__._,_.___
So after all the talk of "blood sucking" and "siphoning off billions" the real guilt of our one and only Nobel laureate and globally admired microcredit pioneer and Grameen Bank (GB) founder, is that he is too old to continue as the managing director and that his reappointment was not endorsed by the Bangladesh Bank. Did he become too old yesterday or in the recent past? Prof Muhammad Yunus is now more than 70 years old. So what was the Bangladesh Bank, the finance ministry and the several governments that came and went in the meantime, doing for all these years? Why was the so-called irregularity in his reappointment not corrected earlier? Why the process was not challenged either administratively or in the court of law? Why something that was not an issue for ten years, has suddenly become one?
The answer is simple. The government does want him to go and so he must go. The prime minister made her views clear in a recent press conference when she accused him and microcredit of "sucking the blood" of the poor asserting that "business in the name of the poor will not be allowed". Suddenly Yunus became a villain and was being denigrated in a section of media with false and highly derogatory propaganda. Absurd cases began to be lodged with even more absurd accusations.
Of course, someday, Prof Yunus will have to relinquish responsibility of leading the bank he founded. If he is intelligent enough to win a Nobel Prize, he must be intelligent enough to know that he cannot be Grameen Bank's MD forever. So his succession is but a natural question. But the way the government has so far proceeded clearly shows its malicious intent based neither on the interest of millions of poor borrowers of GB nor in the interest of its better management but on a political and personal vendetta that will greatly harm the image of Bangladesh and the reputation of microcredit as a poverty alleviation tool.
Since the matter of his reappointment is now in the court we will wait for it to guide us on the legal issues. Our focus today is on what Yunus' work represents.
Ever since the end of the Second World War, numerous attempts were made at poverty alleviation but none caught the imagination of the world as microcredit did. Country after country, spread through all the continents, now practise this particular model of extending credit to the poorest segment of society. From countries in the advanced capitalist world of the West, including the USA, France, Spain to the socialist world including China, monarchies like Saudi Arabia and some Gulf states, several countries of Africa and Latin America have now embraced microcredit. As this model of poverty alleviation spread so did the reputation of Bangladesh and of Yunus with the result that the man and the institution he created won the Nobel Peace Prize bringing boundless pride to our people.
How much microcredit has succeeded in alleviating poverty continues to be debated. But the fact that it has helped the poor in some ways is beyond question. There are many studies that prove it.
Those who argue that microcredit entraps a borrower into a cycle of debt focus on few hundred (may be thousands) failed microcredit users and ignores the millions who have benefited. Today there are more than eight million borrowers of GB alone. Together with other microfinance institutions there are about 20 million borrowers. How many of them have become entrapped into a cycle of borrowing -- may be several thousands. Compared to 20 million what percentage is that? This debate needs to be more fact based rather than ideology or prejudice based.
Financial aspect is only one of the total impacts of Prof Yunus' work. No financial institution before GB placed women at the centre of its work. For Bangladesh it had revolutionary consequences. Yunus gave rural Bangladeshi women access to money which they never had. They proved to be judicious and incisive investors and remarkably dependable borrowers with 99 per cent return rate. With money in their hands, women gained confidence, self respect, and a say in the affairs of the family which had been monopolised by men. They invested well and changed the face of women's participation in rural economy.
While women's movements may have brought gender issues to the fore, it is the work of GB, followed by others later, that transformed our rural women, changing forever their mindset, worldview and leadership ability. If money speaks loud, especially in a setting of poverty, then financial empowerment of women that GB brought about gave louder and louder voice to our women. This led to their greater participation in national and local elections and demanding quota in local bodies.
Most importantly the work of GB and numerous NGOs empowered our women, making them conscious of their rights and thereby stemming the possible rise of fundamentalism in our countryside. There can be no denying of the role of our NGOs in fighting fundamentalism, and GB's central role in this process.
With women at the centre of all its activities, GB led the fight against early marriage, dowry, domestic violence, misuse of fatwa, etc. Through the formation of borrowers' group GB launched a socialisation process that created a fraternity among women who, by standing by each other in times of societal and male oppression, created a type of collective resistance that led to the erosion of rural power structure. No wonder religious extremists always hated NGOs and especially the work of GB.
We have written about women at some length simply because women's emancipation lies at the heart of Bangladesh's future and GB's role in it needs to be fully appreciated.
Under the visionary leadership of Yunus, GB moved into innovative partnerships with global companies like Danone, Adidas, Viola, etc. to provide nutritious yogurt, cheap shoes and safe drinking water at affordable prices. Its stunningly successful partnership has been with Telenor of Norway, leading to the formation of GrameenPhone (GP), by far the most successful mobile company in the country, now the highest taxpaying company at Tk 900 crore annually.
All this Yunus did without a single taka of profit for himself. His salary remains fixed at what he gets as managing director of GB (which is equivalent to that of a secretary of the government, without its perks) and he receives nothing from the nearly two dozen companies he has set up. His office is austere with bookshelves, some wooden chairs and a square desk for himself. He shares his quarters with four other senior GB officials in a small five-storey building, each occupying a floor. Till his Nobel Prize he had no personal transport but used the bank's microbus when moving around. His trademark Grameen check (a home grown handloom product) attire is now a well known global trademark that projects Bangladesh's clothes and designs wherever he goes which, these days, is pretty much everywhere.
We in Bangladesh are always complaining that the world is not recognising our achievements and that international media always focuses on the negative. Well the world recognised Yunus, and the global media have written ceaselessly about him mostly in his praise. Finally when someone takes Bangladesh to the global stage, we 'sack' him, call him a "blood sucker" an "exploiter of poor" and lodge false cases against him. How beautifully we project our country's image!
He has not only received the Nobel Prize, but many other prestigious awards in the world. Perhaps no individual in the recent past has received as many awards and accolades as Prof Yunus. Numerous world famous universities run courses on his work. Many have centres and departments named after him. There is hardly any university of standing that has not asked him to lecture and very few recent gatherings of world leaders where he has not been asked to speak. Few noteworthy bookstores around the world would not have works written by him. The above brief description of Yunus' achievements is an attempt to bring home to the readers the magnificent level to which he has taken Bangladesh. No other individual has done remotely as much to make our country known to the world as Prof Muhammad Yunus did.
Is this the way to treat a man who has brought us so much honour, dignity and recognition?
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=176340
When Strongmen Become Straw Men
The knock-on effect of the Arab uprising.
In a park in the middle of Azerbaijan's capital, Baku, sits Hosni Mubarak. The bronze statue, erected in 2007, stands against a hokey-looking backdrop of diminutive pyramids, but the subject's face still bears "the wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command" that Shelley once ascribed to another fallen pharaoh. "Look on my works, ye mighty," Mubarak could be saying, "and despair!"
In fact, the sense of desperation—perhaps mingled with hefty quantities of indecision and wishful thinking—is palpable these days among the mighty, and not only in the Middle East, but in Europe and the United States as well. Western decision makers would be worried enough about what might emerge from massive popular revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, and from the simmering conflicts in Bahrain and Yemen, but they're also contemplating the prospect that similar unrest could spread far outside the Arab world, from Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe. "This is like Eastern Europe in the 1990s," says a senior official in U.S. intelligence. "You take the lid off, and you don't know what's going to happen."
The current upheaval is more threatening to Europe than any turmoil since the Balkan wars of the 1990s, and it hits at more levels. In the name of stability, Europe's leaders relied on strongmen who have now proved to be straw men, and there's no real sense of who will replace them—or even how. Western leaders have based their economies, their diplomacy, and their defense against terrorism on what seemed solid assumptions: reliable energy supplies, relatively controlled migration, and the ability of public-security forces to maintain order inside their national territories. Those were considered givens, but now they're not given at all. As one U.N. official in Geneva puts it, "Every day you add another country to the conundrum."
Security is a primary concern. Forget the absurd charges made by the likes of Libya's flailing tyrant, Muammar Gaddafi, who last week blamed Al Qaeda for the massive popular uprising against his regime. But even if peace descends on the cities of North Africa along the Mediterranean and the Nile, and liberal democratic governments replace the old dictatorships, what will happen in the vast desert hinterlands where Al Qaeda has worked for years to establish a presence? "These could become nonstate areas," says the intelligence officer, who is not authorized to speak on the record. "They could become North Africa's version of FATA"—Pakistan's untamed Federally Administered Tribal Areas, where Osama bin Laden's key lieutenants have taken refuge. (Much of Yemen was outside the central government's control even before protests began.)
The risk that new terrorist sanctuaries will be created is only one piece of the chaotic picture taking shape, and it's not the most immediate. Last week high winds and ferocious seas prevented North African, sub-Saharan, South Asian, and other immigrants from taking small boats to Europe's shores. Before the gales began, thousands were landing every day on Italian soil, and tens of thousands more are expected as the skies clear. Anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim xenophobia is already a central theme of right-wing European politics, and the hatemongering will only intensify if the trickle of refugees and asylum seekers becomes a flood.
Mainstream politicians in the European Union are doing their best to avoid apocalyptic language, but sometimes they just can't help themselves. The knock-on effects are simply too menacing. Jean-David Levitte, as cool a customer as French diplomacy has to offer and the top foreign-policy adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy, went out of his way to warn a press conference last week that "today, tomorrow, we risk being confronted by a true threat of massive migration" that could challenge the fundamental EU effort to preserve open borders on the continent. "The European Union is not sufficiently equipped to meet such a phenomenon," warned Levitte.
Meanwhile, the shock of Libya's unrest rocketed the price of a barrel of crude above $100. It seems likely to stay in that vicinity for some time, threatening the global economic recovery, and Western Europe's situation is even more worrisome than that of other parts of the world. Italy, Germany, France, and Britain are all heavily reliant on Libya's particular high-quality petroleum. Western leaders have established a long record of eating their pride, ignoring Gaddafi's terrorist past and swallowing his bull while posing for photo ops to win his approval and cut deals for his crude. The most egregious example is Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who encouraged Italian companies to invest billions of euros in Libya and brought billions home from Tripoli for Italian banks, industries, and even the Juventus football team. Nor was that all. Berlusconi also gave parties where he allegedly liked to play "bunga-bunga" sex games that he said he learned from his good friend the Libyan leader.
For policymakers trying to plot a course forward, the first question is how far and how fast the region's popular revolts are likely to spread. And, unfortunately, there's no way to tell. "The movements underway are different from one country to another," Levitte told his listeners. "And even if the whole of the Arab world is in turmoil, each country has its history, its traditions, its regime." The common theme is fundamental frustration with the established order, whatever that may be. And that's hardly limited to Arab or Muslim societies. "What has happened in North Africa is on the screen for everybody to see," former United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan tells NEWSWEEK. "It is going to have repercussions, a ripple effect, not just in North Africa and Africa, but around the world. Leaders have to be conscious of what has happened, and people are also conscious of what has happened. The dynamic has changed, and leaders will have to adapt."
But adapt to what? The onslaught of uprisings seems to have blindsided the sharpest analysts in the business. "We are not clairvoyant," U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained lamely to the Senate intelligence committee on Feb. 16, five days after Mubarak stepped down. Tellingly, there were only passing references at that hearing to Yemen and Bahrain, where serious protests were already underway. There was no mention at all of Libya. And its uprising began in earnest the next day.
The conventional wisdom in Washington has always been that Mubarak and Gaddafi were solidly in power. Today's CW is that strongmen may be at risk, but hereditary kings and princes have more claim on their subjects' loyalty. And if negotiations between protesters and the crown in Bahrain collapse, or if tribal leaders encourage their people to relaunch massive marches against King Abdullah in Jordan, the current assessments of royal durability will obviously have to be revised as well.
A more reliable rule might be that when they've held power for three or four decades, individual autocrats tend to become more vulnerable to uprisings. Their people grow sick of their perpetually omnipresent faces, which offer a perfect target for all sorts of discontent, whether from Facebook groups or tribal councils. Where repression is harder to personalize, crowds are harder to mobilize. Protests began in Algeria even before they did in Egypt, but they have yet to reach critical mass. One reason may be that Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika is generally understood to be less important than the cabal of fearsome and almost faceless senior military men who are usually referred to simply as Le Pouvoir ("The Power"). Even the sons of past potentates may be more secure in power than long-entrenched old-timers. Bashar al-Assad's family may have ruled in Damascus since 1970, but he's been president only since 2000, and (so far, at least) his regime has mostly avoided the current wave of unrest.
One of the most enduring assumptions about Middle Eastern autocracies has been that the rich ones can buy off dissent with their petrodollars. There used to be a predictable correlation between low crude prices and what previously passed for times of unrest and reform: When oil was cheap, dissenters had room to maneuver, and people listened. When oil was expensive, the regimes simply paid everyone off, and those who wouldn't be bought could be isolated, even eliminated. But the recent upheaval in Libya has given the lie to that old truism. As high as the global market is right now—and as rich as Libya's reserves are—Gaddafi has been unable to buy a moment's peace. He can't even keep the members of his cabinet, his military, and his diplomatic corps, who have defected in droves.
The implications for Europe's energy supplies are suddenly much more complex than they seemed in the past. The government of Iran, for instance, seems as confused as any regime in the region. Before Egypt and before Tunisia, the Iranians' massive street demonstrations to protest against fraudulent election results in 2009 were the first breathtaking examples of "people power" at work in the modern Middle East. Eventually the regime of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad managed to crush them, partly because protesters never managed to focus their anger on one target. Today, as much smaller protests continue to erupt, the message on the street is much clearer: "Down with Khamenei." So while the mullahs applaud the protests elsewhere, they're doing everything possible to stifle them at home. Nevertheless, each successful overthrow of another Arab government puts more pressure on the Iranian regime.
The biggest question mark, however, is Saudi Arabia. So far, it remains remarkably calm amid the region's upheaval, despite having an ailing king in his 80s and a crown prince who is almost as old and reportedly even sicker. A Western academic resident in Riyadh says the public's mood seems "quiet as a mouse." Even so, Saudi King Abdullah—the former regent who assumed full power only five and a half years ago—clearly likes to play things safe. In a blatant bid to buy public support on his return home after three months out of the country for a back operation and convalescence, the king promised to spend $36 billion on social welfare.
Europe and the West will have to hope it works: Saudi Arabia is the only country capable of producing so much oil that it can take up the slack and stabilize prices when a producer like Libya goes offline, which is precisely what Riyadh vowed to do last week. But young Saudis are no less educated, less frustrated, or less numerous than those in other countries. Half the population is under 25, and as many as 60 percent of young college graduates are unemployed. How long they will be immune to the allure of revolution sweeping the region is anybody's guess.
Farther afield, the tremors are only beginning to be felt, but friends and foes of the world's hardline regimes seem well aware of the potential for trouble. In China, online discussions of North Africa's uprisings have suddenly become inaccessible. In Zimbabwe, 46 people have been arrested and charged with treason after going to a meeting called "Revolt in Egypt and Tunisia: What Lessons Can Be Learnt by Zimbabwe and Africa?" And a conservative politician in South Korea announced a program to send picnic baskets tied to balloons into the North, along with pamphlets encouraging the people there to emulate the mass movements in the Arab world—not that Pyongyang allows most North Koreans to hear of any such news.
But the biggest immediate concern may be the oil-producing states of Central Asia and the Caucasus, especially Azerbaijan. "It's clear the leadership is nervous and chastened—chastened, not frightened—by what is happening in Egypt and elsewhere," says a former U.S. intelligence officer who remains close to the leadership in the region. Ilham Aliyev, 49, who took over Azerbaijan's presidency from his father in 2003, has launched a high-profile anti-corruption campaign in an effort to appease public opinion. And it may be working. Small groups of protesters have gathered around Mubarak's statue in Baku, but with little apparent impact. Then again, the protests in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya started small. The conundrum keeps spreading.
Abdul Jalil says...
http://jugantor.us/enews/issue/2011/03/06/news0582.php
------- Forwarded message ----------
We are alone abroad
Ashfaqur Rahman
Last week our government was in a pickle over the repatriation of Bangladeshis from Libya.The political situation in that country had indeed deteriorated. Other than the capital Tripoli, most of Libya was in the hands of the revolutionaries. They demanded that the Libyan leader Muammer Qaddafi step down. There were fighting in several cities as Qaddafi held on to power with his fingernails.
Qaddafi threatened that he would start a house to house search and ferret out the rebels. He also warned that he would open the state arsenals and distribute the arms to his sycophants to kill the revolutionaries.
He sent his fighter aircraft and helicopter gunships over rebel held towns and bombed and strafed innocent people. There were numerous incidents of killing of civilians by his militia. In protest some of his ministers, diplomats and members of the armed forces defected to the rebels.
The revolutionaries, in the meantime, had taken over the second city Benghazi. They also freed many townships close to Tripoli. Many desert oases where tribes dwell went over to the side of the rebels.
A National Council with a military committee was formed by the former justice minister, who had defected to the rebels.
The United Nations Security Council swung into action and in an unprecedented Saturday evening session unanimously passed a historic resolution imposing an arms embargo on Qaddafi, and financial sanctions and travel ban on him and his close associates. The Council also referred the situation to the International Criminal Court for investigation and possible prosecution for crimes against humanity.
For the first time the Security Council also included a critical reference to Libya's "responsibility to protect" its own citizens from any mass atrocities.
Later in the week, in a larger meeting in the UN Offices in Geneva, the international community called on Qaddafi to step down. It also laid out plans for humanitarian assistance to all foreigners escaping the violence for their return home. The International Red Cross, the IOM and the UNCHR were activated for this purpose.
In the meantime, several governments from around the world sent aircraft and ships to bring their citizens home or to remove them to safer places nearby. Many foreigners trudged to the border between Libya and
Tunisia or between Libya and Egypt with the intention of crossing over to safer places.
However, our government did not take a decision to evacuate 60,000 or more of our citizens stranded in violence-torn Libya. Most of our workers were abandoned by their Libyan employers and did not have food, medicine or even money. A few who were employed by Chinese and Korean companies were lucky to be repatriated.
The foreign secretary of Bangladesh categorically said that "our primary concern is the safety and security of the 60,000 Bangladeshi workers who are in Libya. Evacuation is an option." What this statement meant was that evacuation was not the government's priority. It wants the Bangladeshi's trapped in Libya to remain where they are till the situation improves.
The possible argument of the government is that once our workers leave Libya they would not be compensated for their loss and would not be able to get their jobs back. Finding new jobs for the returnees would become the government's responsibility. This would be a sticky proposition for the government.
But what happens if our workers in Libya are killed or maimed? Who will take the responsibility? That is why the government was perhaps in search of manpower companies who had taken them to Libya in the first place. The government perhaps wants these companies to take responsibilities of these workers.
In a number of ways, it is a matter of shame if the government had this in mind. How irresponsible to ask our workers to wait in Libya and wait out the storm. The very essence of good governance is being deliberately violated.
The government has a responsibility to secure the safety of its citizens. It must, through any legitimate means, obtain resources to do the needful. If it faces a policy dilemma it can always go to Parliament and seek wise counsel.
The Bangladesh government has past experience in evacuating its citizens from foreign countries. In 1982, after the invasion of Lebanon by Israel, 600 Bangladeshis caught up in the conflict and kept in a concentration camp at Ansar in Israel were air-lifted through the auspices of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent to Dhaka.
Again, after the First Gulf War 60,000 Bangladeshis trapped in Jordan were brought back by chartered planes hired by various philanthropic organisations. Our government is aware of the logistics, resources and manpower needed.
Our government should have chartered one or more Bangladesh Shipping Corporation ships or any other national or international vessels and, under naval protection, should have waited off the Libyan coast flying our flag. A government task force, after assessing the situation on the ground, could signal the start of the evacuation process. The ships could either bring them back or wait in a safe harbour nearby, depending on the situation in Libya. It could be a costly venture, but imagine the psychological and the long-term economic gain to our workers there.
It is now quite humiliating to watch news reports and pictures of thousands of our citizens massing on the border of either Tunisia or Egypt, huddling together waiting for some international organisation to rescue them; an image which we, as a democratic country, definitely wish to avoid.
When will our government send the correct signals to the international community that we are a responsible nation and can confidently look after the image and interest of our people.
The Bangladesh Embassy in Tripoli is a non-starter. It has only one diplomat there at the moment, who doubles as the ambassador. Why has this mission not been staffed properly? Is this the case with our other Middle East missions now?
The foreign minister and the expatriate affairs minister both need to tell Parliament why they could not assure our workers in Libya that our government, in these uncertain times, is able to take care of our citizens in Libya? Why do our citizens feel alone when they are faced with mortal danger abroad?
The writer is a former Ambassador and Chairman of the Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
E-mail: Ashfaq303@hotmail.com
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=176495
Constitution reprints
http://www.samakal.com.bd/details.php?news=13&action=main&option=single&news_id=138506&pub_no=624
Pleasure trip of shipping Minister
http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-03-06/news/136298
BSF killings and Indo-Bangla friendship
http://amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2011/03/06/71045
Yunus's removal sparks protests all over
Politicians, university teachers, women activists, microfinance organisations, employees and clients of Grameen Bank on Saturday condemned the removal of Muhammad Yunus from the bank. Some organisations also staged demonstrations at places across the country in protest at the government's action. The opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party's standing committee member, Moudud Ahmed, at discussion on Saturday at the National Press Club said the government was conspiring to destroy the microfinance organisation by removing its founder Muhammad Yunus.
The bank would be hit hard if the government takes its total control, he said. Moudud called Yunus a 'pride for the country' and said humiliation of Yunus had hurt the nation. He said the government's attempt to 'destroy' Grameen Bank was a manifestation of its 'autocratic' attitude. Destabilisation of Grameen Bank would affect many poor women who were the beneficiaries of the bank, he said. He claimed that the government's 'vengeful' move had sparked widespread protests across the world. Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal faction president ASM Abdur Rab called for a graceful resolution of the crisis of Gameen Bank arising from the government's unilateral decision to remove Yunus from the bank. He said the party would take to the streets if the government did not go for a graceful solution. Rab at a briefing at the party's office said that the finance minister had shown a 'colonial mentality of vengeance' by removing Yunus from his position which had tarnished the country's image. Rab questioned why the government had not noticed the issue of Yunus's age in past 11 years. The chairman of microfinance organisation BRAC, Fazle Hasan Abed, expressed concern at the recent development over the Grameen Bank. 'Grameen Bank is an extremely important institution serving about 8.3 million of Bangladesh's most underprivileged population. Welfare of these borrowers and continuous progress of the institution must be given the highest priority for any decision affecting the organisation,' he said. Abed said, 'A sudden exit of the founder and the managing director of Grameen Bank and a legal battle between the board and the government may potentially cause a loss of confidence among its borrowers putting the organisation's future in doubt.
For the sake of the millions of its members, we must take utmost care in not letting this happen. A carefully planned succession for Dr Yunus can help a smooth transition and give the organisation the stability that it needs to ensure the welfare of its members,' he said. 'We hope that for any steps concerning Dr Yunus or Grameen Bank, a due process will be followed – keeping in mind the integrity of the institution concerned and also how lack of due process may affect the reputation of our country globally,' added Abed. Two hundred and fifty teachers of Dhaka University in a statement Saturday denounced the removal of Yunus from the position of managing director his brainchild Grameen Bank. 'The disrespect and indecent attitude shown toward the lone Nobel laureate of the country is shocking and condemnable. We consider the government's action as totally unjust and an act of vengeance,' said the statement. 'Like millions of people across the globe, we are shocked and enraged at the decision. We demand immediate withdrawal of the decision,' it added. Nineteen women activists in a joint statement expressed concern at the harassment of Muhammad Yunus, who, they said, had contributed to the empowerment of the poor, especially poor rural women, through alleviation of their poverty. 'Today, nearly 20 million poor women of Bangladesh have been empowered through micro-credit and they contributed to the development of the country. It should be realised by all concerned that showing disrespect to the father of micro-credit is tantamount to disrespecting the 20 million women.
Millions of women of Bangladesh will not tolerate this insult. We women of the country are shocked and offended by the government's action and demand an end to this situation in a proper and graceful manner,' said the statement. Taherunnesa Abdullah, Salma Khan, Maleka Begum, Rasheda K Chowdhury, Rounaq Jahan, Farida Akhtar, Syeda Rizwana Hasan, Shireen Huq, Mahera Khatun, Firdous Azim, Najma Siddiqui, Amena Mohsin, Shaheen Anam, Nashid Kamal, Tasnim Azim, Simeen Mahmud, Salma Ali, Perween Hasan, Mahmuda Islam, Hamida Hossain, Shireen Q Dutta and Razia Qadir signed the statement. The joint convener of Samajik Shakti, Mohammad Habib Ullah, and member- secretary Mosharaf Hossain Montu in a statement condemned the removal of Yunus from Grameen Bank. Grameen Bank employees at places across the country staged demonstrations protesting at the ouster of its managing director Muhammad Yunus. In Patuakhali, the bank employees alleged that the police had obstructed their programmes when they gathered in front of its regional office at Sabujbagh around 10:00am to form a human-chain, bring out a silent procession and submit a memorandum to the deputy commissioner. 'We could not bring out the procession and form the human chain due to police obstruction,' said the bank's regional manager Panna Lal Datta. In Gazipur, over 100 Grameen Bank employees formed a human chain in front of the deputy commissioner's office at around 11:00am.
The bank employees also staged similar protests at Kapasia bus stop, College Road intersection and in front of Sripur upazila council. Employees and borrowers of Grameen Bank in Chittagong division formed a human chain in front of the Chittagong Press Club in protest against the removal of Yunus from the bank. New Age correspondent in Lalmonirhat reported that separate human chains were formed in Aditmari, Hatibandha and Patgram upazilas in the district in protest against the removal of Muhammad Yunus from the bank.
Grameen Bank members, borrowers and staff took part in the human chain and demanded that the government should review its decision and allow Yunus to run the bank for the sake of the poor. Members of the bank brought out a silent procession and submitted memorandum to the upazila nirbahi officer at Phulbari in Dinajpur.
http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/feed/frontpage/10551.txt