Professor Yunus and Grameen Bank
RECENTLY, a Bangladeshi court upheld the government's decision to dismiss Dr Muhammad Yunus from the bank he founded nearly 30 years ago. When research institutions across the world are opening Yunus centres and microcredit departments for studying his thoughts and ideas, debates and discussions started all over the world on his removal from the post of the managing director of the Grameen Bank. The government has apparently taken the decision on two grounds. First, the Bangladesh Bank sanction was not obtained prior to the appointment. Secondly, Yunus had crossed 60 years which is the age-limit for service. If we look a bit carefully, it will appear that the law was not adhered to in the true sense. No one says Dr Yunus is above the law, but it is necessary to take steps against a personality like him in the proper way.
One of the fundamental points is that, to remove anyone from service, it is necessary to serve a notice upon him to show cause. It is unfortunate and yet true that Dr Yunus has been removed without any notice. He was not given any opportunity to defend himself. There remains the question if the customary rule as to termination from the service has been followed.
Today, it is necessary to discuss the Grameen Bank Ordinance with all other related laws and rules. The law with which the Grameen Bank is administrated is the Grameen Bank Ordinance 1983. The managing directorate has been empowered to frame rules in the interest of efficient management under Section 36 of the ordinance. There is no necessity for getting the rules approved by the government under Section 14 of the Grameen Bank (Amendment) Law 1990. In light of the said provisions, the Grameen Bank framed a rule wherein it has been provided that there shall not be a definite age-limit for holding the post in the management and the rules framed shall not apply in the case of the director of management of the bank. Therefore, we may say the lack of approval of the government regarding age limit provisions, which the Bangladesh Bank used to remove him, is not supported by law.
Question of legality can be raised if the Bangladesh Bank removed Dr Yunus according to the provision in the General Clauses Act that he who gives service can terminate. The appointment to the post of managing director is given by the board of directors of the Grameen Bank. The Bangladesh Bank can approve or disapprove of it. The question is that if the terms and conditions imposed on Dr Yunus by the Bangladesh Bank during the time of his appointment in 1990 had been broken at all in light of the provision of the rules of 2001, then why the Bangladesh Bank had accepted those for so long. The Bangladesh Bank cannot take a different role after the lapse of more than two decades.
It will not be wrong to say that the government has, by removing Dr Yunus, come under pressure of the foreign media beyond the territory of our state, and have been criticised strongly for the steps taken. Because of that, the image of our government has not improved and rather deteriorated, which none of us find hard to understand. The New York Times titled its news item as `The promoter of the small scale loan [is] ousted.' Expressing its view, the paper said in the article that the central bank of Bangladesh has forcefully removed Dr Yunus. It also concentrated on the comments of the prime minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, that Yunus was sucking the blood of the poor people in the name of eradicating poverty. Dean Nelson, the editor for Southeast Asia Affairs, mentioned in a report in the influential British daily, The Telegraph, that Yunus had been removed at the behest of the prime minister. If it is so, nothing can be sadder than this. On the other hand, The Guardian said the Bangladesh government wanted to take full control of the bank, and hence the removal of Yunus. The Independent said a long and continued dispute existed between Sheikh Hasina and Muhammad Yunus, as a result of which he was forcefully removed from the Grameen Bank. Canadian newspaper Globe and Mail said Yunus had been a victim of the nasty politics of Bangladesh.
Whatever may be in the law regarding the removal of Dr Yunus, a world famous personality ought not to have been handled in this way by the government. The government could have solved this by some other way. Norwegian officials have already said the issues giving birth to the allegations brought against the Grameen Bank by the Norwegian Television documentary were resolved long ago. The Friends of Grameen has condemned the harassment of Yunus. In a statement, the organisation has condemned the action of the Bangladesh government.
It is not to be forgotten that Dr Yunus and Grameen Bank are tied with one thread, which no one can untie. Due to this episode, the respect of the common people to Dr Yunus and Grameen Bank has multiplied. Bangladesh has to take such steps so that its image is not blemished. If we cannot rise above our narrowness, in the days to come the development of the country will be hit hard for sure.
__._,_.___
