Banner Advertiser

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Re: [ALOCHONA] Pandora's box?



Friends

 

People of Bangladesh by now simmering about the choice of Govt.after observing the political as well ethical bankruptcy of the seat of power. As the power finds it difficult to tread with it's Utopian promises which can never be materialized have taken a different strategy to divert the public dissatisfaction resulting commotion and make fictitious issues to blow it thru their( in fact RAW's owned) sycophant media day in and day out.The power thought that people will buy their cheap Goebbels theory as they(public) did during last election when they cheered the then would aspirant PM Sheikh Hasina when she declared to serve the people with TK: 10 per KG rice, free fertilizer,one family one job bla  bla  bla.

 

Finding no other way the power have resorted to suppression n oppression n creating concocted stories to make the people( Jonogon) sleepy so that the only and the only Chetona Dharis can do n undo with peace,stability and sovereignty of our coveted nation. This power of the people's 

Democracy(DEMOCRAZY,the detractors terms) have no other alternative but to go backward since they are failing in each and every aspect of national life either to gear up or to take forward.

 

Faruque Alamgir



u, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
ARMY OFFICERS' TRIAL DURING ZIA REGIME
Re-investigation likely, says PM

The Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, told parliament on Wednesday that
her government did not take any decision regarding re-investigation of
the trials in which a number of freedom fighter army officers were
hanged during Ziaur Rahman's administration.

  But, she said, the issue was under consideration of the government.
  She said the government took no decision yet regarding 'the so
called trials' that took place during the regime of 'illegal state
power occupant general Ziaur Rahman in which a number of army officers
were hanged.'

 'But the issue is under consideration of the government,' she said
replying to a question from ruling party lawmaker, Chayan Islam during
the prime minister's question hour.Chayan wanted to know when, if at
all, the re-investigation took place.

http://www.newagebd.com/2010/dec/09/front.html

http://www.samakal.com.bd/details.php?news=13&action=main&option=single&news_id=114641&pub_no=537


------------------------------------

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/

<*> Your email settings:
   Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
   (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
   alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
   alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
   http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Pakistan in 1971: a state without intelligence



Pakistan in 1971: a state without intelligence
 
Afsan Chowdhury

Pakistan in 1971 represents the ultimate unintelligent state in action. Its actions were largely determined by decisions taken by its army and intelligence agencies. It is ironic that such army decisions were some of the most stupid ones ever taken by any state and ultimately caused the end of Pakistan as it was born. It resembled an autistic, making repetitive actions that made no sense.

* * *

When General Yahya Khan took over as the president and chief martial law administrator of Pakistan after removing F M Ayub Khan as the president in 1969, Yahya was advised by his secret service that while Sheikh Mujib and his party Awami league were popular in East Pakistan, they could never win outright majority in an election. This assessment was crucial because Bengalis of East Pakistan were in the majority and an outright win would mean leadership of entire Pakistan would shift to East Pakistan and Bengalis, something the army had no intention of accepting.

* * *

A variety of other factors, particularly the cyclonic surge of 1970 on the coastal areas of East Pakistan which killed or maimed millions, made people extremely angry and they voted en masse for the Awami League, making the ballot a tool of expressing their anger at the Pakistani leadership. The electoral victory completely upset all military calculations and by January, according to some sources, the army had decided to act militarily. Not familiar with any methodology, except conspiracies and killing, to resolve a situation and not exactly a believer in democracy, the military which had in effect become the guarantor of Pakistan decided to go for a quick kill. The intelligence agencies — friends, philosophers and guides of the Pakistan state — informed that the angry mobs of Dhaka slum dwellers and student activists were no match for an organised military attack to 'save Pakistan'. And taking care of them would take care of the situation.

Perhaps in no history has an army and its intelligence arm made such a suicidal and stupid assessment. Without even considering the consequence of a general armed uprising in case there was resistance, Yahya government assumed that if Dhaka and its 'militants' were put down, the rest of the Bengalis, like lambs, would follow. It never took into account that Pakistan didn't have the security, administrative and support structure in East Pakistan to contain any disturbance. And it never even thought that such a situation would almost be like putting a cherry into India's eager mouth.

It seems to have taken for granted that India's far more efficient security structure was as dumb as its own. This was probably arrogance inspired stupidity but it was a fatal one.

* * *

The initial reaction in Dhaka to the March 25 attack suited the Pak army as the people and the city were stunned. However, fuelled by anger at the news of Dhaka, people all over the rest of Bangladesh began their resistance against the Pak army. Bengali army officers of East Pakistan overnight became Bangladeshi army officers and fought back. Suddenly, the war which was so simple on the 25th night and was largely about the pacification of Dhaka had become a campaign to put down resistance all over entire East Pakistan which by then had ceased to exist. The intelligence agencies had never considered public resistance or rebellion by Bengali uniformed soldiers of Pakistan.

In Dhaka itself, by the next morning, from ordinary people to activists had decided to leave the city. Slum dwellers, a particular target of army wrath left for the villages en masse. Hindus left in great fear as they were the victims of targeted attacks and Bangladeshi political leadership also fled to sanctuaries. It was this departure of many that created a complex combination of people and victims which made both successful resistance and intervention inevitable.

* * *

Between March 25 and end April, Bangladesh, now no longer East Pakistan, burned and retched fire. The army had to conquer every village, inch by inch and it was a humiliating and exasperating task for which they had no preparation, not to mention training. One of the worst things for Pakistan was the birth of Bangladesh political structure at the grassroots which was produced during this period as people banded together to fight Pakistan. Subsequently, when the freedom fighters returned from training in India, it was this structure – the Sangram Committee – which provided the support that led to the erosion from within of Pakistan.

Pakistan intelligence may not have assessed a resistance because it thought that the Bengalis were not martial enough or that Awami League's nationalist base was superficial but how it failed to read what India would do boggles the mind. Although Pakistan military and by extension the state existed to battle India – the state's sole objective – it assumed that India would do nothing when an opportunity was offered to it. It paid a massive price for this lack of intelligence and analysis.

* * *
Pakistan believed that Hindus of Bangladesh, whom they all considered Indian agents, had 'infected' Bengali minds and generated the nationalist movement. It might seem absurd to believe this but when Mohiudding Alamgir of UPL, Muntassir Mamun and I visited Pakistan to talk about such issues in the year 2000, we saw how deep this conviction was. So both the Pakistan military and the people were in agreement that Hindus were bad for Pakistan. This resulted in the anti-Hindu campaign of the Pak military in 1971. It was probably geared towards sending Hindus to India. This part was temporarily successful but in the process, global public opinion was created against Pakistan as a demonic state and Indian intervention was marvellously possible and convenient.

India in fact would have been pushed to act anyway once 10 million people, both Hindus and Muslims, crossed to its soil. In no way could it sustain all those refugees by itself. So intervention was almost guaranteed as soon as the millions of scared Bangladeshis reached India. Pakistan provided the reason and justification. It was obvious that there was no option but to intervene on India's part and the plight of the refugees were bad enough to create a ground swell of international opinion against Pakistan and make intervention justified. Pakistan's policy to make Pakistan safe by pushing people out to India ensured that Pakistan would end.

* * *
There is no end to the Pakistan puzzle. It seems from the very beginning, Pakistan assumed that both the US and China would intervene on its behalf when conflict escalated. But those superpowers didn't and never intended to. Pakistan believed that because it had brokered the US-China visit, both countries would be grateful and act. Yet there is no evidence that both states ever considered doing this. There is no explanation as to why Pakistan would think so considering no such intent was ever expressed by anyone. To put it mildly, it bends all common sense to think that Pakistan's security agencies risked the future of the country on a vague unfounded assumption.

Even in the last days when the war had broken out, Pakistan held on to the idea that the US 7th Fleet would resolve the issue in its favour. Nothing was farther from the truth because the US had accepted long before the end of "Pakistan" and was keener to avoid a South Asian war involving superpowers. It had no intention of any involvement to secure the territorial identity of Pakistan. It was the least intelligent assessment of international politics and compared to India's analysis, almost childishly immature. India thought "no superpower will ever come to fight our wars" and acted accordingly.

* * *

In the end, it wasn't India or Bangladesh that defeated Pakistan but it was Pakistan bent on suicide. By handing over the state to its military and subverting its civil institutions and people's will, Pakistan was ready for humiliation and dismemberment long before March 1971. That year it turned the guns against its own people hoping political contests could be settled through brute force.

Occasionally history punishes as it did in case of Pakistan but lessons are rarely learnt if the state behaves without intelligence and acts like an autistic state.

————————————————–
Afsan Chowdhury was part of the Muktijuddher Dolilpatra Project led by Hasan Hafizur Rahman from 1978 to 1986 which produced 15 volumes of documents on the history of 1971. For the BBC, he produced eight radio series and several chat shows on the issue on 1971. He has produced a video documentary on women and 1971 titled "Tahader Juddhyo". Afsan has edited and co-authored a four-volume history of 1971, "Bangladesh 1971".
He has worked in several parts of the world as a development and Human Rights specialist for the UN and other agencies. Afsan was the Oak Fellow on International Human Rights of the Colby College in the USA in 2008.

http://opinion.bdnews24.com/2010/12/09/pakistan-in-1971-a-state-without-intelligence/



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Re: Joy pulls for connectivity



Joy is an opportunist who cherry picks what he wants to observe and what questions he will answer.

His greatest contribution to Bangladesh would be to shut up.

The very fact that he talks with pretend authority allows the propogation of dynastic politics in Bangladesh.  

Joy does not have the guts or the vision to lead reform of AL, challenge poor leadership in AL, stand against violence committed by AL.

What he can do is explain why increased internet bandwidth is good and why more roads are good. Wow!

Oh yeah. And he can be the Advisor to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh because - his mother is the Prime Minister and no other Bangladeshi in the US has a degree.

Hey Joy! Make sure you don't teach your kids about the necessity of violence and extortion in politics.

It would be so un American : )    

 

 


--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, Isha Khan <bdmailer@...> wrote:
>
> Joy pulls for connectivity
>
> Tells The Daily Star about negative politics by BNP, why AL should
> stay in power for longer time
>
> Bangladesh sits at the centre of three main drivers of growth in Asia
> --India, China and South East Asia region. But the country has failed
> to take advantage of its geographical position by developing
> connectivity with the three economies for various reasons.
>
> One of the reasons is the opposition from BNP, Prime Minister Sheikh
> Hasina's son Sajeeb Wazed Joy has said.
>
> "Without connectivity and trade in this age of globalisation, the pace
> of growth and investment will not increase," Sajeeb told The Daily
> Star after a luncheon meeting organised by American Chamber of
> Commerce in Bangladesh (AmCham) at Dhaka Sheraton Hotel yesterday.
>
> Sajeeb also shared his opinions on confrontational politics, business
> climate and Bangladesh's potential to almost double its present
> economic growth at nearly 6 percent.
>
> "They [BNP] have taken the name of Bangladesh Nationalist Party
> literally and…sort of confusing nationalism with isolationism," he
> said at the programme.
>
> "Fortunately, Awami League does not believe in that," he said, adding,
> AL has moved to establish Bangladesh's connectivity with the region,
> which will facilitate expansion of trade, transport and investment and
> boost the country's nearly $100 billion economy.
>
> "We'll gain financially. We will get fees for transit of all goods
> through our land."
>
> Aside from connectivity with India, the country will have road links
> with Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia through the Asian Highway allowing
> easy access of our goods to those countries, he observed.
>
> In addition, as China will be linked with the Asian Highway, bilateral
> trade between Bangladesh and China will shoot up.
>
> "Ultimately, it'll benefit us," said Sajeeb, an IT professional with
> graduation from Texas University at Arlington, USA.
>
> He, however, could not say whether the AL-led government has conducted
> any study as to how much Bangladesh will gain for providing
> connectivity to other countries.
>
> But he cited a report unveiled at the meeting on the prospect of gains
> of enhanced trade, investment and economic activities and said, "Many
> studies were done internationally. You will get it if you go through
> them."
>
> The report, published by Washington-based Asia Advisory Committee,
> observed that Bangladesh's location could provide it with numerous
> advantages and opportunities over the next 10 to 20 years, if it
> develops its economic environment and connecting infrastructure.
>
> "It is connectivity. Transit is an aspect. India will get transit and
> we will get a fee. We must get a fee. Why not," said Sajeeb, who is
> believed to provide policy advice to realise AL's promise for a
> Digital Bangladesh by 2021.
>
> The government has almost finalised the agreement with India and taken
> different steps to improve its rail and road network and other
> infrastructures including telecommunication.
>
> On the impact of confrontational politics on business, Sajeeb said the
> business climate has been affected for lack of "political capability"
> of a political party.
>
> According to him, the "only way" to ensure economic growth, political
> stability and sustainable democracy in the country is to keep AL in
> power.
>
> He has recently become a member of the party.
>
> Asked whether it is good for politics if one party stays in power for
> long, he said: "It's not bad for politics. Malaysia and Singapore have
> made progress because of one party. They did not advance by changing
> parties."
>
> http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=165394
>



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] grameen bank




Grameen: Norway gives all-clear to Bangladesh bank

Women in BangladeshThe Grameen Bank has specialised in giving small loans to women

Related stories

Norway has told the BBC that there are "no more unanswered questions" into claims that the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh wrongly diverted aid cash.








Any comment from Farida Majid /others.....who are champions of ' pre-matured judgement'......when ever a sensational accusation is made!!


best wishes.

khoda hafez.


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA, BANGLADESH AND PAKISTAN 1974



TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA, BANGLADESH AND PAKISTAN FOR NORMALISATION OF RELATIONS IN THE SUB-CONTINENT, 1974

1. On July 2, 1972, the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India signed an historic agreement at Simla under which they resolved that the two countries put to an end the conflict and confrontation that has hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of a durable peace in the sub-continent. The Agreement also provided for the settlement of "their difference by peaceful means by bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon.

2. Bangladesh welcomed the Simla Agreement. The Prime Minister of Bangladesh strongly supported its objective of reconciliation, good neighborliness' and establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent.

3. The humanitarian problem arising in the wake of the tragic events of 1971 constituted a major obstacle in the way of reconciliation and normalization among the countries of the sub-continent. In the absence of reconciliation, it was not possible to have tripartite talks to settle the humanitarian problems, as Bangladesh could not participate in such meeting on the basis of sovereign equality.

4. On April 17, 1973, India and Bangladesh took a major step forward to break the deadlock on the humanitarian issues by setting aside the political problems of recognition. In a Declaration issued on the date they said that they "are resolved to continue their efforts to reduce tension, promote friendly and harmonious relationship in the sub-continent and work together towards the establishment of a durable peace ". Inspired by the vision and "in the larger interest of reconciliation, peace and stability in the sub-continent" they jointly proposed that the problem of the detained and stranded persons should be resolved on humanitarian considerations through simultaneous repatriation of all such persons except those Pakistani prisoners of war who might be required by the Government of Bangladesh for trial on certain charges.

5. Following the Declaration there were a series of talks between India and Bangladesh and India and Pakistan. These talks resulted in an agreement at Delhi on August 28, 1973 between India and Pakistan with the concurrence of Bangladesh, which provided for a solution of the outstanding humanitarian problems.

6. In pursuance of the Agreement, the process of three-way repatriation commenced on September 19, 1973. So far nearly 300,000 persons have been repatriated which has generated an atmosphere of reconciliation and paved the way for normalization of relations in the sub-continent.

7. In February 1974, recognition took place thus facilitating the participation of Bangladesh in the tripartite meeting envisaged in the Delhi Agreement, on the basis of sovereign equality. Accordingly His Excellency Dr.Kamal Hossain, Foreign Minster of the Government of Bangladesh, His Excellency Sardar Swaran Singh, Minister of External Affairs, Government of India and His Excellency Mr.Aziz Ahmed, the Minister of State for Defense and Foreign Affairs of the Government of Pakistan met in New Delhi from April 5 to April 9, 1974 and discussed the various issues mentioned in the Delhi Agreement in particular the question of the 195 prisoners of war and the completion of the three-way process of repatriation involving Bangalees in Pakistan, Pakistanis in Bangladesh and Pakistani prisoners of war in India.

8. The Ministries reviewed the progress of the three-way repatriation under the Delhi Agreement of August 28, 1973. They were gratified that such a large number of persons detained or stranded in the three countries had since reached their destinations.

9. The Ministers also considered steps that needed to be taken in order expeditiously to bring the process of the three-way repatriation to a satisfactory conclusion.

10. The Indian side stated that the remaining Pakistani prisoners of war and civilians internees in India to be repatriated under the Delhi Agreement, numbering approximately 6,500, would be repatriated at the usual pace of rain on alternate days and the likely short-fall [text illegible] ..to April 10, 1974 on account of Kumb Mela, would be made up by running additional trains after April 19. It was thus hoped that the repatriation of prisoners of war would be completed by the end of April 1974.

11. The Pakistani side stated that the repatriation of Bangladesh nationals from Pakistan was approaching completion. The remaining Bangladesh nationals in Pakistan would also repatriated without let or hindrance.

12. In respect of non-Bangalees in Bangladesh, the Pakistan side stated that the Government of Pakistan had already issued clearances for movement to Pakistan in favor of those non-Bangalees who were either domiciled in former West Pakistan, were employees of the Central Government and their families or were members of the divided families, irrespective of their original domicile. The issuance of the clearance to 25,000 persons who constitute hardship cases was also in progress. The Pakistan side reiterated that all those who fall under the first three categorize would be received by Pakistan without any limits to numbers. In respect of persons whose applications had been rejected, the Government of Pakistan would upon request, provide reasons why any particular case was rejected. Any aggrieved applicant could, at any time, seek a review of his application provided he was able to supply new facts or further information to the Government of Pakistan in support of his contention that he qualified in one or other of the three categories. The claims of such persons would not be time-barred. In the event of the decision of the review of a case being adverse, the Government of Pakistan and Bangladesh might seek to resolve it by mutual consultation.

13. The question of 195 Pakistani prisoners of war was discussed by the three Ministers, in the context of the earnest desire of the Governments for reconciliation, peace and friendship in the sub-continent. The Foreign Minister of Bangladesh stated that the excesses and manifold crimes committed by these prisoners of war constituted according to the relevant provisions of the U.N General Assembly Resolutions and International Law, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and that there was universal consensus that persons charged with such crimes as the 195 Pakistani prisoners of war should be held to account and subjected to the dues process of Law. The Minister of State for Defense and Foreign Affairs of the Government of Pakistan said that his Government condemned and deeply regretted any crimes that may have been committed.

14. In this connection the three Ministers noted that the matter should be viewed in the context of the determination of the three countries to continue resolutely to work for reconciliation. The Minister further noted that following recognition, the Prime Minister of Pakistan declared that he would visit Bangladesh in response to the invitation of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh and appeal to the people of Bangladesh, to forgive and forget the mistakes of the past. Similarly, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh had declared with regard to the atrocities and destruction committed in Bangladesh in 1971 that he wanted the people to forget the past and to make a fresh start,
stating that the people of Bangladesh knew how to forgive.

15. In the light of the foregoing and, in particular, having regard to the appeal of the Prime Minister of Pakistan to the people of Bangladesh to forgive and forget the mistakes of the past, the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh stated that the Government of Bangladesh has decided not to proceed with the trials as an act of clemency. It was agreed that the 195 prisoners of war may be repatriated to Pakistan along with the other prisoners of war now in process of repatriation under the Delhi Agreement.

16. The Minister expressed their convictions that the above agreements provide a firm basis for the resolution of the humanitarian problems arising out of the conflict of 1971. They reaffirmed the vital stake of seven hundred million people of the three countries have in peace and progress and reiterated the resolve of their Governments to work for the promotion of normalization of relations and the establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent.

Signed in New Delhi on April 9, 1974 in three original, each of which is equally authentic.

Sd/-
Dr.Kamal Hossain, Foreign Minster of the Government of Bangladesh,

Sd/-
Sardar Swaran Singh, Minister of External Affairs, Government of India

Sd/-
Mr.Aziz Ahmed, the Minister of State for Defense and Foreign Affairs of the Government of Pakistan



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] grameen bank



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11947902




Grameen: Norway gives all-clear to Bangladesh bank

Women in BangladeshThe Grameen Bank has specialised in giving small loans to women

Related stories

Norway has told the BBC that there are "no more unanswered questions" into claims that the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh wrongly diverted aid cash.

A spokesman for the foreign ministry in Oslo said that the matter had been thoroughly investigated and that it considered it to be closed.

A documentary alleged that nearly $100m of Norwegian aid was transferred from Grameen Bank to other parts of Grameen.






__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Pandora's box?

ARMY OFFICERS' TRIAL DURING ZIA REGIME
Re-investigation likely, says PM

The Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, told parliament on Wednesday that
her government did not take any decision regarding re-investigation of
the trials in which a number of freedom fighter army officers were
hanged during Ziaur Rahman's administration.

But, she said, the issue was under consideration of the government.
She said the government took no decision yet regarding 'the so
called trials' that took place during the regime of 'illegal state
power occupant general Ziaur Rahman in which a number of army officers
were hanged.'

'But the issue is under consideration of the government,' she said
replying to a question from ruling party lawmaker, Chayan Islam during
the prime minister's question hour.Chayan wanted to know when, if at
all, the re-investigation took place.

http://www.newagebd.com/2010/dec/09/front.html

http://www.samakal.com.bd/details.php?news=13&action=main&option=single&news_id=114641&pub_no=537


------------------------------------

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ALOCHONA] Joy pulls for connectivity

Joy pulls for connectivity

Tells The Daily Star about negative politics by BNP, why AL should
stay in power for longer time

Bangladesh sits at the centre of three main drivers of growth in Asia
--India, China and South East Asia region. But the country has failed
to take advantage of its geographical position by developing
connectivity with the three economies for various reasons.

One of the reasons is the opposition from BNP, Prime Minister Sheikh
Hasina's son Sajeeb Wazed Joy has said.

"Without connectivity and trade in this age of globalisation, the pace
of growth and investment will not increase," Sajeeb told The Daily
Star after a luncheon meeting organised by American Chamber of
Commerce in Bangladesh (AmCham) at Dhaka Sheraton Hotel yesterday.

Sajeeb also shared his opinions on confrontational politics, business
climate and Bangladesh's potential to almost double its present
economic growth at nearly 6 percent.

"They [BNP] have taken the name of Bangladesh Nationalist Party
literally and…sort of confusing nationalism with isolationism," he
said at the programme.

"Fortunately, Awami League does not believe in that," he said, adding,
AL has moved to establish Bangladesh's connectivity with the region,
which will facilitate expansion of trade, transport and investment and
boost the country's nearly $100 billion economy.

"We'll gain financially. We will get fees for transit of all goods
through our land."

Aside from connectivity with India, the country will have road links
with Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia through the Asian Highway allowing
easy access of our goods to those countries, he observed.

In addition, as China will be linked with the Asian Highway, bilateral
trade between Bangladesh and China will shoot up.

"Ultimately, it'll benefit us," said Sajeeb, an IT professional with
graduation from Texas University at Arlington, USA.

He, however, could not say whether the AL-led government has conducted
any study as to how much Bangladesh will gain for providing
connectivity to other countries.

But he cited a report unveiled at the meeting on the prospect of gains
of enhanced trade, investment and economic activities and said, "Many
studies were done internationally. You will get it if you go through
them."

The report, published by Washington-based Asia Advisory Committee,
observed that Bangladesh's location could provide it with numerous
advantages and opportunities over the next 10 to 20 years, if it
develops its economic environment and connecting infrastructure.

"It is connectivity. Transit is an aspect. India will get transit and
we will get a fee. We must get a fee. Why not," said Sajeeb, who is
believed to provide policy advice to realise AL's promise for a
Digital Bangladesh by 2021.

The government has almost finalised the agreement with India and taken
different steps to improve its rail and road network and other
infrastructures including telecommunication.

On the impact of confrontational politics on business, Sajeeb said the
business climate has been affected for lack of "political capability"
of a political party.

According to him, the "only way" to ensure economic growth, political
stability and sustainable democracy in the country is to keep AL in
power.

He has recently become a member of the party.

Asked whether it is good for politics if one party stays in power for
long, he said: "It's not bad for politics. Malaysia and Singapore have
made progress because of one party. They did not advance by changing
parties."

http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=165394


------------------------------------

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ALOCHONA] Grameen Bank : Norad report in short

Grameen Bank : Norad report in short

The documentation of the case provides several explanations as to why
Grameen Bank decided to transfer gift funds to Grameen Kalyan.

We (The Daily Star ) are publishing the abridged version of the
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) letter to the
Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs to review matters regarding
Grameen Bank:( Daily Star)

Date: December 6, 2010

Order from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to review matters relating
to Grameen Bank

Order

We refer to the telephone call and written notification from the
Ministry on December 1 ordering an overall presentation / explanation
of the issues related to the handling of Norad's support to Grameen
Bank.

Sources:

* Norad has reviewed the documentation found in both Norad's archives
and in the embassy's archives relating to the case.

* Einar Landmark, first secretary at the Norwegian Embassy in Dhaka,
Bangladesh, 1996-1999.

Facts:

* Assistance given by Norad and other donors to Grameen Bank's
revolving funds in the period 1985-1996 was transferred from Grameen
Bank to Grameen Kalyan in 1996.

* Grameen Kalyan then loaned these funds back to Grameen Bank.

* The transfer between Grameen Bank and Grameen Kalyan was discovered
by the Embassy during a routine review of Grameen Bank's annual report
for 1996.

* The transaction was from the Norwegian side seen as a violation of
the agreements between Norway and Bangladesh.

* The formal breach was about Phase IV, an amount of 106 million
Norwegian Crowns (NOK), as previous agreements had already concluded.

* Funding for revolving funds under Phase IV, a total of 106 million
NOK, was returned in full to Grameen Bank after negotiations between
Grameen Bank and Norway. In addition, 64 million NOK related to Phase
III were returned.

Background

Norway supported Grameen Bank in the period from 1986 to 1997,
regulated by 8 agreements. According to the Embassy, under these
agreements a total of 396.45 million NOK were appropriated and a total
of 392.693 million NOK were paid out. In addition, 1.343 million NOK,
covered by the last annual appropriation, were used for a final
evaluation.

In the first years, in addition to financing the revolving fund, donor
support to Grameen Bank largely went to build up Grameen Bank's
infrastructure and to finance institution-building (Phase II and III).
Phase IV was mainly concerned with funding for the revolving funds. In
addition, Norad provided support to relief and rehabilitation efforts
after natural disasters. This support to the victims of two natural
disasters, who had their homes and other assets lost or destroyed, was
given through 4 contracts from 1988 to 1992.

In December of 1997, while reviewing Grameen Bank's "Annual Report
'96", the Embassy discovered in a footnote to the financial statements
major accounting changes in the composition of Grameen Bank's balance
sheet effective as of December 31,1996. According to a note from the
Embassy dated February 10, 1998, the changed postings concerned aid
funds.

According to a note dated February 10,1998, the Embassy contacted
Grameen Bank, requesting a more detailed explanation. In response,
they were sent a copy of the agreement between Grameen Bank and
Grameen Kalyan, as well as the statutes of Grameen Kalyan. The embassy
at that time had no knowledge of the company Grameen Kalyan.

It turned out that Grameen Bank had transferred all the revolving loan
funds that had been provided as grants from donors, totaling about 540
million NOK, to the company Grameen Kalyan. In addition, an internally
generated fund (Social Advancement Fund) of about 68.5 million NOK had
been transferred. Combined, the transfer consisted of 608.5 million
NOK. An equivalent amount was recorded as debt from Grameen Bank to
Grameen Kalyan. Ownership of the assets was thus transferred to
Grameen Kalyan, to then be loaned back to Grameen Bank. The Norwegian
share concerned funds related to the revolving fund of Grameen Bank
Phase III and IV.

Specifications, retrieved from a note dated February 10, 1998 on the
distribution of the funds that had been transferred from the Grameen
Bank to Grameen Kalyan (in local currency, Bangladeshi Taka):

General & collective loans - 1,244,811,572.85

Housing loans (members) - 1,814,903,911.70

Housing loans (employees - 87,340,075.68

Bicycle loans - 24,793,912.00

Social Advancement Fund (SAF) - 442,512,624.00

Total - 3,914,362,096.43

This corresponded to a total of NOK 608.5 million according to the
exchange rate at the time.

The agreement between Grameen Bank and Grameen Kalyan

Grameen Kalyan means "Grameen Wellbeing" and was founded in 1996. The
company was organized as a limited warranty non-profit company for the
participants. The profit was to remain in the company, and upon
dissolution of the company assets were to be transferred to a company
with similar purposes.

According to the Embassy's note dated February 10, 1998, Grameen
Kalyan's statutes would allow them to use their funds for a wide
variety of purposes:

a) Provide loans and grants to Grameen Bank's employees and members
with families.

b) Grant matching funds to companies owned and operated by Grameen
Bank's employees.

c) Provide loans to other companies associated with Grameen Bank.

d) Offer medical, health and sanitation services for Grameen Bank
members and employees.

e) Promote and establish partnership companies, joint ventures, public
limited companies and insurance companies.

f) Organize education and training programs for members and employees
of Grameen Bank.

g) Promote new and adapted technologies and innovative ideas for
development of small businesses.

h) Conduct research and carry out experiments to find ways to bring
about socio-economic changes for members of Grameen Bank.

i) Support, conduct and arrange training programs, seminars, workshops
and meetings between NGOs and other local agencies and individuals to
achieve Grameen Kalyan's goals.

j) Receive gifts, grants, aid, donations of all kinds to organize,
establish and maintain capital and assets.

k) Obtain funds from various local and international donor
organizations and from the government to carry out relief and
rehabilitation after natural disasters or other catastrophes.

l) Remedy all sorts of disasters that affect the life and property of
Grameen Bank members and staff.

m) Buy, rent or otherwise secure the necessary property or rights to
build or maintain housing for Grameen Bank members and staff.

n) Become a member of local or international organizations to promote
Grameen Kalyan's objectives.

o) Open bank accounts and take loans.

p) Invest capital in securities, receivables, shares, etc.

q) Promote, organize and establish branch offices of Grameen Kalyan.

r) Perform other functions that will work to develop the country in
general and improve the socio-economic conditions for the poor in
particular.

It was stated in the statutes that no part of Grameen Kalyan's income
and assets is to be paid to members of Grameen Kalyan in any form. In
the event of the dissolution of the company, assets were to be
transferred to a company with a similar mission statement. The
agreement between Grameen Kalyan and Grameen Bank further made clear
that Grameen Kalyan could both implement the requirement to pay
installments on the loan from Grameen Bank, and charge interest on
loans except on mortgages.

When the relationship was revealed, the project's Phase III had
already been completed and Phase IV was underway. These two phases
were the subject of discussion between Norway and Grameen Bank.
According to a note dated February 10, 1998, the Embassy's assessment
was that the transaction breached the agreement for the ongoing
support during Grameen Bank Phase IV. These funds from Norad were
meant to go into a revolving fund for housing loans at Grameen Bank,
from which Grameen Bank members would get loans. Grameen Kalyan had
other and far wider purposes and lacked a license to engage in lending
activities. A letter from Grameen Bank, dated January 8, 1998, points
out that money that was loaned back to the Grameen Bank was used for
the same purpose as was the original intent of the agreement. However,
Grameen Kalyan could require repayment of the loan. The Embassy's
February 10, 1998 response makes clear that they think also previous
support for revolving loan funds, i.e. Phase III, should continue to
be under the control of Grameen Bank. These funds both represented
values for Grameen Bank's owners (members), and secured their future
access to loan funds.

Grameen Kalyan's mission statement allowed the company to engage in a
much broader area. Grameen Kalyan had the opportunity to gain income
from interest which would be paid back from Grameen Bank to Grameen
Kalyan in addition to the loan installments.

Matters relating to the transfer from Grameen Bank to Grameen Kalyan

The documentation of the case provides several explanations as to why
Grameen Bank decided to transfer gift funds to Grameen Kalyan.

According to the Embassy in a note dated February 10, 1998, Mohammad
Yunus said at a December 3, 1997 meeting that "the main purpose of the
transaction was to reduce tax obligations, and to secure funds for the
members of Grameen Bank."

At that time, Grameen Bank had tax exempt status and the Embassy found
this explanation and clarification unconvincing. In a letter dated
January 8, 1998, Yunus explains that the internal allocation of 2% of
the interest payments on loans (SAF fund) could possibly be taxed at
40% as Grameen Bank's tax exemption would according to Grameen Bank
most likely expire the same year. In its statement to Brennpunkt (a
Norwegian documentary program), Grameen Bank again referred to the tax
issue as the explanation for the transfer of funds to Grameen Kalyan.
The Embassy points out in its memo of February 10, 1998 that at the
time the support was granted, the Norwegian side would most probably
not have accepted organizational constructs to prevent the ordinary
taxation of possible future economic gains.

In a subsequent written communication it was also noted that Grameen
Kalyan was going to administer the loan funds to Grameen Bank in such
a way that Grameen Bank would feel pressure to demand repayment of
loans from its members.

The Embassy concluded in its memo of February 10, 1998 that
"Explanations from the management of Grameen Bank on what has been the
purpose of entering into the agreement with Grameen Kalyan leave
uncertainty and are not convincing."

Embassy Evaluation

The Embassy presented the matter to Norad in a note of February 10,
1998. The Legal Department issued a statement, and it was agreed that
the Embassy would require that the ownership of the Norwegian aid
funds that had been transferred from Grameen Bank to Grameen Kalyan
and then borrowed back from Grameen Kalyan to Grameen Bank, be brought
back to Grameen Bank.

Assistance to Grameen Bank was provided as a part of government to
government cooperation between Bangladesh and Norway. Therefore, the
Embassy discussed the matter with the Bangladeshi authorities in the
Ministry of Finance, Economic Relations Division. Meeting minutes
dated March 16, 1998 make it explicit that the government agreed with
the Norwegian assessment that ownership of the funds should be
returned to Grameen Bank. They took the matter up with Grameen Bank,
but then gave notice to the Embassy that it was okay if the matter was
handled between Grameen Bank and Norway directly.

The Embassy consulted local legal expertise. This review showed that
the Embassy had a weak legal basis for demanding the return of funds
from Phase III, as that agreement was concluded. Norad's Legal
Department came to the same conclusion in a May 11, 1998 memo.

Grameen Bank and Grameen Kalyan suggested to the Embassy that the
revolving funds under Phase IV from 1993 and 1994, a total of NOK 106
million, be returned. The Embassy received authorization from Norad to
negotiate on this basis, but with a view to achieving full recovery,
even of funds from Phase III. After negotiations between Grameen Bank,
Grameen Kalyan and the Embassy, the Embassy managed to gain acceptance
also for the full return of the revolving loan funds from Phase III.
This involved the return of a total of 170 million NOK.

With this, Norad and the Embassy's requirements were met. When the
Embassy in a letter dated May 26, 1998 coined the term "compromise",
it was linked to Grameen Bank's invitation to negotiate a compromise.
The Embassy and Norad had all their demands met through the
negotiations. Payments of support for Grameen Bank during Phase IV
were completed in 1997. A project evaluation was conducted in 1998-99.
The Embassy received reports from Grameen Bank until 2001 and formally
concluded the funding agreement in 2003.

The much discussed case of the transfers between Grameen Bank and
Grameen Kalyan was according to the Embassy closed in a satisfactory
way, which the Embassy expressed in a letter to Grameen Bank, dated
May 26, 1998:

"The Embassy highly appreciates your cooperation in solving this
issue, and is pleased to have arrived at a solution which is
satisfactory for Grameen Bank as well as the Embassy. The Embassy
looks forward to continued good cooperation in the future."

Other

Regarding the assertion in Brennpunkt about NOK 50 million of
Norwegian aid money spent on Grameen Phone, the following is
documented:

According to the Embassy's memo dated February 10, 1998, the loan to
Grameen Telecom was in regards to funds from the Social Advancement
Fund (SAF), a fund created within the Grameen Bank to set aside 2% of
the interest payments from borrowers' income-generating loans.
Norwegian aid funds allocated under the above eight agreements were
not used to fund Grameen Telecom

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=165393


------------------------------------

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ALOCHONA] facts



I See Something and I'm Saying Something

by Szandor Blestman
December 9, 2010



.................................................    I see criminal governments. I see them all across the globe, but the most egregious one is the one I see in Washington, DC. They have been engaging in criminal behavior for decades. They have been working on destroying the very documents that brought them into being. They break the law by completely ignoring the Constitution, the highest law in the land. 


They have completely trashed the Bill of Rights. They are aiding and abetting their friends and campaign contributors in the central banking business. They are helping their multi national corporate buddies to monopolize the economy in this nation and economies around the world. 


I see them stealing hard earned money in the form of taxation and wasting it paying for unnecessary destruction, interest on debt and other programs detrimental to societies interested in individual liberty. What authorities can I report to which will bring these people to justice?











__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

RE: [ALOCHONA] The Yunus Saga



Farida majid and other pseudo-intellectuals have all the time to condemn Prof Yunus and other nationalists, ho are offering assistance to the community.


But she has no time to expose the corruption, inefficiency of Hasina and AL leaders.

What type of image Bangladesh has, with the violent activities of AL pandas and gundas, in recent months?

best wishes.

khoda hafez.







To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
From: farida_majid@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:50:12 -0500
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] The Yunus Saga



          Not too long ago we had a discussion on microcredit and how it is really an extension of neoliberal capitalism in the guise of NGO that does more harm to the poor by sucking their money and globalising it.
             
            Why is suddenly all this venom against PM Hasina for accusing Grameen for being a cruel and unforgiving moneylender, something that is the buzz in all corners of the world?  Any sitting Govt. should express concern over tax evasion when such a large sum is transfered from a Bank and into a Trust/Kalyan in a questionable transaction.
 
               Please have another look at the article from Himal Magazine as you sing the praise of "Noble" Younus:
-------------------------------------------------------

  As you read this imp. article on Grameenism keep in mind the The [George] Soros Syndrome.
 
 Excerpt from "The Soros Syndrome" by Alexander Cockburn:
 
In other words, foundations, nonprofits, NGOs—call them what you will—can on occasion perform nobly, but overall their increasing power moves in step with the temper of our times: privatization of political action, directly overseen and manipulated by the rich and their executives. The tradition of voluntarism is extinguished by the professional, very well-paid do-good bureaucracy.
 
I'm still not sure why Ralph Nader, in his vast 2008 novel Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us, embraced the proposition embodied in the title (unless the whole exercise was an extended foray into irony). As an international class, the superrich are emphatically not interested in saving us, beyond advocating reforms required to stave off serious social unrest.
 
For many decades the superrich in this country  thought that the major threat to social stability lay in overpopulation and the unhealthy gene pool of the poor. Their endowments and NGOs addressed themselves diligently to these questions, by means of enforced sterilization, exclusion of Slavs and Jews from America's shores and other expedients, advanced by the leading liberals of the day.
 
More recently, "globalization" and "sustainability" have become necessary mantras, and foolish is the grant applicant who does not flourish both words. NGOs endowed by the rich are instinctively hostile to radical social change, at least in any terms that a left-winger of the 1950s or '60s would understand. The US environmental movement is now strategically supervised  and thus neutered as a radical force by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the lead dispenser of patronage and money. 

              Refect upon "patroange" and its desirability when you stave off attempts to make any structural change to the govt.
 
                      Farida

 


Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:08:08 -0700
Subject: MUST READ: The dangers of Grameenism & microcredit

 



The danger of Grameenism  

October 2010

By: Patrick Bond
HIMAL MAGAZINE

Far from being a panacea for fighting rural poverty, microcredit can impose additional burdens on the rural poor, without markedly improving their socio-economic condition. (Also belowKhorshed Alam on why microcredit initiatives inspired by Mohammad Yunus's vision and implemented by Grameen Bank and other NGOs have not gone nearly as well in Bangladesh as has been publicised worldwide.) 


For years, the example of microcredit in Bangladesh has been touted as a model of how the rural poor can lift themselves out of poverty. This widely held perception was boosted in 2006, when Mohammad Yunus and Grameen Bank, the microfinance institution he set up, jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize. In Southasia in particular, and the world in general, microcredit has become a gospel of sorts, with Yunus as its prophet. 

Consider this outlandish claim, made by Yunus as he got started in the late 1970s: 'Poverty will be eradicated in a generation. Our children will have to go to a 'poverty museum' to see what all the fuss was about.' According to Milford Bateman, a senior research fellow at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) in London who is one of the world's experts on Grameen and microcredit, the reason this rhetoric resonated with international donors during the era of neoliberal globalisation, was that 'they love the non-state, self-help, fiscally-responsible and individual entrepreneurship angles.' 

Grameen's origins are sourced to a discussion Yunus had with Sufiya Begum, a young mother who, he recalled, 'was making a stool made of bamboo. She gets five taka from a business person to buy the bamboo and sells to him for five and a half taka, earning half a taka as her income for the day. She will never own five taka herself and her life will always be steeped into poverty. How about giving her a credit for five taka that she uses to buy the bamboo, sell her product in free market, earn a better profit and slowly pay back the loan?' Describing Begum and the first 42 borrowers in Jobra village in Bangladesh, Yunus waxed eloquent: 'Even those who seemingly have no conceptual thought, no ability to think of yesterday or tomorrow, are in fact quite intelligent and expert at the art of survival. Credit is the key that unlocks their humanity.' 


But what is the current situation in Jobra? Says Bateman, 'It's still trapped in deep poverty, and now debt. And what is the response from Grameen Bank? All research in the village is now banned!' As for Begum, says Bateman, 'she actually died in abject poverty in 1998 after all her many tiny income-generating projects came to nothing.' The reason, Bateman argues, is simple: 'It turns out that as more and more 'poverty-push' micro-enterprises were crowded into the same local economic space, the returns on each micro-enterprise began to fall dramatically. Starting a new trading business or a basket-making operation or driving a rickshaw required few skills and only a tiny amount of capital, but such a project generated very little income indeed because everyone else was pretty much already doing exactly the same things in order to survive.'

Contrary to the carefully cultivated media image, Yunus is not contributing to peace or social justice. In fact, he is an extreme neoliberal ideologue. To quote his philosophy, as expressed in his 1998 autobiography, Banker to the Poor

I believe that 'government', as we know it today, should pull out of most things except for law enforcement and justice, national defense and foreign policy, and let the private sector, a 'Grameenized private sector', a social-consciousness-driven private sector, take over their other functions.
At the time as he wrote those words, governments across the world, especially in the United States, were pulling back from regulating financial markets. In 1999, for example, Larry Summers (then US Treasury secretary and now President Barack Obama's overall economics tsar) set the stage for the crash of financial-market instruments known as derivatives, by refusing to regulate them as he had been advised. 

The resulting financial crisis, peaking in 2008, should have changed Yunus's tune. After all, the catalysing event in 2007 was the rising default rate on a rash of 'subprime mortgage' loans given to low-income US borrowers. These are the equivalent of Grameen's loans to very poor Bangladeshis, except that Yunus did not go so far as the US lenders in allowing them to be securitised with overvalued real estate. 

Yunus has long argued that 'credit is a fundamental human right', not just a privilege for those with access to bank accounts and formal employment. But reflect on this matter and you quickly realise how inappropriate it is to compare bank debt – a liability that can be crushing to so many who do not survive the rigours of neoliberal markets - with crucial political and civil liberties, health care, water, nutrition, education, environment, housing and the other rights guaranteed in the constitutions of countries around the world. 

Microcredit mantras
By early 2009, as the financial crisis tightened its grip on the world, Yunus had apparently backed away from his long-held posture. At that time, he told India's MicroFinance Focus magazine the very opposite of what he had been saying: 'If somebody wants to do microcredit – fine. I wouldn't say this is something everybody should have' (emphasis added). Indeed, the predatory way that credit was introduced to vulnerable US communities in recent years means that Yunus must now distinguish his Grameen Bank's strategy of 'real' microcredit from microcredit 'which has a different motivation'. As Yunus told MicroFinance Focus, 'Whenever something gets popular, there are people who take advantage of that and misuse it.'

To be sure, Yunus also unveiled a more radical edge in that interview, interpreting the crisis in the following terms. 'The root causes are the wrong structure, the capitalism structure that we have,' he said. 'We have to redesign the structure we are operating in. Wrong, unsustainable lifestyle.' Fair enough. But in the next breath, Yunus was back to neoliberalism, arguing that state microfinance regulation 'should be promotional, a cheerleader.'

For Yunus, regulators are apparently anathema, especially if they clamp down on what are, quite frankly, high-risk banking practices, such as hiding bad debts. As the Wall Street Journal conceded in late 2001, a fifth of the Grameen Bank's loans were more than a year past their due date: 'Grameen would be showing steep losses if the bank followed the accounting practices recommended by institutions that help finance microlenders through low-interest loans and private investments.' A typical financial sleight-of-hand resorted to by Grameen is to reschedule short-term loans that are unpaid after as long as two years; thus, instead of writing them off, it lets borrowers accumulate interest through new loans simply to keep alive the fiction of repayments on the old loans. Not even extreme pressure techniques – such as removing tin roofs from delinquent women's houses, according to the Journal report – improved repayment rates in the most crucial areas, where Grameen had earlier won its global reputation among neoliberals who consider credit and entrepreneurship as central prerequisites for development. 

By the early 2000s, even the huckster-rich microfinance industry had felt betrayed by Yunus' tricks. 'Grameen Bank had been at best lax, and more likely at worst, deceptive in reporting its financial performance,' wrote leading microfinance promoter J D Von Pischke of the World Bank in reaction to the Journal's revelations. 'Most of us in the trade probably had long suspected that something was fishy.' Agreed Ross Croulet of the African Development Bank, 'I myself have been suspicious for a long time about the true situation of Grameen so often disguised by Dr Yunus's global stellar status.' 
Several years earlier, Yunus was weaned off the bulk of his international donor support, reportedly USD 5 million a year, which until then had reduced the interest rate he needed to charge borrowers and still make a profit. Grameen had allegedly become 'sustainable' and self-financing, with costs to be fully borne by borrowers. 

To his credit, Yunus had also battled backward patriarchal and religious attitudes in Bangladesh, and his hard work extended credit to millions of people. Today there are around 20,000 Grameen staffers servicing 6.6 million borrowers in 45,000 Bangladeshi villages, lending an average of USD 160 per borrower (about USD 100 million/month in new credits), without collateral, an impressive accomplishment by any standards. The secret to such high turnover was that poor women were typically arranged in groups of five: two got the first tranche of credit, leaving the other three as 'chasers' to pressure repayment, so that they could in turn get the next loans. 

At a time of new competitors, adverse weather conditions (especially the 1998 floods) and a backlash by borrowers who used the collective power of non-payment, Grameen imposed dramatic increases in the price of repaying loans. That Grameen was gaining leverage over women – instead of giving them economic liberation – is a familiar accusation. In 1995, New Internationalist magazine probed Yunus about the 16 'resolutions' he required his borrowers to accept, including 'smaller families'. When New Internationalist suggested this 'smacked of population control', Yunus replied, 'No, it is very easy to convince people to have fewer children. Now that the women are earners, having more children means losing money.' The long history of forced sterilisation in the Third World is often justified in such narrow economic terms.

In the same spirit of commodifying everything, Yunus set up a relationship with the biotechnology giant Monsanto to promote biotech and agrochemical products in 1998, which, New Internationalist reported, 'was cancelled due to public pressure.' As Sarah Blackstock reported in the same magazine the following year: 'Away from their homes, husbands and the NGOs that disburse credit to them, the women feel safe to say the unmentionable in Bangladesh – microcredit isn't all it's cracked up to be … What has really sold microcredit is Yunus's seductive oratorical skill.' But that skill, Blackstock explains, allows Yunus and leading imitators 
to ascribe poverty to a lack of inspiration and depoliticise it by refusing to look at its causes. Microcredit propagators are always the first to advocate that poor people need to be able to help themselves. The kind of microcredit they promote isn't really about gaining control, but ensuring the key beneficiaries of global capitalism aren't forced to take any responsibility for poverty.
 

The big lie

Microfinance gimmickry has done huge damage in countries across the globe. In South Africa in 1998, for instance, when the emerging-markets crisis raised interest rates across the developing world, an increase of seven percent, imposed over two weeks as the local currency crashed, drove many South African borrowers and their microlenders into bankruptcy. Ugandan political economist Dani Nabudere has also rebutted 'the argument which holds that the rural poor need credit which will enable them to improve their productivity and modernise production.' For Nabudere, this 'has to be repudiated for what it is – a big lie.' 

Inside even the most neoliberal financing agency (and Grameen sponsor), the World Bank, these lessons were by obvious by the early 1990s. Sababathy Thillairajah, an economist, had reviewed the Bank's African peasant credit programmes in 1993, and advised colleagues: 'Leave the people alone. When someone comes and asks you for money, the best favour you can give them is to say 'no'… We are all learning at the Bank. Earlier we thought that by bringing in money, financial infrastructure and institutions would be built up – which did not occur quickly.' 

But not long afterwards, Yunus stepped in to help the World Bank with ideological support. When I met Yunus in Johannesburg, not long before South Africa's April 1994 liberation, he vowed he wouldn't take Bank funds. Yet in August 1995, Yunus endorsed the Bank's USD 200 million global line of credit aimed at microfinance for poor women. However, according to ODI's Bateman, the World Bank 'insisted on a few changes: the mantra of 'full cost recovery', the hard-line belief that the poor must pay the full costs of any program ostensibly designed to help them, and the key methodology is to impose high interest rates and to reward employees as Wall Street-style motivation.' 

Bateman also remarks on the damage caused to Bangladesh itself by subscribing to the microcredit gospel: 'Bangladesh was left behind by neighbouring Asian countries, who all choose to deploy a radically different 'development-driven' local financial model: Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, China, Vietnam.' And the countries that were more reliant on neoliberal microfinance soon hit, Bateman insists, 'saturation, with the result of over-indebtedness, 'microcredit bubbles', and small business collapse.' Just as dangerous, Yunus's model actually 'destroys social capital and solidarity,' says Bateman. It is used up 'when repayment is prioritised over development. No technical support is provided, threats are used, assets are seized. And governments use microfinance to cut public spending on the poor and women, who are left to access expensive services from the private sector.' The Yunus phenomenon is, in short, a more pernicious contribution to capitalism than ordinary loan-sharking, because it has been bestowed with such legitimacy

Bateman records extremely high microfinance interest rates 'everywhere'. In Bangladesh, for instance, these are around 30 to 40 percent; in Mexico, they go up as high as 80 percent. No wonder that in the most recent formal academic review of microfinance, by economist Dean Karlan of Yale University, 'There might be little pockets here and there of people who are made better off, but the average effect is weak, if not nonexistent.'

As the Wall Street Journal put it in 2001, 'To many, Grameen proves that capitalism can work for the poor as well as the rich.' And yet the record should prove otherwise, just as the subprime financial meltdown has shown the mirage of finance during periods of capitalist crisis.


The latest figures suggest that nearly 70 million people (out of 150 million total) in Bangladesh are still living below the poverty line; of those, about 30 million are considered to live in chronic poverty. Grameen Bank now has around seven million borrowers in Bangladesh, 97 percent of whom are women. Yet after decades of poverty-alleviation programmes what effect has Grameen had in its home country? The microcredit initiatives inspired by Mohammad Yunus's vision and implemented by Grameen Bank and other NGOs have not gone nearly as well in Bangladesh as has been publicised worldwide. 

To start with, the terms of microcredit in Bangladesh are inflexible and generally far too restrictive – by way of weekly repayment and savings commitments – to allow the borrowers to utilise the newfound credit freely. After all, with a first repayment scheduled for a week after the credit is given, what are the options but petty trading? The effective interest rate stands at 30 to 40 percent, while some suggest it goes upwards of 60 percent in certain situations. Defaulters, therefore, are on the rise, with many being compelled to take out new loans from other sources at even higher interest rates.

Worryingly, in the families of some 82 percent of female borrowers, exchange of dowry has increased since their enrolment with Grameen Bank – it seems that micro-borrowing is seen as enabling the families to pay more dowry than otherwise.

Only five to 10 percent of Grameen borrowers have showed improvement of their quality of life with the help of microcredit, and those who have done will tend to have other sources of income as well. Fully half of the borrowers who could not improve were able to retain their positions by taking out loans from multiple sources; about 45 percent could not do so at all, and their position deteriorated. Many are thus forced to flee the village and try to find work in an urban area or abroad. It has now become clear that most Grameen borrowers spend their newfound credit for their daily livelihood expenditure, rather than on income-generating initiatives.

The main difference between microcredit lenders and feudal moneylenders was that the latter needed collateral. It is true that microcredit has created money flows in rural areas, but also that it created a process through which small-scale landowners can quickly become landless – if one cannot pay back the money at high interest rates, many are forced to sell their land. In cases of failure of timely repayment, instances of seizure by Grameen of tin roofs, pots and pans, and other household goods do take place – amounting to implicit collateral. 

This does not mean that credit is not useful to the poor and powerless. The problem lies in the approach taken. Poverty is conceptualised extremely narrowly, only in terms of cash income; when in fact it has to do with all aspects of life, involving both basic material needs such as food, clothing and housing; and basic human needs such as human dignity and rights, education, health and equity. It is true that the rural economy today has received some momentum from microcredit. But the questions remain: Why has this link failed to make any significant impact on poverty? Why, despite the purported 'success' of microcredit, do people in distress keep migrating to urban centres? Why does a famine-like situation persists in large parts of Bangladesh, particularly in the north? Moreover, why does the number of people under the poverty line keep rising – alongside the rising microcredit?

In fact, poverty has its roots and causes, and expanding the credit net without addressing these will never improve any poverty situation. Experience shows that if countries such as Bangladesh rely heavily on microcredit for alleviating poverty, poverty will remain – to keep the microcredit venture alive. Grameen Bank's 'wonderful story' of prosperity, solidarity and empowerment has only one problem: it never happened. 

~ Khorshed Alam

Patrick Bond is a senior professor at the University of KwaZulu-Natal School of Development Studies Centre for Civil Society in Durban, South Africa. Khorshed Alam is executive director of the Alternative Movement for Resources and Freedom Society, based in Dhaka.


To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
From: Ezajur@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 05:16:54 +0000
Subject: [ALOCHONA] The Yunus Saga

 
`The Yunus saga'
Courtesy New Age 8/12/10


I AGREE with everything Md Mujibul Alam Khan has to say on the `Yunus saga' published in New Age on Monday. However, the Norwegians made it clear that they were not alleging corruption against Yunus. Corruption is alleged against him only by Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League. As it seems, Sheikh Hasina and her leaders can barely contain their glee at this setback for Yunus.
   Both of Hasina's governments should be held accountable for the errors made by the Grameen Bank. Although the prime minister accuses the Grameen Bank and Yunus of being cruel and fraudulent moneylenders who are responsible for ruining many people's lives, she hasn't done anything about it all these years.
   Hasina's concern for the image of Bangladesh abroad is laughable, seeing she did as much to hurt it as anyone else over the years. She never initiated an investigation into the corruption and incompetence within her own party and her government.
   Yunus would bring more honour, good sense and vision to the office than either Sheikh Hasina or Khaleda Zia if he entered politics.
   Ezajur Rahman
   Kuwait






__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___