(Abridge of this article was published in
the Dhaka Courier on 17 August 2012, and
in the Financial Express in the mode of part-one titled ‘The case of Nobel Peace Laureate Yunus’ on 12
August and of part-two captioned ‘What does Nobel Peace Prize mean? on 13 August
2012)
In Bangladesh once in 2007-2008 Sheikh
Hasina and Begum Khaleda Zia were targets of ‘Minus-Two Theory’ broadly aimed
at creating a vacuum of leaderships in the politics of Bangladesh by ousting
them (Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia) forcibly from homeland (Bangladesh) and
then filling the vacuum largely through the newly floated so-called party
headed by Nobel Peace Laureate Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus under the banner of
Citizens' Forum (Bengali: Nagarik Samiti), also known as Citizens'
power(Bengali: Nagorik Shokti) with the blessing of the then army-backed
Non-Party, Neutral Care-Taker Government led by Dr. Fakruddin Ahmed and, from
this standpoint, Dr. Yunus is widely believed to be the mastermind of the
theory. Ironically enough, now he (Nobel Peace Laureate Professor Dr. Muhammad
Yunus) himself appears to be the sole object of ‘Minus-One Theory” designed for
eliminating him from the ambits of Grameen Bank for his mistakes and follies
and causing havoc otherwise to Sheikh Hasina in meticulous.
This
is important to see and note that I have used the words ‘Minus- Two Theory’ in
place of widely used words ‘Minus-Two Formula’ keeping in mind the logic as
follows:
a. A formula in politics in particular is usually devised
and used to suit the very targeted purpose or purposes whereas theory in the
same field of knowledge goes beyond the boundary of such set goals and
purpose(s);
b. A formula is likely to die down immediately
the purpose or purposes is or are met with but a theory gets consolidated and
strengthened and then continues to be applicable in a broader manner under a
similar circumstance; and
c. Therefore, if a ‘Minus-Two Formula’ attains the status of
‘general applicability under a similar circumstance’ it then puts on the cap of
‘Minus-Two Theory’ as whole in the same field of discipline and knowledge. From
these standpoints, if ‘Minus-Two Formula’ and/or ‘Minus-One Formula’ ever
succeeds or succeed in Bangladesh
perspective or in the context of any country in the world, yes, the same may be
considered as having a status of ‘Theory’ in the respective area indeed. More
notice worthy is that number does not matter at all. It may be ‘Minus-One, Two
or Three depending on the particular situation. Political scientists, analysts,
critics and think-tanks in the discipline may have adequate interest in the
topic.
‘Minus-Two Theory’ misted in the moist because
very soon it came to light that ‘in the context of time, space and dimension
there can be no politics in Bangladesh without Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khaleda
Zia since they together should rightly be treated as symbol of national unity
from the point of view of their standing and acceptability in the respective
parties in the end’. Therefore, what shall be the answer of the recently
produced ‘Minus-One Formula” since Dr. Yunus is sans any organized bases and
supports at home. Will his regional and international bases to which he always
prefers to give importance finally succeed in rescuing him? Or is it now a
Hobson’s choice for him to pacify Sheikh Hasina at any rate? Hence, the
question arises pertinently what is Dr. Yunus’ syndrome (set of symptoms) that
led to the genesis of ‘Minus One Theory?’
To our utter surprise, predominantly, first
of all, comes to the forefront the issue of Nobel Peace Prize 2006, which was
awarded jointly to Dr. Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank of Bangladesh at the
total denial of the landmark success of Sheikh Hasina for her historic peaceful
striking of the Chittagong Hill Tracks Peace Accord on 02 December 1997 with
the Parbatya Chattagram Jana Sanghati Samity, PCJSS, ((United People's Party of
the Chittagong Hill Tracts) represented by its Chief Jyotirindra Bodhipriya
Larma popularly known as Santu Larma on behalf of the inhabitants of the
Chittagong Hill Tracts. This, in fact, put an end to the three decades long
armed conflicts saving further casualties of lives, money and energy of the
parties concerned.
Well, right or wrong it is true that Sheikh
Hasina was not considered, chosen and selected by the Norwegian Nobel Peace
Committee, truer is that it is not yet clear whether her name has ever been
submitted to the Committee by any qualified person, body or organization in
accordance with prescribed rules and provisions (The right to submit proposals
for the Nobel Peace Prize shall, by statute, be enjoyed by:
|
1.
|
Members of national assemblies and
governments of states;
|
|
2.
|
Members of international courts;
|
|
3.
|
University rectors; professors of social
sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research
institutes and foreign policy institutes;
|
|
4.
|
Persons who have been awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize;
|
|
5.
|
Board members of organizations who have
been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
|
|
6.
|
Active and former members of the
Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be
submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February
1) and
|
|
7.
|
Former advisers appointed by the
Norwegian Nobel Institute).
|
The matter is still in dark since no such
disclosure or hint has so far been aired officially or unofficially (The
statutes of the Nobel Foundation restrict disclosure of information about the
nominations, whether publicly or privately, for 50 years. The restriction
concerns the nominees and nominators, as well as investigations and opinions
related to the award of a prize) and, above all, alongside a related question
has been raised by some quarters particularly by some leading stalwarts of the
ruling AL including LGRD Minister and Secretary General of AL Syed Ashraful
Islam about the sustainability of the very grounds for awarding Nobel Peace
Prize 2006 to Professor Dr. Mohammad Yunus (jointly with Grameen Bank,
Bangladesh). According to them the logic and grounds leading to the
redefinition of peace were not sound, accommodative and convincing at all in
the light of pragmatic assessment and evaluation of the overall activities of
Dr. Mohammad Yunus pointedly through Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. This view is
also held and sustained by most of the pro-Al forces of various professional
and non-professional backgrounds, forms and dimensions.
All these relate to two things. One is
Yunus’ getting Nobel Peace Award 2006 was mostly political rather than factual
and the other is that as both Sheikh Hasina and Dr. Yunus belong to the same
country Bangladesh so by awarding Dr. Yunus such honor Norwegian Nobel
Committee totally ignored and set aside the successes of Prime Minister Sheikh
Hasina in various areas of development and peace in national, bi-lateral,
regional and international perspectives. Hence, Nobel Peace Committee’s placing
the successes of Dr. Yunus above the successes of Sheikh Hasina has not been
taken positively by them, although none of them ever sounded specifically about centre of attention of such successes.
Therefore, then comes the asking what are
the successes of Sheikh Hasina in the field of peace that could overshadow the
successes of Dr, Yubus ‘for his
efforts to create economic and social development from below?’ Yes, such
‘area of attention’ with reasonableness, logic, fairness and substantiality for
Sheikh Hasina’s getting Nobel Peace Prize was publicly first voiced on a high
volume by Bangladesh Attorney General Mahbubey Alam on March 8, 2011 during his comments to the media,
electronic or prints, on the legal fate of Nobel peace Laureate Dr Yunus who
filed a writ to the High Court challenging his dismissal from the office of the
Managing Directior of Grameen Bank by the Government. Almost inconsequentially
he said, ‘Sheikh Hasina and Santu Larma, leader of the PCJSS, should have been
honored with Nobel Peace Prize for their success in making the Chittagong Hill
Tracts Peace Accord in 1997 because it aimed at uprooting the armed conflicts
and thus bringing lasting peace there through initiation of a new era of peace
and understanding resultantly. It is a glaring example at the end of the 20th
century that showed the world how dialogue, not show of strength might be a
tool to put an end to a long standing issue wrought with armed conflicts. But
unfortunately Nobel Peace Committee failed to do so for reasons not clear to us
at all’.
This very assertion of the learned Attorney
General beyond doubt carries importance for reasons, inter alia, as follows:
·
Firstly,
he aired it at a time when the legal fight between Dr. Yunus and Government led
by Hasina awaiting verdict of the Court. There was no doubt that this was made
fingering at Dr. Yunus who was awarded Nobel Peace Prize 2006(jointly with
Grameen Bank, a government statutory body);:
·
Secondly,
by making such assertion the Attorney General otherwise questioned the logical
soundness of Dr. Yunus’ getting such award from the soil of Bangladesh where
the personality like Sheikh Hasina was shinning like a loadstar having a great
success on Chittagong Hill Tracks issue in the firmament of Bangladesh in
particular and the world in general:
·
Thirdly,
this open and public saying drew attention of many at home and abroad with an
impression and message that Sheikh Hasina did not get Nobel Peace Award because
of Dr. Yunus, a favorite of power-welder of international politics for the time
being in the context of time, space and dimension;
·
Fourthly,
therefore, awarding Nobel Peace Prize to Dr. Yunus was totally motivated
politically since the success of Sheikh Hasina in striking Chittagong Hill
Tracts Peace Accord on 02 December in 1997 was set aside and undermined
purposefully placing above it the so-called
success of Dr, Yunus in the field of social and economic development from below
through Grameen Bank;
·
Fifthly,
Professor Dr. Mohammad Yunus is a
global name and fame but awarding him Nobel peace Prize 2006 ‘for his efforts to create economic and social
development from below" is not very much convincing in its
entirety. Here peace has ironically been tagged with efforts to create economic and social development from below.
This new definition or redefinition or extended definition of peace is not only
bewildering but also embarrassing readily. He could have been weighed
and honored in his own discipline, if any other than in the field of peace.
Consequentially indeed,, one may without a
pause cite the cases of Linus Carl
Pauling, Nobel Peace Prize winner of1962, and Norman Ernest Borlaug, Nobel Peace Award winner of 1970. Linus Carl Pauling became well-known in
the field of quantum chemistry and molecular biology. His experiments in mega
dosing with Vitamin C and preventing flu like symptoms became controversial and
repeated research throughout the world could not prove his theory unanimously.
But that did not stop his receiving not one but two Nobel prizes (1954)
including one for Peace (1962). In 1968 he also got the Lenin Peace prize. Norman Ernest Borlaug was an agronomist
and is considered the father of the Green Revolution. He invented the high
yielding variety of wheat which rescued billions from hunger and helped reduce
poverty amongst the poor farmers. He was honored with Nobel Prize in 1970 in
Peace and not Chemistry while his major work was in genetics. In 2006 India awarded
him the Padma Vibushan award.
Here the opposing camps may right way
comfortably put forward that neither Linus
Carl Pauling nor Norman Ernest Borlaug showed interest in politics using the
award as ‘opportunity and weapon’, which Dr Yunus attempted unbecomingly in
Bangladesh during the period of 2007-2008 under the umbrella of Minus-Two
Formula. Furthermore, one should
never be forgetful of the political landscapes under which the matter of Dr.
Yunus was decided; and
·
Sixthly,
all these together played a role to create a widening chasm between Sheikh
Hasina and Dr. Yunus.
On all accounts, there is nothing wrong to
give credits to Hasina, a long time trusted ally of India, for creating an instance in
the troubled-torn South Asian countries. Unfortunately, ongoing political
culture in Bangladesh
based on confrontation, intransigence and outsmarting to each other and one
another in various modes, scales and dimensions can hardly weigh one’s
achievements. It is true all the governments in the past should be credited for
some landmark achievements alongside their failures. Every government was
patriot and took care of national interests to the best of its capacity and
ability within the ambit of limitations and pressures, domestic and foreign.
Sheikh Hasina succeeded here on Chittagong Hill Tracks issue because India
stood by her truly but certainly from its own mathematics and analysis. Should
one blame her for taking help from India? If it is so, then why did they fail
to attach due importance to understand and realize the crude reality in the
context of time, space and dimension of politics and necessity? In fact,
Indo-phobic Bangladesh at the mass level and India friendly Bangladesh at the
government level is a kind of treachery with the people and such
double-standard policy barely pay any fruitful dividends to the treasury of the
nation, national image and standing. Hasina at least made a breakthrough to
bring a balance between the two conflicting approaches of the past governments
of Zia, Ershad and Khaleda Zia upholding the theme of our foreign policy
‘Friendships towards all, malice to none’.
It was, practically speaking; a herculean
task for Hasina administration and the matter should not be viewed
half-heartedly or partially. The modern conflict in the Chittagong Hill Tracts
began when the political representatives of the native peoples protested
against the government policy of recognizing only the Bengali culture and
language and designating all citizens of Bangladesh as Bengalis. In talks with
Hill Tracts delegation led by Chakma politician Manabendra Narayan Larma. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, father of the nation,
insisted that the ethnic groups of the Hill Tracts adopt the Bengali identity.
Sheikh Mujib is also reported to have threatened to settle Bengalis in
the Hill Tracts to reduce the native peoples into a minority.
Consequently, Manabendra Narayan Larma and
others founded the Parbatya Chhatagram Jana Shanghatti Samiti (PCJSS) as a
united political organization of all native peoples and tribes in 1973. The
armed wing of the PCJSS, the Shanti Bahini was organized to resist government
policies. The Shanti Bahini insurgents hid in the neighboring Indian state of
Tripura, where they trained and equipped themselves. In 1977, they launched
their first attack on a Bangladesh Army convoy. The Shanti Bahini divided its
area of operations into zones, and raised forces from the native people, who
were formally trained. The Shanti Bahini attacked Bengali police and soldiers,
government offices and personnel, and the Bengali settlers in the region. The
group also attacked any native believed to be opposing it and supporting the
government. During the insurgency, the Shanti Bahini, the Bangladeshi Army,
police and gangs of Bengali settlers were accused of perpetrating abuse of
human rights and ethnic cleansing.
What Sheikh Mujubur Rahman gave birth but
could not put on track amicably, it was her daughter Sheikh Hasina who daringly
proceeded through peaceful means and ways and finally paved the way for a
peaceful solution to the same saving further losses of lives, time and money.
There may be a cyclone of criticisms
against Hasina’s steps and stepping, over emotionalism and over enthusiasm and
over leaning towards India that may amount to going beyond the boundary of
national interests. Nevertheless, there must be a realistic focus and analysis
in the milieu of necessity, compulsion and invulnerability. Therefore, mere
brushing aside one’s successes for reasons political or otherwise is not fair,
logical, realistic and even political in the anatomy of the whole thing.
It is further believed by some quarters,
civil societies and a section of intelligentsia that Dr. Yunus’ getting Nobel
Peace Prize other than in his own discipline, if any, is political from top to
the bottom. It was done hastily to make a room for him in the politics of
Bangladesh and ‘Minus Two Theory” was the culmination of such design of the
masters. They also feel that he even might be the leading factor for keeping
Hasina at bay from this ‘august international recognition’.
From all these standpoints, Dr. Yunus’
getting Nobel Peace Prize has not been taken warmly and logically by Sheikh
Hasina because balance-sheet of successes and failures of Dr. Yunus and Grameen
Bank, a government statutory body, lie in Bangladesh not in Oslo. Equally, is
it true that Dr. Yunus is still a menace to Sheikh Hasina’s getting Nobel Peace
Prize in the coming days? Or all are
mere speculations being leveled against this Nobel peace Laureate!! What is
right and what is wrong only time can record and state.
Making an overall view on the activities of
Dr. Yunus and his relations with Gramen Bank, Rahaat Khan in his article ‘Dr. Yunus – Not Founder of Grameen
Bank’ observed ‘A man of high esteem, Dr. Yunus has definitely glorified
our nation for his Nobel Peace award. And we, being Bangladeshis feel proud of
him. But there is a slight misnomer with his reputation. Dr. Yunus is
frequently recognized as the founder of Grameen Bank. But the fact does not
entirely go with this. The Government of Bangladesh has constituted this
specialized bank in 1990 in purview with the existing rules of the land and
under the provisions and supervision of Bangladesh Bank. As such, Dr. Yunus
may, by large, be considered as the founder managing director of the said bank,
not the founder. Any way, he is all in all in the Grameen Bank and his
hilarious effort in marketing this bank is enormous. Like many other, it also
strikes me that why Dr. Yunus was not interested to have a successor although
there was a heresy that for sometime, Khaled Shams, a renowned banker was
deemed to the next role leader. But in one fine morning Mr. Shams was removed
from this bank and also it was not clear whether he was engaged in any of
Grameen’s projects. Anyway, the next name we came across was some Dipal Borua
but that too been a faded name for a long while. No doubt, Dr. Yunus’s contribution
to the Grameen Bank is fathomless. But it is also an undeniable fact that an
institution requires a generation of successive leadership for its sustenance.
But we did not spot Mr. Yunus being attentive to this at all. Why? This may be
better known to him but my understanding along with many others slates this not
as a failure on Dr. Yunus’s part to realize it rather the very wish of life
long governance over the institution of even the intention of doing whatever he
feels like with this specialized bank.
This is a common place that everyone
retires after a certain period of service. But the very effort of Dr. Yunus
testifies that he wants a life time managing directorship for Grameen Bank.
Seemingly, his departure from this grand comradeship will husk a griddling fate
to 80 lakh poor people. Mr. Yunus is now 71. Does every death spare any Nobel
laureate? If so be the fact, and also the fact remains Dr. Yunus’s absence from
Grameen Bank, shatters the fate of 80 lack poor people, naturally people should
witness his immortality for the sake of Grameen Bank and the poor. But is that
possible?
Defying all these Dr. Yunus requires to be
on top of the Grameen Bank. It isn’t only because of the dignity of this Nobel
laureate, but to the best of my knowledge, rather because of many inter and
intra continental trade conglomeration. Okay, there is no harm in such
strategic partnership. But many indicates on the unfair pledge especially where
any specialized financial institution like Grameen Bank enjoys the provision of
non-compliance collateral or equity principles and tax rebate. As such it
earned an unequival competitive advantage to override other similar businesses
in the market for which it was not meant, rather, the special arrangements on
part of the regulators came out of the belief that micro financing and micro
credit would be an epitome to relieve poverty. But what our experience narrates
is nothing but the tale of an ugly game. When it is expected that Dr. Yunus
being a Nobel laureate would do justice to his own dignity more specifically
when the awards goes for peace making. But it didn’t go along that line. Mr
Yunus didn’t off shoulder his responsibility until he was officially removed by
the Bangladesh Bank. Some Western allies including the Friends of Grameen
started lobbying and seemed to be very much resolutative for holding his
position as MD of the Grameen Bank. Disaster without Yunus!
Now, the question is, whose disaster the
allies think it to be? Anyway, I restrain myself from commenting on that. Just
to raise a little point on the validity of the policy statements of an
institution which claims to have a pivotal role in poverty alleviation where
the interest rate is 35 to 40 per cent and more interestingly these loan
arrangements are triggered towards to the people living below the poverty line.
Doesn’t it sound like an impractical imagination? As if a fool dwelling in a
paradise! Against this backdrop of Grameen Bank, there are many NGOs in
Bangladesh (e.g. BRAC, PROSHIKA, Nijera Kori, KARITAS etc.) which have a long
legacy of success story on issues like poverty alleviation, reducing child
mortality and pregnant women, population control, women empowerment,
development of sanitation in rural and slum areas etc. Does the Grameen Bank record
any visible contribution to the above-mentioned programmes or areas with its
high-rated interest provision? Then, it is not an exaggeration or
over-statement that the Grameen Bank effort was more focused on financial
transaction based on a mercenary-like attitude and style than effective poverty
alleviation.
Despite all these, Dr. Yunus was awarded
Nobel peace price for his `contribution’ to poverty alleviation and helping
reducing the threat of anarchy due to extreme poverty in society thus bringing
smiles to millions of faces in rural Bangladesh. This Nobel price in fact
struck many conscious minds. A man who has never uttered a single word
protesting against the 1971 genocide by Pakistan, rather stayed in USA to
remain in safe zone; who has always kept aloof during natural and political
calamities in Bangladesh (only except the post one-eleven incident). Rather, it
is him, the man who has little visible contribution to poverty alleviation
rather but for conceptualizing micro credit to the poor with an enormous
interest rate and thus became a mercenary Dr. Yunus who has been awarded the
Nobel Peace price for peace? What else could this be called than just doing a
mimic to peace by the Nobel granting committee? I have always praised Mr. Yunus
as a successful entrepreneur; however, I still have some reservations and
queries regarding him:
A Bangladeshi by birth, why Dr. Yunus never
has visited our national mausoleum in Savar, or shrine of the Father of the
Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman? Nor have we ever seen him saying
anything regarding Bangabandhu. His snobbish attitude and disregard to
Bangabandhu and all glorious achievements of Bangalee nation hurt me the most.
Should such a personality deserve respect? Moreover, the man who intended to
brand all politicians as corrupt during the post one-eleven scenario; and who
consented to take responsibility of ruling the country but with an assurance
for 10-year stay in power has been much downgraded from his dignity and esteem.
Time will say what will be the legal fate of Dr. Yunus. But Mr. Yunus, you have
lost much of the glare of a Nobel laureate by now. This is really a misfortune
for the whole nation.
(http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/message/24476)’
Case of Dr. Yunus to Hasina administration was not so highly discussed and viewed at the initial phase since there was no viable and reasonable ground to take him to task and, fascinatingly enough, the opportune moment arrived at very soon. Yes, Bangladesh government became ’active’ to remove Dr. Yunus after the broadcast of a documentary during this period related to micro credit in Norwegian national television. The documentary made havoc to the image of Dr. Yunus highlighting the negative aspects of the feedbacks of Grameen Bank. Prominent London weekly ‘The Economist” wrote on their 2nd march 2012 issue that the final consequence of three-month long propaganda in media against Dr Yunus was removing him from his own organization that he established 30 years back! The Economist also noted that the Norwegian government concluded, after investigation, that the claim made from that documentary was baseless. Prime minister of Bangladesh carefully crafted a background to dishonor Dr Yunus with political propaganda. Thus the suffocation of not being awarded Nobel Peace Prize vibrated and came to light publicly capitalizing the documentary readily.
Long before this documentary on January 24,
2010 Weekly Blitz, a leading national weekly in English Language in Bangladesh,
published a research-based report on the feedbacks of Dr. Yunus through Grameen
Bank under the title ‘The way Dr. Yunus befools the world’. The report is
important for a number of reasons indeed, although there remain some lapses and
loopholes in its entirety. But the report has at last been able to unearth the
inside truth whether successes of Gramen Bank were a reality or a kind of
motivational focus and propaganda. Hence, the inclusion of the report here as
follows may necessarily be considered viable and logical as it pinpoints and
states that ‘Dr. Muhammed Yunus and his Nobel prize winning Grameen Bank
continues to project Jobra village and Sufia Begum as example of their
excellent success stories to the international audience. Through such campaign,
Dr. Muhammed Yunus has attained tremendous attention of the international
community. He is by now known in the entire world as the 'pioneer' of micro
credit, for which he got Nobel Peace prize few years back. Dr. Yunus enjoys
high esteemed in the international arena and maintains close connections with a
number of global leaders. In brief, Dr. Yunus is truly a very high profile
individual.
For months, extensive investigation into
the so-called success models of Grameen Bank and Dr. Yunus were initiated by
Bangladesh's most influential newspaper Weekly Blitz. On the basis of such
investigation, series of stories of virtual fraud by this high profile man was
unearthed.
Sufia Khatun is the first borrower of loan
from Dr. Yunus's Grameen Bank. Her name has already crossed international
boundaries of many countries, as Grameen Bank proudly pronounces her name as
one of the brilliant success stories of their micro-credit loans. But, many are
yet to know the real stories. The stories of deception by Dr. Yunus and his Grameen
Bank! They even do not know, how Sufia Begum passed her last days of life and
how the members of her family are living in extreme poverty in present days.
Almost one decade back, Sufia Begum died
due to extreme poverty and lack of any minimum medical treatment. When
documentary films were being made on this woman, she was living as a beggar.
People of Jobra village are still remaining as witness of such extreme sorrows
of Sufia Begum. Though Dr. Yunus and Grameen Bank claimed to have helped Sufia Begum
in erecting her own building, in reality, she used to live in a almost broken
hut, where her family members are living till now.
Sufia Begum's daughter Halima [48] and Noor
Nahar [45] still lives on begging. Seeing this correspondent both the sisters said
that they were left absolutely pauper and have to beg for survival. But on
investigation, it was found that, Sufia Begum died in 1998 due to extreme
poverty and local people had to collect donations for her funeral and burial.
One of her granddaughters died few years back due to poverty.
The house, which is shown by Dr. Yunus and
Grameen Bank as Sufia's is actually owned by one Jabel Hussain who lives in
Dubai [United Arab Emirates]. Jabel Hussain has instructed his relatives in
Bangladesh to sue Dr. Yunus and Grameen bank if his house is ever shown as
Sufia's in future.
Jabel Hussain said, "Dr. Yunus is a
fraud. How he managed to get the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize? This prize
should be immediately withdrawn from this monster".
Dr. Muhammed Yunus gave TK. 20 [US$ 0.30]
to Sufia Begum Years back as loan with the condition of returning in time with
interest. Sufia Begum returned that money and got second loan of Tk. 500 from
Yunus. She was so excited that spread the news in the entire village. This was
the beginning of Grammen Bank concept. But, most of the borrowers, who took
money from Dr. Yunus, gradually turned poor to poorest as they were compelled
to pay regular interests. In Jobra village alone, a large number of villagers
have already been turned into pauper by Dr. Yunus and his Grameen Bank.
Uday Kumar Barua, a resident of Jobra
village told Shaptahik 2000 that, even a single person in the Jobra village was
not benefited by Dr. Yunus. Most of the borrowers turned completely pauper and
they even had to sell their homes for paying the loan interest and left the
village. Many of them even ended up as baggers.
Even after having Hillary Clinton in one of
the Grameen bank's project at Rishi Palli at Moshihati, shrewd Yunus initiated
a project named 'Hillary Adarsha' [Hillary Model] and started distributing
loans to the locals. Although Hillary Clinton was given assurance of providing
soft-term loan to the poor villagers, in reality, they [the villagers] were to
pay 30-40 per cent interest.
Commenting on Sufia Begum's family, a
neighbor named Muhammed Rokunazzaman told this correspondent that this family
is the poorest in the village.
Dr. Yunus continues to keep the virtual
ownership of Grameen Bank and all other enterprises established under this
umbrella in his own hand. He recently forced Mr. Dipal Chandra Barua, who
climbed into the position of Deputy Managing Director of Grameen Bank through
his hard work since its inception. Following his forced removal, Dipal Barua
told local press that, Dr. Yunus does not want anyone to ride into the top
position of the bank, as he loves to maintain this organization as a mere
one-man-show (Zahid Al Amin, January
24, 2010 at http://www.weeklyblitz.net/444/the-way-dr-yunus-befools-the-world).
In fact, all
these are the other side of the coin of the widely claimed and publicized
successes of Dr. Yunus. Why, when and how Dr. Yunus became a centre of
attention to the Nobel Peace Committee that’s the headache of the Committee,
not of anybody else. Had there been no Sheikh Hasina with CHT Accord in hand in
Bangladesh, probably there could not have any such debate about Nobel
Committee’s decision to award Nobel Peace Prize to Dr, Yunus. Thus, in
the context of Nobel Peace Prize both Hasina and Dr. Yunus unhappily became an
issue in Bangladesh as if Dr. Yunus had snatched away the Nobel Peace
Prize from Sheikh Hasina or Nobel Peace Committee ignored Sheikh Hasina to
rehabilitate Dr. Yunus in the politics of Bangladesh in particular. Therefore,
the moot point rotates around Hasina’s not getting Nobel Peace Prize because of
Himalayan presence of Dr. Muhammad Yunus. Is Hasina a victim of politics inside
Nobel Peace Prize? Is Nobel Peace Prize necessary for Sheikh Hasina?
But the Truest is that Nobel Peace Award is
not the only indicator to weigh and place a political leader and
statesman/stateswoman in the proper place of history because Nobel Peace Award
is not immune from ‘politics inside it’, which may rightly be called ‘Politics
inside Nobel Peace Award’ (for more, see my article ‘Politics Inside Nobel
Peace Award’, July27, 2012, Dhaka Courier, Bangladesh). Yes, records, facts and
documents show that there was lot of omissions as well. ‘Foreign Policy Magazine’ has listed Mahatma Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt, Václav Havel, Ken
Saro-Wiwa, Sari Nusseibeh and Corazon Aquino as people who "never won the
prize, but should have". Other notable omissions that have drawn criticism
include Pope John Paul II and Dorothy Day. The case of Mahatma Gandhi was very
interesting. The Committee has confirmed that Gandhi was nominated in 1937,
1938, 1939, 1947 and, finally, a few days before his death in January 1948. But he was not finally chosen by the
Norwegian Nobel Committee at Oslo simply because of the politics of the age.
Does it mean that Gandhi is lost? Definitely not so it is. Plaintive
expressions of subsequent Nobel Committees for such mistakes and follies have
been being heard pointedly since 1989 when 14th Dali Lama (Tenzin
Gyatso), Tibet Religious and political leader of the Tibetan people, was
awarded Noble peace prize 1989 for his non-violent struggle in Tibet.
Therefore, Gandhi is Gandhi who has been rising and radiating for a long and
today United Nations takes pride by declaring Gandhi’s birthday as the
‘international day of non-violence’
And in the midst of races and lobbies for
being crowned and blessed with Nobel Peace Prize there, to our utter surprise,
we come across such personality who could say ‘no’ to it. This happened in
1973. Nobel Peace Prize 1973 was awarded to US National Security Adviser and
Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and North Vietnamese leader and
negotiator Le Duc Tho for the 1973 Paris agreement intended to bring about a cease-fire
in the Vietnam war and a withdrawal of the American forces. This award is
certainly the most controversial one in the history of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Le Duc Tho declined the Peace Prize, the only person to have done so stating
that peace was not yet established in South Vietnam. There was strong and sound
controversies about such conscience-pricking decision of the Nobel Peace
Committee. Understanding the reality Kissinger did not dare to move to and step
in Oslo bodily to receive the prize and almost immediately signaled otherwise
to return it, but it was aired the statutes did not permit this. There also
protests within the committee and two of the committee members resigned when it
had become known that there had been disagreement and that they had in fact
been against the award. (They supported Brazilian archbishop Helder Camara, who
received a Norwegian people's prize instead.) Public reaction to the prize,
both in Norway and internationally, was largely negative. Later it was leaked
out that Henry A. Kissinger was guilty of a secret bombing campaign against the
North Vietnamese army.
Let me salute Le Duc Tho for creating an
example in the domain of Nobel Peace Prize and recall with due flavor and taste
another loadstar French philosopher Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre who was
awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in literature but refused it, saying that he
always declined official honors and that, ‘a writer should not allow himself to
be turned into an institution’. Should not they be a light to the rising and
coming generations as well as to those who are advertently longing for such
august international award and recognition and making attempts to that
direction under the guise of politics, diplomacy and come what may not!!
Further it is to be seen, noted and
emphasized correctly that striking a peace accord and establishment of pace are
not the same. If one is the beginning then the other is the end giving real
dividends to the parties concerned. Camp David Accord, Paris Peace Accord etc
show on records that how the gap between the two may at the phase of
implementation foils the very intent of striking peace deals. And in the
context of Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord unfolding and rising
frustrations and agonies of the tribal people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts
plus its leader Jyotirindra Bodhipriya Larma also called Santu Larma are
constantly giving signals that the widening gaps between making the Peace
Accord and putting the same into practice are enough to foil the endeavors,
mission and vision in its entirety. CHT Regional Council Chairman JB Larma
while making evaluations of the CHT Peace Accord at a seminar on 07 August 2012
hosted jointly by ten rights bodies on the theme of land and human rights of
indigenous people one day ahead of International Day of the World's Indigenous
People noted in a great despair and desperateness saying, ‘indigenous people in
Bangladesh could become extinct within the next few decades if their
deprivation of rights continues as it had in the past,
“There is regular bloodshed in the hills;
its extent might go up. Either the peace accord in the hills will be
implemented or the jumma people will be extinct,” he told a discussion at the
capital's Cirdap auditorium.
While in power, the present ruling party
had signed the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) Peace Accord in 1997; but today it
lacks goodwill in implementing the deal, said Jyotirindra Bodhipriya Larma
popularly known as Santu Larma.
Both the civil and military bureaucracy, he
complained, have demonstrated an undemocratic and communal attitude towards the
indigenous people, whose land was grabbed by the social and political elites
for decades.
“Now we are termed ethnic minorities and
tribes, and barred from observing the indigenous peoples' day. This is ridiculous….
I see dark days ahead.”
Santu Larma, also president of Parbatya
Chattagram Janasanghati Samity, urged indigenous people to get united for any
kind of movement if they are to sustain their existence.
In his keynote, Prof Abul Barkat of Dhaka
University said 22 percent indigenous people had either been evicted or driven
out of their households between 1977 and 2007 mainly by Bangalee settlers in
the CHT.
Their traditional social ownership of land
came down from 83 percent in 1978 to 41 percent in 2009, he added.
On the other hand, 90 percent of indigenous
people of the plains have become landless, mentioned Barkat. He added that the
rate of poverty among the indigenous people is much higher than the average
national rate of poverty.
“In the last three decades, the number of
Bangalee settlers in the hills has gone up, but the number of indigenous people
has come down.”
He suggested implementing the CHT peace
accord, punishing the land grabbers, forming a separate land commission for the plain land adivasis and
recognizing their traditional land ownership arrangement.
Rashed Khan Menon, chairman of the
parliamentary caucus on indigenous people, demanded withdrawal of the
government's restriction on observing of the International Day of the World's
Indigenous People.
Lawmakers Hasanul Huq Inu, AKM Mozammel
Haque, rights activists Sanjeeb Drong, Anna Minz, Syeda Rizwana Hasan, Sara
Hossain, Rana Das Gupta and Khushi Kabir, addressed the discussion, moderated
by Ain O Salish Kendra Executive Director Sultana Kamal (Daily Star 08 August
2012, Bangladesh).
On the same day in another discussion
Professor Dr. Mizanur Rahman, sitting Chairman of Bangladesh Human Rights
Commission, held deeply that the fate of the CHT Accord would be in jeopardy if
it is not duly attended during the regime of Sheikh Hasina.
Yes, Sheikh Hasina has been voted to power
for the second time in 2009 and there is no denying the fact that after a space
of 14 years since the striking of the CHT peace deal on 02 December 1997 such
despairs and desperateness in the minds of the tribal people in the Chittagong
Hill Tracts are not carrying good message for the success of the deal, although
many steps have meanwhile been taken and implemented to suit the purposes. But
peace is still at bay in reality because of lack of sincerity of political will
and determination in line with the spirit and sagacity of pre and during the
striking of -Chittagong Hill Tracks Peace Accord.
Pragmatically enough, to Hasina this Nobel
Peace Laureate Dr. Yunus is----
(a) a ‘bloodsucker of the poor’.She used
the word many a time fingering at Dr. Yunus. ‘There has been no visible poverty
alleviation through the means of Grameen Bank’, she noted in an interview with
BBC on Monday, 27 July 2012 during her five-day London visit to attend the
inaugural ceremony Olympics 2012. Throwing a question to the interviewer
Stephen Sakur for BBC HARDtalk Sheikh Hasina said, ‘I am telling you one thing.
Taking interest 40 percent, 3o percent or 45 percent from these poor
people---is it fair? It is not. How can these poor people stand by themselves?
If you lend money and take 35 to 45 percent interest, it is a shame (Daily
Star, 31 July 2012’.
Correcting this data of PM, Nobel Peace
Prize winning Grameen Bank, a government statutory body, in a statement on the
following day said ‘the Bank charges a maximum of 20 percent interest for
income-generating credits loan. Their flat rate is 10 percent, which becomes 20
percent in case of effective interest rates. It charges 8 percent interest on
house building loans; it does not charge any interests except after completion
of education, when it charges 5 percent. It noted that State-run Micro-credit
Regulatory Authority, which regulates microfinance institutions, has set 27
percent as the maximum interest rate that such institutions can charge (Daily
Star, 01 August 2012;
(b) a scapegoat of international vested
interests and politics;
(c)
the principal brain to the birth of ‘Minus- Two Formula’; and, above all
(d) largely a threat to her being awarded
Nobel Peace Prize even in future, if any. This perception of Hasina has been
boiled and geared up also by those some of whom once had a taste of benefits
from Dr. Yunus.. Sheikh Hasina should be cautious about those opportunists and
sycophants since she is now a grown-up stateswoman in the context of time,
space and dimension. Similarly, Dr. Yunus should be well aware of these forces.
He must guard against those who are making efforts, intentionally or recklessly
or inadvertently to make and call him ‘Socrates of the time’ (attention to the
article ‘Is Yunus facing the fate of Socrates’, August 12 2012 in the Financial
Express by Rashidul Bari, a biographer of Muhammad Yunus, most recently
authored the Grameen Social Business Model: A Manifesto for Proletariat
Revolution). Alas! Socrates never thought of in terms of money and business. He
was a philosopher sans greediness, lust for power, position and recognition
etc. He invested himself in quest of truth, justice and knowledge).He must take
into note very seriously that he is not the first one in the world to start journey
with microcredit finance; it was in the past, it is on at present and it will
continue since die. He may better be placed as one of the best organized
forerunners in the scale of time.
And with all these in right perspectives, I
understand and guess that that Sheikh Hasina has a brighter possibility of
being honored in many a field pointedly in the area of women empowerment.
Therefore, she has to bear in mind under all the circumstances that ‘time and
tide waits for none’, ‘a stitch in time saves ninth’. She must not be forgetful
of the famous sayings of Leo Tolstoy who in his ‘Three Questions’ uniquely
narrated that (a) The most important time in life is now (b) the most important
man or men is he or they who is or are with you now and (c) the most important
business is to do good to him or them. Yes, this is a time for her to be more
magnanimous, accommodative and less pugnacious both in spirit and actions.
Therefore, let the bone of contention
between Hasina and Dr, Yunus be uprooted and wiped out for our greater national
interests. Let Dr. Yunus get rid of his mistakes and follies, perceptions and
overdependence on foreign powers, if any and come forward and stand by her as a
brother(visit author’s article ‘On the Enterprises of Dr. Yunus’ at http://sinhaearthblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-enterprises-of-nobel-laureate-dr.htm
or his article ‘Enhance knowledge power, expedite development’ in the New Nation,
15 July, 2012 ). Let both of them understand and realize that the vested
quarters shall always be busy to foil such move of national interest .Let them
take the note from reality that it is a belief of the common people in
Bangladesh that if they two stand and work together internationally the fate of
the nation may have new promising and fruitful facet. And let Sheikh Hasina
feel free to give Dr. Yunus an exclusive appointment for which he applied a
long ago and talk and settle leaving nothing unturned. In line with the same
spirit and reality, Imdadul Haq Milion, editor, Kaler Kantha, a leading Daily
in Bangali language, in an article ‘Dr Yunus and Padma Bridge’ published in the
Daily Sun on 09 August 2012 wrote ‘The countrymen also expect something good
from him. Couldn’t he take a pivotal role in implementing the Padma Bridge
project, sinking the differences? Couldn’t he go for dialogue with World Bank
and other donor agencies to make them agree to fund the project? Couldn’t he
come forward to resolving the impending crisis, considering the greater good of
the nation? Although the government hit out at him over the Grameen Bank issue,
couldn’t he forget it for the sake of the country? The general public even
thinks that the construction of the Padma
Bridge is stuck in
quicksand only because of Dr Yunus! They also take it for granted that the
bridge could be implemented only if Dr Yunus wants it to be.
Honorable Dr Yunus, would you take the
issue into your kind consideration?’’
Finally, let Dr Yunus have the foresight to
realize that even Khaleda Zia, if voted to power, will not be safe for him
because she was one of the targets of 'Minus Two Theory'. That's why, BNP's
whole-hearted support to him is very much strategic and time-bound.
No comments:
Post a Comment