bloggers 

as well as mass killings of commuters in bus bomb attacks. 

Outside of these headline-grabbing events, what does the situation actually look like on the ground in Bangladesh and how is it 

impacting the everyday life of the average person in Bangladesh? 

If you could all be very brief, I will just go down the line, and 

maybe start with you, Ms. Curtis, if I could. 

Ms. CURTIS. Thank you. Yes, the political violence that occurred 

in January and February connected to the opposition protest demonstrations was very disruptive to the economy, to people’s ability 

to get around. And what was particularly disturbing were the petVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:08 Jul 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\043015\94391 SHIRL
62

rol bombings on the buses, which caused hundreds of innocent bystanders to become burned or, you know, were killed. 

So this was particularly disturbing, I think, to the average 

Bangladeshi that this was occurring. 

With regard to the murders of the bloggers, I think this provokes 

a different kind of concern among the Bangladeshi people. The 

Bangladeshi people are proud of their Bengali traditions and they 

have been a largely peaceful, moderate, and pluralist society. 

So when extremists are trying to disrupt that environment in 

Bangladesh, I think people become very concerned. But I would 

just point out there is a difference between those murders, which 

were by Islamist extremist groups, and the petrol bombings, which 

occurred as part of the political violence that was as a result of the 

opposition protests. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Rather than go down the line, I have less than a minute so I 

would never have a chance. I wanted to get to at least one more 

question. 

Let me give you another question and I will go to you, Dr. Riaz, 

and then down the line on this one. Is there any way that we can 

encourage the Awami League and the BNP to have constructive 

dialogue about alleviating the tension between those parties? 

What role could the United States or any of the neighboring 

countries—India or China or Burma or anybody else—play to facilitate these reconciliations? I know that may sound kind of pie in the 

sky. We would probably all like that to happen. Is there any possibility of that happening, Dr. Riaz? 

Mr. RIAZ. Thank you. 

First of all, this is a problem that needs to be solved by 

Bangladeshis. It cannot be solved by outsiders. Having said that, 

the United States and the international community has a role to 

play. 

Particularly, I think it will default and is a missed opportunity 

for Bangladeshis—you know, wasted; because there was a relative 

calm and that opportunity should have been taken. One more thing 

is you have mentioned and I think it is important to have the Indians having a role. 

India has a role and a responsibility because it is the largest democracy and a neighbor; and also for security concerns because in 

Bangladesh, which is completely—you know, if the security situation deteriorates it is not going to help India in any way or fashion. 

So with those in mind, I think this is important to press upon 

both parties that if it continues to be like this, continued violence 

perpetrated by parties, it is not going to help Bangladesh in terms 

of achieving its potential and they need to do it and that is why 

the interlocutors should be both domestic and international community. 

And what the United States can do—is to encourage other parties such as India, such as the European Union to be involved and 

engage with the parties for coming up with a solution. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you. 

I will come back to the others if we go a second round. But I 

don’t want to take up all the time. So I will now yield to the ranking member, Mr. Sherman. 

63

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Everyone in this room is dedicated to the people of Bangladesh, 

one of the poorest countries in the world and so there is a natural 

tendency in focusing economic policy to focus on what is good for 

Bangladesh. 

Ms. Curtis advocated more imports for Bangladesh and more investment in Bangladesh by the United States, that investment basically being American companies figuring out how to make a big 

profit by creating a lot of jobs in Bangladesh rather than in the 

United States. 

And so I would like to be a voice to point out that for every—

that we have a five to one trade deficit with Bangladesh—that Germany exports three or four times as much to Bangladesh as we do 

and that we would have tens of thousands of more jobs in the 

United States if we had a balance trade relationship. 

I expect that trade relationship to get much larger and I hope 

that the lopsided nature of it gets much smaller. 

Mr. Fleischli, am I—Fleischli, is it true that in Bangladesh they 

have free trade zones where labor unions are restricted? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. I am not 100 percent sure if they are restricted 

from the zones. We operated in the zone. 

Mr. SHERMAN. You operate in the zone? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. Yes. We have organizations——

Mr. SHERMAN. I am told that labor unions are actually prohibited 

in those zones. You don’t know whether they are or not? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. I am not sure if they are or not. 

Mr. SHERMAN. But you know your own factories, of course, don’t. 

Are you aware of any labor union operating in the zones? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. There is labor organizations that I have heard of. 

Mr. SHERMAN. What? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. There is labor organizations that I have heard of 

operating within the zones. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, labor organization is very different from a 

labor union. Dr. Riaz, the average parent in Bangladesh, if they 

want to send their kid to a secular school, is that provided by the 

government free? Are there fees? Or do you have to pay for your 

own student’s books? 

Mr. RIAZ. First of all, this is the major achievement in the past 

decade of Bangladesh, that they are provided education to everybody. Anyone. As a matter of fact, one of the major achievements 

is bringing the female children to schools. This is free. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And it is free of any fee. What about books? Are 

the books free? 

Mr. RIAZ. It is free, free for everybody. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And the books are free? 

Mr. RIAZ. The books are free and over the last years we have 

seen that the books are provided to the students on time, which 

is—which is an excellent achievement. 

Before the school starts they do get the books, so this has been 

an achievement of the government, and over the years, over the 

decade actually, there are the females’ stipend provided, which encouraged females to be in the schools. So significant achievement. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I would point out that one focus of our foreign aid 

could be to provide those books to the Bangladeshi government. 

64

That would give us some influence over content without going all 

the way to an American politically correct content and that it is—

it is very hard to steal a book. Well, I mean you can—it is very 

hard for a corrupt official to make money stealing books as opposed 

to money. 

Doctor, Bangladesh is a low-lying country. Sea levels are likely 

to rise. How big a problem is that? 

Mr. RIAZ. It is a major problem. It is a major problem because 

of the environmental challenges. Bangladesh is at the forefront of 

the battle of the environmental disasters that we are anticipating 

and it was not the making of Bangladesh. 

I mean, it is the front line of the environmental battle that the 

world should be fighting instead of leaving Bangladesh to fight 

alone. 

Mr. SHERMAN. How much of its arable land is it likely to lose if 

we see a half a meter rise in sea levels? 

Mr. RIAZ. There are variations in terms of the predictions—some 

even predicted up to one-third, but at least 10 to 13 percent of the 

low-lying lands might be lost if the sea level rises and, you know, 

the global warming, which is—which would be a disaster. 

But let me take this opportunity just briefly that this is a battle 

of everyone’s, here or there. It is not only a battle of Bangladesh. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Dr. Riaz, I only get 5 minutes. I am going to move 

on to another question, if that is okay. My colleagues have heard 

me talk with passion about the—with the—about climate change. 

Bangladesh suffers from a dysfunctional two-party system. The 

climate of repression is worsening. Is there any way short of a military takeover to resolve this situation? 

Mr. RIAZ. Military takeover is not a solution. 

Mr. SHERMAN. No, I didn’t say that that was a solution. 

Mr. RIAZ. So they have to. I mean, I am—at the end, I am optimistic to that extent that the Bangladeshis are resilient. 

Bangladeshis have faced adverse situations and that they have the 

ingenuity to come up with the solution. However, given the circumstances they will have to come up with solutions. Likelihood? 

If I say that—would I put my money on it at this point? No. 

But there is no way without having a reconciliation, conversation, negotiation and that the international community needs to 

help. Again, they cannot impose a solution but they can facilitate 

and that if it is not facilitated, history tells that, obviously, this is 

not going to end in anyone’s favor. The loser will be Bangladesh. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We will go ahead into a second round now, so I will yield to myself for 5 minutes. Oh, I am sorry. I didn’t see you there, Tulsi. My 

bad. Hawaii, Ms. Tulsi. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks all 

of you for being here. 

Follow up on Mr. Sherman’s question, what—given the political 

impasse that we are facing what is the likelihood of a military 

intervention or takeover and if that were to occur how would you 

see that? Given the dynamic now how would you see that play out? 

For whomever would like to answer. 

65

Ms. CURTIS. I will just say quickly I think right now the chances 

of the military getting involved are pretty low and I think that is 

because of the previous experience when they did take the reins of 

power in 2007 for nearly 2 years and their image suffered from allegations of corruption. 

And so I think this has made them less likely to want to step 

in unless, of course, things deteriorate significantly or violence increases tremendously. Then perhaps they would consider it. But I 

think right now they are not showing any signs of getting involved. 

Ms. GABBARD. With regard to the—I know a couple of you spoke 

about the Islamic militancy or Islamic extremism that is there. To 

what extent do these groups have broader influence over the disaffected Bangladeshis or the broader community there? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. I will speak personally from my own experience. 

You know, this was part of my oral testimony that I couldn’t get 

to. 

You know, the issue that is at hand right now in Bangladesh is 

the situation is so chaotic and there is so much unknown and there 

are so many people that feel lost and discouraged that Bangladesh 

is turning into basically a breeding ground, if you will, for terrorist 

activity—ISIS—and God forbid, you know, if ISIS were to grab hold 

of 170 million people, you know, and that is at a very key interchange in South Asia for the United States of America. 

Ms. GABBARD. Yes. 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. And so as an American citizen, outside of business—as an American citizen that scares me to death. It absolutely 

scares me to death and it scares me for my friends and whom I 

would call family—that I have extended family in Bangladesh because it is so easy. It is so easy when you are in—falling on tough 

times and you are discouraged to be recruited. So it is concerning. 

Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Kansara, I know you were there and you met 

with some of the moderate Muslim leaders there. If you could share 

your experience both on how the situation is really affecting the 

day to day lives but also with the moderate Muslim community is 

doing about this increased threat. 

Mr. KANSARA. Thank you. In conjunction with Mr. Chabot’s question, based on my observations of only being in Dhaka—unfortunately I could not travel to other parts of the country because it 

was just simply unsafe—Dhaka, the streets of Dhaka were completely empty. 

The traffic—there was virtually no traffic and if anybody has 

been to Dhaka they told me that that is a complete anomaly. It 

would take you hours to travel from one mile to another as opposed 

to the minutes. And so businesses were directly affected. 

Shops were completely shut down and you could—also of concern 

was that 60 million students, because of the hartals, were prevented from taking their exams. 

That is almost disenfranchising economically an entire generation of Bangladeshis. And so this was a complete irresponsibility on 

the parties involved. 

With regards to the moderate Muslim leaders whom we met 

with, one gentleman named Imran Sarker, who is a prominent secular activist and he is a practicing Muslim, he described his trepidation with increasing Islamisation of Bangladesh society saying 

66

that Islam had been imposed upon them as opposed to a free choice 

of choosing religion and how much religion should be a part of their 

daily lives. 

And the public school textbooks were also increasingly showing 

signs of radicalization by referencing Islamic followers of Islam 

over other religions and this was—had direct implications for communal harmony and religious freedom. 

And in an interview that he gave at the Business Standard, an 

Indian publication, he said that he is actually now under threat by 

Islamist forces. So moderate Muslim leaders are also under threat 

by the same—by the same perpetrators of violence against Avijit 

Roy and Washikur Rahman. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you. Dr. Ayres, I think you had wanted to 

add some comment on this. 

Ms. AYRES. I just wanted to say that I do think it is probably 

difficult to ascertain what percentage of the general population has 

a more radical view, and certainly Bangladesh has not been a radical country. It has been a place of great moderation. 

But the real issue here is that it only takes a few people to cause 

great chaos. So if you look at the kind of explosions that took place 

in 2005, you have a small cell that can affect something that is 

hugely consequential for the country. 

The murders of these three bloggers that have just taken place, 

you know, the people who have been arrested are small cells of two 

and four people, again, who don’t seem to be part of any sort of 

larger organized groups, sort of small groups who are, you know, 

directed by their cleric. That is the trial going on right now. 

So, again, I do think there are people who are overall largely 

moderate but there are small cells of people that we do need to 

worry about. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back and, again, 

my apologies for the oversight. 

We will now go into a second round. When I was last in Bangladesh, which was shortly before the elections—on my way back, 

actually on the plane, I believe—I do a blog every week and I happened to do it on Bangladesh since I had just been there. Interestingly enough, it got more hits—more people were interested in that 

particular blog than anything I have done in about 5 or 6 years 

since I started the blog. Every week I do it, and so I am not sure 

exactly why that was, but it was a fact. 

There are a lot of people, obviously, in Bangladesh—about half 

the population of the U.S. squeezed into a country about the size 

of Iowa or even a little smaller than Iowa—so you can still read 

that if you would like to. 

It is on my blog. All the old ones are on there now. I do have 

an official blog and a political blog, but I keep that on the political 

blog. It is there if you ever want to go back and read what I 

thought about this 2 years ago. 

The thing that struck me shortly before the election and my understanding was the polling was showing that Khaleda Zia was 

likely to win the election, but ultimately, you know, they couldn’t 

come to an agreement and it seemed to be over the issue of a caretaker government. 

67

A lot of times in the past, there have been caretaker governments that took over the elections that were held, so that they 

could make sure that one side or the other wasn’t being unfair with 

the other side. 

It seemed to work relatively well, but this time that didn’t happen and so we see what we saw after the elections. I was actually 

a bit surprised that the violence wasn’t even more after the election. 

In any event, it is what it is. What role did that caretaker government versus not having one have in this election and what we 

ended up with? Dr. Ayres, would you want to comment on that? 

Ms. AYRES. Well, that, certainly, has been the most important 

point of dispute over the course of the last nearly 2 years because 

the disagreement over how to carry out the election of January 5, 

2014. The run-up to that election, actually, this disagreement was 

well known. 

In fact, that was the period where you saw a lot of Bangladeshis 

trying to bring both parties together to discuss. There is a quite famous—famous among Bangladeshis—transcript of a telephone conversation that took place. 

Yes, you probably read it at the time where, unable to even agree 

among the two leaders of the political parties who should call 

whom first—really intensive enmity there. 

So they have continued to focus on this as the point of disagreement when in fact, I mean, if they were to reach an agreement on 

some mechanism, whether it is an institutionalized Bangladesh 

election commission that adheres to all forms of free and fair elections or a caretaker government, I mean, ultimately it doesn’t matter what they choose as long as they agree and the elections are 

carried out in a free and fair and transparent manner. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. Fleischli, let me turn to you, if I can at this point. 

Sometime—well, a few years ago—I don’t remember the exact 

date, but two of the major items that were in the world news were 

the Rana Plaza garment factory collapse, when over 1,100 people, 

I believe, were killed, another 2,500 were injured and these were 

mostly women is my recollection. And the other was the Tazreen 

fashion factory fire and it was over 100—I think it was 117—that 

were killed and another 200-plus were injured in that. 

And there was a lot of attention of the condition that a lot of 

these factories there were under and the unsafe things. 

And the argument here was U.S. companies, you know, if we are 

doing business and importing progress and we have a, if not a legal 

responsibility, a moral responsibility in making sure that people 

that are making these products, which are ultimately coming here 

to the United States and purchased by American citizens that we 

have a responsibility to make sure that it is safe. 

And you could argue who knew what when and I am sure that—

all kinds of lawsuits involved in that. But what improvements or 

what changes were made as a result of those two horrific occurrences? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. Well, I think initially and even up until today you 

have got two major groups that were formed. You have got the alliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:08 Jul 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\043015\94391 SHIRL
68

ance and the accord. One is on the European side and one is on 

the American side. 

You know, those two entities are made up of basically the largest 

retailers and the largest brands in the world. It took, I think, gathering that power, which is huge buying power, and they import billions of dollars from Bangladesh to be able to start the path to 

change and bring recognition to what is going on on the ground in 

Bangladesh. 

You know, as a CEO in Bangladesh back around—between 2007 

and 2012, approximately, you know, we did business with the largest retailers. Our internal safety regulations were very strict. 

You know, a lot of the safety and the security regulations that 

are—that are—that we had in place mirrored and/or exceeded—I 

won’t name the retailers but the largest retailers that are out 

there—and luckily, because of me being American and me being 

face to face with the buyers all the time and the customers and listening to that their concerns are, I was able to always ensure that 

when I was at the factory I could physically inspect. 

You know, I was more of a hands-on kind of CEO as opposed to 

the desk CEO. So I would walk the floors all the time. I would 

make sure that the fire extinguishers were there. 

I would make sure that the doors were open, that we had plenty 

of escapes and, you know, that we didn’t have floors overloaded 

and, you know, people couldn’t trip on things on the floor. 

And it was very, very important for me to do that because our 

business counted on it and the people’s lives counted on it, and that 

was pre-Tazreen and Rana Plaza. 

So when those two events occurred, it was absolutely devastating, and I can feel their pain. You are right, 90-plus percent 

of the employees—the workers were female. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. My time has expired. 

Ms. Gabbard. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just ask one follow-up, just following up on the counter terrorism subject matter. 

I understand that Bangladesh’s Rapid Action Battalion has been 

effective in counter terrorism efforts but that they have also been 

known to be used by the government to attack political opponents. 

So I am wondering if you can comment on how you can reach 

both objectives of curtailing the abusive power but also recognizing 

if this is an effective asset to counter these extremist elements. 

How do you see that playing out? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. If you don’t mind, I will just make one quick comment. As it pertains to whether it is the Rapid Action Battalion or 

the military or even just the police, you know, the police itself, generally speaking from my understanding, is trained and funded here 

in the U.S., so by U.S. taxpayer dollars. 

A lot of the military is as well. The RAB, I believe, is done 

through the U.N. and heavily funded by the U.S. I wanted to give 

you an example. 

I was leaving a hotel in Chittagong, the Peninsula Hotel in 

Chittagong, 1 year and it had in my van on the way to the factory 

two people from one of the largest retailers in the world—senior executives. 

69

And no more than 5 minutes after we left—and there was traffic 

then, the roads were absolutely packed and it does take an hour 

to get a mile—one of the members of RAB, and you can clearly see 

them—they are in a blue uniform. 

It says RAB on the back of them and I have been told that they 

are the elite of the elite out there—took and beat the living you 

know what out of a normal ordinary citizen because he crossed the 

street at the wrong time. 

The buyers that were sitting next to me were, like, what the—

was that, and I—I will apologize, you know, let us discuss it a little 

bit later, and I will tell you it wasn’t 3 months later that those buyers were barred from travelling to Bangladesh anymore. 

And then so that is a—it is a very serious concern and I indirectly, we, as Americans, have an impact directly in how that happens. 

Ms. GABBARD. Impacted. Yes. Dr. Riaz. 

Mr. RIAZ. The most——

Mr. CHABOT. Just a clarification. They were barred by the 

Bangladeshi government? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. No, no, no, no, no. Barred by—barred by the corporation and—yes. Yes. For their safety and security, correct. 

Mr. RIAZ. In terms of RAB’s record both—we will have to take 

both these things, right—their success in terms of dealing with, 

you know, terrorism but also their human rights records is very 

poor—absolutely abysmal that we need to take into account and 

given the circumstances, the most important element in accountability, unless this force or for that matter any force, is accountable 

and that you cannot tie in simply. 

You know, one institution cannot be accountable when the whole 

system is not accountable and this is how it is, you know, in some 

ways they are connected to each other. Overall point—that is why 

an accountable governance is necessary that will ensure that this 

kind of heavy-handedness or the RAB’s poor record of human 

rights, abuse can be addressed through an institutional arrangement. 

And if I may, just quickly, going back to what Dr. Ayres had 

mentioned in regard to this, there is a difference. The point is caretaker government or the election commission is mostly to have an 

institution that can protect your rights to vote in a free and fair 

manner. 

Caretaker government is not a solution. Solution is to build an 

institution which Bangladesh has not succeeded yet. Thank you. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you. Dr. Ayres. 

Ms. AYRES. Just a quick comment on the question of the RAB. 

The United States government has been interested in trying to 

help RAB carry out internal reforms and through the U.S. Department of Justice program has helped support a project to build an 

internal investigation capacity there. 

So there are programs that the United States can support to help 

Bangladesh reach more capable processes internally and help solve 

some of these problems. We have also supported police training 

programs. 

I visited the National Police Academy in Rajshahi a few years 

ago when I was serving in government, and we have supported proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:08 Jul 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\043015\94391 SHIRL
70

grams that helped train them to focus more on community policing 

instead of thinking about, you know, use the stick first. 

Rather, treat the community as those you protect and serve and 

eschew the use of violence first. So there are methods we can use 

in support to try to bring about reforms. 

Ms. GABBARD. Right. Dr. Riaz, your point is well taken, though, 

about accountability. If you don’t have an institution set up where 

there is, you know, transparency and justice and accountability 

then there is still far too much room for abuse. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Kansara, people say that as you move further 

east from the Middle East that Islam gets more moderate and that 

in any case Bangladeshis are moderate in their approach to Islam. 

Can you explain what has driven the recent ethnic persecution 

of Hindus and how do—and does the Hindu community in Bangladesh back one party or the other? 

Mr. KANSARA. So answering the first part of your question initially, it is fairly well known that the Hindu community by and 

large will support the Awami League because the Awami League 

has policy platforms that are set to roll back the Islamisation of the 

country—the encroachments of Islam in the constitution. 

They have made it a party platform to roll back those restrictions 

on other religious communities. 

Now, with regards to moderate Islamic movements within the—

within South Asia or Bangladesh in particular, specifically with regards to Jamaat, the Jamaat-e-Islami is a Muslim Brotherhoodlinked organization. The have direct ties. 

In fact, I believe Mohamed Morsi had visited Bangladesh while 

he was president of the Muslim Brotherhood and had met with 

Jamaat leaders there. And their brand of Islam is very similar to 

that of the Wahabis and the Salafis and they are simply—they are 

simply interested in creating an Islamic State in Bangladesh. 

It is part of their charter and it is part of their organization’s 

methodology and the attacks that they have perpetrated on the 

citizens of Bangladesh and in conjunction with either banned terrorist organizations or other organizations like Islami Chhatra 

Shibir are set to intimidate the average Bangladeshi into being 

subjugated to that form of thought. 

Mr. SHERMAN. My own images of Jamaat is at the fringes of 

thought in Bangladesh. Do these extremist views have widespread 

support or are we talking about Hindus living in fear of a tiny extremist groups that means them harm? 

Mr. KANSARA. Based on our observations and interactions with 

Hindu community leaders in Bangladesh, Jamaat and Jamaat’s 

ideology is growing amongst the general population and I would 

say that Jamaat—it was palpable the financial power they have in 

Bangladesh. 

There is a—there is a list I found online before this hearing of 

over 20 financial insurance institutions, banks and several other 

power-wielding organizations that Jamaat funds and finances and 

that money, I don’t think, is coming from the farms of Bangladesh. 

I think it is coming from foreign sources like Saudi Arabia or 

even Pakistan’s ISI. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield back. 

71

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Mr. Fleischli, I am going to ask my question directly at you. As 

some of the witnesses have noted, the World Bank estimates that 

the unrest in Bangladesh has had a cumulative negative effect of 

nearly $2 billion in just the last few years alone. 

So will companies continue to do business in Bangladesh if violence continues? That is my first question. Second, what, if anything, has the business community done to engage with the government to relay these concerns? 

And then has the government been responsive? And then finally, 

if trends continue what will the business community do? Thank 

you. 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. Thank you for the question. 

You know, I—to step back for a little bit, I saw a huge growth 

in the business from ’07 to 2012. Most of that transferred from 

China and other countries. Following—after 2012, it started to 

dwindle down. The past 2 years it is dropping dramatically. 

Mr. SALMON. How do we keep that growth rate at 6.2 percent 

GDP growth rate with that dwindling? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. I—to be honest, I have no idea. 

Mr. SALMON. Do you believe the numbers? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. No. 

Mr. SALMON. Okay. Go on. 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. Because I have been witness of a number of retailers that have moved mass amounts of orders outside of Bangladesh—places like Africa, Vietnam, Thailand, back to China 

again where it is three, four, five times more expensive to make 

something. 

But they are doing that because of security. They are doing that 

for safety. They are doing that to ensure that they are going to get 

the goods. 

Right now, with the situation that is at hand, you can’t even get 

product from Dhaka down to Chittagong where it needs to ship. It 

is almost impossible, and there are so many factories in Dhaka. 

There is lots of factories in Chittagong. 

But Chittagong relies on Dhaka for a lot of materials, right, 

while Dhaka relies on Chittagong to get the containers out. 

So unless things change, you are going to see a continual drop 

and, unfortunately, that goes back to the whole issue of people feeling like they are lost and disconcerted and everything because you 

have got two parties that are warring with each other and there 

is no answers that are coming up. Business is going away. Factories are closing. 

Retail shops are closing because they have nothing to sell in 

their shops anymore because they can’t get goods from, you know, 

up the road. I fear, unfortunately, that if there are not immediate 

steps taken to improve the situation in Bangladesh that Bangladesh will not be the growth opportunity that I know it can be 

and that it once was. And that is scary. 

Mr. SALMON. So other than your testimony today, what is the 

business community doing to relay those concerns to the government? Is there a dialogue going on? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. As far as I know, they discuss with people in the 

different NGOs within Bangladesh. My goal, as part of UBTRA, is 

72

to help engage some of those organizations, bring them in as membership and help guide them through the process and hopefully if 

we can all build together a big enough group of support maybe we 

can make that change. Maybe we can help. 

Mr. SALMON. Is there a very robust chamber of commerce—the 

American Chamber of Commerce? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. It is not very robust. 

Mr. SALMON. No? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. As far as I know. It is—I mean, it is there. It is 

in place. I don’t know that it is that active. 

Mr. SALMON. In the dialogue that the business community has 

had with the government, is it responsive at all? Do they give you 

any reassurances that they are trying to work on it or moving in 

the right direction? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. You hear many things. 

Mr. SALMON. Mostly excuses or——

Mr. FLEISCHLI. It is mostly just talk. Yes, we are making these 

improvements but you never see the improvements. You know, I 

would—I would question the legitimacy of how many factories have 

actually passed inspections that they say have passed inspections 

and I would question that legitimacy. 

Mr. SALMON. So this is a really tough one. On a scale of one to 

ten——

Mr. FLEISCHLI. That is why I am saying being on the ground and 

actually seeing things is so important—to be there and see what 

is going on and experience what is going on, and not just read what 

the media says or what the government says or anything like that 

because being on the ground is a lot different. 

Mr. SALMON. On a scale of one to 10, how optimistic are you that 

things will turn around, both in the near term and the long term? 

And the long term is probably hard to predict but——

Mr. FLEISCHLI. Yes. Near term? I would like to be more optimistic but, you know, it is—you are probably 50/50. I mean, it is 

one way or the other and I think really the only way that you are 

going to get a teeter in the right positive direction is if we, as the 

United States, step in and play a bigger part in helping bring both 

parties of the government, or I should say the government and the 

opposing party, together to clean the slate and start fresh and get 

free and fair elections up and running and turn Bangladesh back 

into a democratic society. It is not. You know, it is not a democratic 

society. It is falling apart. 

Mr. SALMON. When I showed some transparency in what we were 

going to discuss in this hearing, as we are required to do, you 

know, some tried to tell me I was all wet and I was moving in the 

wrong direction and that things are wonderful and that the growth 

rate is phenomenal and that everything is under control and, you 

know, what we are hearing today is that is not accurate, is it? I 

mean, Ms. Curtis, what do you think? 

Ms. CURTIS. Yes. First, I just wanted to quickly comment there 

is a U.S.-Bangladesh Business Council here at the U.S. Chamber 

of Commerce. Ms. Ayres and I were invited to speak about 11⁄2

years ago when there were a lot of political tensions in the run-up 

to the January 2014 elections. At that time I would say there was 

about maybe 15 U.S. business representatives with interest in BanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:08 Jul 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\043015\94391 SHIRL
73

gladesh that were willing to join in a letter expressing their concerns about the political environment and how it was affecting 

business. So I think there is serious interest. 

Mr. SALMON. Did they do that? 

Ms. CURTIS. I think they did, in the end. I don’t know——

Mr. SALMON. I would love to get a copy of that letter if there is 

any way to do that. I mean, that would be really helpful for my 

purposes. 

Ms. CURTIS. Okay. We can follow up with that. 

Mr. SALMON. That would be really helpful. Because I think that, 

you know, it is all about due process. I think that it is important 

for the business community to convey that this is hurting you more 

than anybody, Bangladesh, and that if things don’t turn around 

there will be a pretty—like you said, Mr. Fleischli, a pretty substantial exodus of economic opportunity—business—and that will 

only make things work. 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. To be honest, I think the only thing that is really 

keeping any kind of growth aspect, if you want to call it that, in 

Bangladesh from an export standpoint is the fact that some form 

of GSP or tariff consideration is in place with Canada and Europe 

and it is very significant. That is really the only thing that is a saving grace right now because——

Mr. SALMON. Is it possible to get—you know, insure your product 

because of some of the security concerns? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. You can insure your product, sure. Yes. I mean, 

that is definitely a possibility. It is not necessarily——

Mr. SALMON. The rates are probably going to go through the roof. 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. Well, it is not necessarily the security of the product. It is am I going to get the materials on time to make the product, to get it out the door on time to meet the ship dates that the 

retailers are looking for. 

Mr. SALMON. Right. 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. Because if you don’t meet those ship dates——

Mr. SALMON. You lose. 

Mr. FLEISCHLI [continuing]. Consistently——

Mr. SALMON. Yes, you lose. 

Mr. FLEISCHLI [continuing]. You lose the business and it goes to 

somebody else and if that consistently happens within a single 

country that you are importing from it is time to look elsewhere, 

and I—you know, when I first started running the factories in 2007 

and we started building a new factory in 2008, beautiful brand new 

factory in 2008, and we grew the business, you know, from $0 to 

$40 million in 3 years is not—you know, it is not an easy thing to 

do. 

And then to see what is happening today and to see the mass 

exodus of the businesses is just discouraging. It really is, and it is 

saddening because, you know, the workers in Bangladesh are so 

happy—they are so happy to have jobs. 

They are so happy to work, and that the situation is such that, 

you know, they are the ones that are getting impacted the worst. 

Mr. SALMON. Yes, Dr. Ayres? 

Ms. AYRES. A very quick supplement to that. If you look at the 

economic data both for the garment industry and Bangladesh overall, despite all the political unrest, in the last year—last year’s 

74

Bangladesh fiscal year actually saw a growth in the garment industry by about 14 percent. 

Now, that is not going to be the case for this year and we are 

going to start seeing that data come in. So that does explain why 

if you look historically the growth hadn’t been ticking down. 

Mr. SALMON. Got it. 

Ms. AYRES. It is now beginning to tick down so we are seeing 

that now. 

Mr. SALMON. That is very helpful. 

This has been a wonderful panel and I—did you have another 

question? I was just—I was just going to say that if there is any 

closing comments that any of you would like to make, questions 

that haven’t been asked, points that need to be made, then you are 

more than willing to make them—I’m more than happy to have you 

make them. 

Mr. Kansara. 

Mr. KANSARA. Thank you. In addition to the question that Mr. 

Sherman asked about the parties and I would say that the Hindu 

community also noted the severe security failings that had taken 

place by the Awami League government as well as by police forces 

in protection in the run-up to the election of 2013 and 2014 as well 

as Washikur Rahman and Avijit Roy were killed in broad daylight 

with police very close nearby. 

Avijit Roy was killed at the Dhaka Book Fair and police were 

within walking distance away. And when a machete-wielding assailant is killing you it takes time. It is not—it is not a gunshot, 

and therefore the security forces failed. So should—the Awami 

League should not simply rely on the Hindu community as vote 

bank because that is not their role. 

Their role is to protect all Bangladeshi citizens if they are in the 

government and the same with the BNP or any other party that 

it is in power. 

Mr. SALMON. Any other comments? 

Mr. FLEISCHLI. Just a quick one. On Avijit Roy, there is actually 

a picture that I saw on the Internet where Avijit Roy was on the 

ground and the event was occurring and there was a police officer 

standing right there doing nothing—absolutely nothing. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. Ms. Curtis, did you have one——

Ms. CURTIS. Yes. I just wanted to make one last comment. It was 

raised earlier, the suggestion of declaring the Jamaat-e-Islami a 

foreign terrorist organization and I think that would be extremely 

unhelpful. 

The Jamaat-e-Islami has participated in the electoral process. 

They have tended not to receive a great deal of votes. I think it was 

4 to 5 percent in the last election that they ran in in 2008. 

But the point is that, certainly, those guilty of violence should be 

prosecuted but there is simply no indication that the Jamaat-eIslami as a political party has engaged in terrorism—systematic 

terrorism. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. That is helpful. Dr. Ayres. 

Ms. AYRES. A very brief ending comment: For many years I have 

always believed that Bangladesh provides a kind of living 

counterfactual to the problems that we see in a country like Pakistan. 

75

They, obviously, separated in 1971. But in the intervening decades Bangladesh has gone on to deliver so much for its citizens. It 

has better human development indicators on almost every count 

than Pakistan does—in fact, better than India in many counts as 

well. 

So for me this is a huge opportunity and an opportunity cost. I 

believe it is important for the United States to stay engaged and 

not use sanctions as a means of trying to teach a lesson but rather 

to try to shape the way we engage with Bangladesh and impress 

upon them how much potential they have and how we want to support that. 

Mr. SALMON. Would all of you agree with that idea? Okay. 

That is very helpful. You know, I want to say—I am about to 

conclude the committee—but this committee hearing was not intended to just pile on. 

It really is about a constructive, better way, and it is not to cast 

aspersions on a country but to liberate a people. It is about lifting, 

not pulling down. I mean, that is what we are trying to accomplish 

here. 

We are not trying to just throw rocks and criticize. What we are 

about is trying to shed some light on what the truth is—what is 

the truth beyond the spin-zone—what is the truth and what can 

America do to help improve the lives of the people of Bangladesh 

and that is what this is about. 

So thank you so much for your patience and thank you for your 

testimony, and without objection the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(77)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

78

f


94391n.eps
79

f


94391m.eps
80


94391f-1.eps
81

Æ


94391f-2.eps