Bangladesh 'fixes' Grameen

Laboni Vhoumiks lingerie manufacturing unit in the Gopai village of Noakhali district, about 180 kilometers outside Dhaka, is a forceful argument in favor of the Grameen Bank microcredit model that fosters female entrepreneurship and relies on it. But the Grameen Bank is itself under threat of creeping government control that has kicked up a storm of protests by entities ranging from women's rights groups to the State Department of the United States.

Vhoumik, 36, started out in 2003 with nothing to commend her except tailoring skills. Today, she runs a production unit that employs 12 women and supplies quality undergarments to several major retailers in Noakhali and the adjacent districts.

Joining a local non-government organization (NGO), Noakhali Rural Development Services (NRDS), helped Vhoumik to borrow taka 4000 (then about US$45) to buy her first sewing machine.

"We counsel and offer free training to promote such small entrepreneurships. The idea is to ensure that the borrowed money is properly utilized," Mohammad Kaiser Alam, NRDS microcredit programme coordinator, told IPS.

Vhoumik now earns about US$238 a month, which is considered handsome in her village. She also has large savings and recently paid for some major repairing of her home. Her group of 65 members discusses social and family problems as well as members progress with their business or problems or outstanding loans.

Members rarely default as the group is responsible as guarantor for the loans. But this simple business model that has worked to lift thousands of Bangladeshi women out of poverty is now under threat because one of its pioneers, the Grameen Bank, is undergoing changes at the helm that will allow greater government control.

The government owns 3% of Grameen Bank, but by changing the Grameen Bank Ordinance a state-appointed chairman will be able to appoint its chief executive officer.

This represents a de facto imposition of government control of the bank; in other words, the poor women, who are also its owners, are being deprived of their right to manage their own bank and are being made powerless, says a statement issued by 60 of Bangladesh's leading civil society representatives.

Grameen Bank is unique in the world for being owned by impoverished women. Representatives of the 8.4 million women borrowers sit on the board of the bank and have participated over the years in its decision making, unlike any other bank in the world, the statement said.

Shireen Huq, one of the signatories to the statement, told IPS there is no reason to believe that the changes (to Grameen Bank) are being made with good intent.

Huq, a leading women's rights activist and founder of the NGO Naripokkho, said the proposed amendment to the Grameen Bank's constitution gives the chairman of the board the authority to form a three-member selection committee. In other words, the majority board members will in effect be disenfranchised.

The government's appointment of a person known for his animosity towards the bank's founder, Muhammad Yunus, as the chairman did not bode well for the institution, Huq told IPS.

A press statement on August 5 by Patrick Ventrell, acting deputy US State Department spokesman, said Washington was deeply concerned about recent actions the government of Bangladesh has taken to give the government-appointed chairman of the Grameen Bank board control over the selection of the bank's new managing director.

This move would diminish the role the largely female borrower-shareholders play in shaping the direction of an institution that has made a difference to millions of impoverished women in Bangladesh, and indeed around the world, the statement said.

"We are concerned that the latest actions by the government could threaten the future of the bank which was founded by Nobel peace prize laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus," Ventrell said.
The plan by the government to increase its role in Grameen Bank has sparked a furious debate in Bangladesh that has pitted economists who favor microcredit as a development tool against those who believe that it is not effective enough.

Professor Abul Barakat, who heads the economics department at Dhaka University, told IPS that microcredit reaches only a small portion of the poor people. "Hardcore poor who need most attention remain out of the reach of such services and are considered as having no potential of repaying loans."

Out of Bangladesh's 150 million population, 98.9 million are poor, 47 million are middle class and 4.1 million are rich people. Microcredit only reaches the upper 50% of the poor who are the potential target group of the NGOs," the economist said.

According to Barakat, economically the upper half of the poor (49.4 million) who get microcredit facilities "bounce in their own orbit" and they "neither come out of poverty nor slide down to the hardcore poor group."

Qazi Kholiquzzaman Ahmad, another noted economist, told IPS that he has rarely seen poor people getting significant benefit from microcredit programs. "One of my own studies shows only 7% of the borrowers actually coming out of poverty from microcredit."

Ahmad, who chairs the Palli Karma-Sahayak Foundation (PKSF), said his 2008 study showed that fewer than 10% of the total 23 million borrowers in the country actually came out of poverty. This means that microcredit program are not always sustainable in poverty alleviation.

The PKSF itself was launched by the government in 1990 to build on the success of private players and now has over 250 partner organizations (small NGOs) and has 8.6 million borrowers.

Mohammad Hasan Ali, founder and executive director of Pally Bikash Kendra, an NGO that operates microcredit programmes in the northwestern districts, told IPS that the steady growth in borrowing and repayments showed the robustness of the model.

"Surely the poor are borrowing because they are getting some benefit in one way or another", Ali said.

What is important, most economists agree, is that the small borrowings made through NGOs have eliminated traditional village moneylenders who charged usuriously high rates of interest and increased the debt burden of the poor.

The real success of microcredit, economists say, lies in the fact that it integrates other programs involving health and hygiene, education, water and sanitation, social safety, legal aid, human rights and other basic issues with the lending process.

S M Ali Aslam, executive director of ADAMS, an NGO operating in the southwestern districts, told IPS, "There is no doubt that the NGOs took the leadership in providing financial security to the poor when the state failed to offer any secure economic program."

Aslam added that that foreign donors continue to support microcredit programmes in Bangladesh because they work. 

Source :

 

Tears for Humayun Ahmed: The Shakespeare of Bangladesh

Professor Humayun Ahmed, who earned a PhD in chemistry from North Dakota State University, and who was a scientist, writer, and a filmmaker, died aged 64 in the United States, after a nearly year-long battle against colon cancer. Every Bengali heart has grown heavier and heavier since his death.

Humayun was a custodian of the Bangladeshi literary culture whose contribution single-handedly shifted the capital of Bengali literature from Kolkata to Dhaka without any war or revolution. One of the remarkable things about Humayun's long and distinguished literary career is his influence. His writing is so influential that people not only get psychological pleasure from reading his books, but usually end up becoming fans of his fictional characters, such as Himu, Misir Ali, and Baker Bhai. His creations generate the smells, sounds, and vibrations of feelings and moods, which are more powerful than all the unused hydrogen bombs in the United States. However, in death, Humayun's celebrity status seems likely to exceed his popularity, even at the height of his fame. His funeral, which was held in Dhaka, became a Super Bowl-like event: millions of Bengalis from all walks of life flocked to the Central Shaheed Minar to say "Hasta la vista, Humayun Sir."

Humayun's death has proven that the tragic and completely unexpected passing of an icon familiar to millions can create an emotionally unifying experience for a nation. Bangladesh does not have oil, coal, or fossil fuel, but it's still more united than many countries, such as Pakistan, because it had Humayun Ahmed-whose influence was strong enough to unite all Bangladeshis with each other emotionally. What, then, is our assessment of Humayun's importance in world literature?

Humayun, who was known for his depiction of the tribulations of ordinary middle-class Bangladeshi life, reached the peak of his fame with the publication of Nondito Noroke (In Blissful Hell) in 1972, which remains one of his most famous works, winning admiration from literary critics, including Dr. Ahmed Sarif. He wrote over 200 fiction and non-fiction books-all of which were bestsellers in Bangladesh. This is something unheard of.

Furthermore, Humayun made a huge contribution to the field of fine arts, especially in film. He is hailed as one of the most influential architects of television drama of all time, authoring landmark sitcoms, such as Ei Shob Din Ratri, Bohubrihi, Ayomoy, and Kothao Keu Nei, which featured a fictional character named Baker Bhai, who was wrongly convicted and executed. Baker Bhai became such a popular character that before the last episode was aired, thousands of people across the country urged Humayun to change the script just to save his life, the life of a fictional character. This made Humayun a household name, which allowed him a great deal of autonomy for his future projects, motion pictures. His films have covered many themes and genres-addressing such topics as the Bangladesh Liberation War, the middle class crisis, and socio-economic issues. His first film, Aguner Parashmoni, based on the history of the Bangladesh Liberation War, was a huge success-winning National Film Awards in eight categories, including Best Picture and Best Director. His film, Shyamal Chhaya, was submitted by Bangladesh as an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language Film. As with Satyajit Ray, Zahir Raihan, or Tareque Masud, it is difficult to calculate the full effect Humayun had on Bangla film. But he was indisputably the most talented Bengali filmmaker, more so than his three famous predecessors. In fact, I cannot name any other Bengali filmmaker who better illustrated the history of the country's independence through film the way Humayun did; he was ahead of his times. Had Humayun done nothing else, the creation of such films alone would have entitled him to be one of the greatest Bengalis of all time.

It is true that Bengali literature would have remained piteously incomplete, and even imperfect, without the works of Humayun. However, it is also quite apparent that without the works of Tagore or Nazrul, Bengali literature would have broken up into mutually unintelligible dialects. Hence, it is fair to place Humayun after Tagore and Nazrul. However, Humayun never compared himself to Shakespeare, and not even to Tagore and Nazrul. He did not regard himself as a great writer.

In fact, I am sure that if anyone conducted a survey to list the five greatest writers of Bengali literature, Humayun would be third, if not first or second. Furthermore, one should consider what other great people have said about Humayun. Several years ago, I asked Muhammad Yunus how he assessed Humayun's overall impact, and he replied, "Humayun's works are the most profound and most fruitful that literature has experienced since the time of Tagore and Nazrul." Al Mahmud, the poet laureate of Bangladesh, told me something similar: "One golden age of Bengali literature ended with Tagore and Nazrul and another began with Humayun." Fiction writer Imdadul Haq Milon considered him to be the almighty lord of his Bengali literature, controlling all their actions and thoughts. If so, he is a generous lord, who is great because he created immortal characters, such as Misir Ali and Himu, and they, on entering our memory, become more alive than the living. Misir Ali is basically a rational psychologist committed to unraveling the mysteries around him through logic. On the other hand, Himu, who works with anti-logic, appears to possess strong intuitive power, though he dismisses his intuitions that come true as mere coincidence. Misir Ali forces us to realize that logic is above emotion, and Himu forces us to understand within ourselves that the better side of our nature should always struggle for dominance with our subtle dark side.

Although Humayun created literary fever through his works, which spread all around Bangladesh, unfortunately he still remained one of the great unsung heroes of human progress to those who live outside of the Indian subcontinent. With that said, literature, of course, is not all about recognition. Still, the fact that Stockholm did not ultimately embrace Humayun Ahmed-a Nobel Prize, why not?-is unfortunate, as it probably would have meant a lot to him. In a time when hardly any of the roles (including Hasina, who is playing the role of Prime Minister) are being played correctly in Bangladesh, Humayun played the role that was assigned to him well: writer and filmmaker. As a result, his name has become synonymous with the greatness of Bengali literature. Hence, to a Bangladeshi, his loss is manifold. He made young people-especially students who had been bred to political passion-understand that there was something that is more important than politics: reading books, and appreciating the fine arts.

Rashidul Bari, a biographer of Muhammad Yunus, most recently authored the Grameen Social Business Model: A Manifesto for Proletariat Revolution.

Souece :

 

Transparency International politically dirtied in Bangladesh

Internationally known anti-graft organization Transparency International has been accused of being fully influenced and polarized by members and activists of anti-West left wing political parties in Bangladesh. According to information, activities of Transparency International [TI] in Bangladesh continues under the cover of an organization named "Swacheton Nagorik Committee" [Conscious Citizen's Committee], which operates 45 branches of its working for TI through 45 committees throughout Bangladesh. Out of 625 members of these 45 committees, 314 directly belong to Bangladesh Awami League [which believes in socialist political method and opposes free market economy as well as the West] while rest belong to left-wing political parties and fronts such as Communist Party of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Socialist Party, Workers Party, Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal [National Socialist Party], Bangladesh Samajtantrik Dal [Bangladesh Socialist Party] etc. There are 5 members of these committees who belong to Jatiyo Party, which is led by former military dictator Hussain Muhammad Ershad and which believes in establishment of Sharia law in Bangladesh. 

Many of these 314 members of the "Swacheton Nagorik Committee" [Conscious Citizen's Committee] are actively involved in politics and are holding posts in various committees of Bangladesh Awami League.

There are also members of other political parties in the "Swacheton Nagorik Committee" [Conscious Citizen's Committee]. According to information, there are 44 members in "Swacheton Nagorik Committee", who belong to Bangladesh Nationalist Party or Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami as well as some of its Islamist alliances.

Most of the members of the Trustee Board of Transparency International in Bangladesh either are direct members of Bangladesh Awami League or had vehement supporter of this political party. Because of such situation, Transparency International in Bangladesh has been totally unable in providing accurate information to its global headquarters on the current state of high-profile corruption as well as spread of corruption in every sector in Bangladesh during current rule of Bangladesh Awami League led left alliance government. It may be mentioned here that, World Bank cancelled its earlier plan of financing Padma Bridge [the largest proposed bridge in Bangladesh] due to massive corruption during the preparatory stage. Following such strong allegation supported by evidences and documents, the communication minister in Bangladesh had to finally quit from his post in order to give opportunity to the ruling party is re-persuading the loan issue with the World Bank. 

Source :

 

THE MURDER OF ARAFAT : How the Israeli quintet indicted itself

“We have to get rid of Arafat”

 

~Israeli defense Minister Shaul Mofaz to Prime Minister Sharon caught on an open mic

Source: Daily Haaretz, Tel Aviv (Hebrew)

 

“We operated against Ahmed Yassin and Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi [two Palestinian leaders extra judicially assassinated by Israel] when we thought the time was suitable. On the matter of Arafat we’ll operate in the same way, when we find the convenient and suitable time. One needs to find the time and to do what has to be done.”

 

- Israeli Prime Minister Sharon to Ma’ariv newspaper

 

Source: The Guardian

 

Yasser Arafat may be dead, but for all intents and purposes he lives on and continues to be a thorn in Israel’s side. Earlier this month a Swiss doctor announced that high levels of toxic polonium-210 were found on some of Arafat’s belongings. Polonium-210 is a highly radioactive substance, one that would require a nuclear reactor and expertise to produce and handle. Israel, being a nuclear power and having publicly expressed a motive for Arafat’s “elimination,” fits the description.

 

Swiss doctor Francois Bochud, director of the Institute of Radiation Physics in Lausanne, Switzerland, was quoted in the report on a nine-month investigation by Al Jazeera that “We have evidence there is too much polonium, but we also have hints from the medical records that this may not be the case. The only way to resolve this anomaly would be by testing the body.”

 

If exhumation and examination of Arafat’s body (currently reposing in its tomb, located a  half a kilometre from my home) seven years after his death reveals the presence of polonium-210, the question demanding an answer will be: who killed him and why?

 

It may seem a futile task to focus on a single person’s death when the region is engulfed in wholesale killing, until, that is, you realize that the killing of Arafat was meant to be an accelerator in the process of bringing about the wholesale demise of an entire indigenous people.

 

A Palestinian attorney in the Galilee has pointed the finger at those he believes are most likely responsible for the murder of former Palestinian president Yasser Arafat. The accused are named and their histories cited; their own words indict them, and their acts of sustained violence speak volumes.

The charge sheet incriminates five of Israel’s top brass:

 

1.    Ariel Sharon, in his capacity as Prime Minister of the Government of Israel, 2001-2006 (currently reported as being clinically dead);

 

2.    Avi Dichter, as head of the Shin Bet (Israeli internal security), 2000-2005 (Member of Knesset for Kadima Party);

 

3.    Shaul Mofaz, in his capacity as Israeli Minister of Defense, 2003-2006 (now leader of the Kadima Party);

 

4.    Moshe Ya’alon, in his capacity as Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, 2003-2005 (now a Deputy Prime Minister of Israel);

 

5.    Meir Dagan, as Director of the Mossad from 2002 to 2011 (currently a leader of a movement called “Yesh Sikkui”).

 

The person who has made these accusations is Palestinian-Arab Israeli writer and lawyer, Sabri Jiryis, a graduate of the Hebrew University law faculty and a prominent Palestinian activist with Arafat’s political party, Fatah. For a long time, Mr. Jiryis served as Arafat’s adviser on Israeli affairs as well as serving as the director of the Palestine Research Centre in Lebanon and later in Cyprus. He was one of Arafat’s confidants for decades, until Arafat’s death.

 

Mr. Jiryis has just posted on his website a revealing analysis of the historic context leading up to Arafat’s assassination, entitled: Arafat’s Murder – The Crime and its Ramifications. The essay was posted in Arabic which may limit the non-Arabic-speaking world’s benefit from this insider’s exposé.

 

Bottom line: Mr. Jiryis meticulously assembles and presents hard evidence demonstrating why these five Israeli leaders, in particular, should be brought before a court of justice. His analysis offers no words of rage or revenge but rather a cold, clinical review of a systematic series of actions and statements by each of these Israeli leaders which would logically bring any objective observer to the conclusion that, if justice is to be served, these five persons should be charged with Arafat’s murder and put on trial.

 

Following the Al-Jazeera airing of their documentary concluding that Arafat may have been poisoned by radioactive polonium, Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat’s successor, ordered an investigation into Arafat’s death. In reply, in Cairo, on July 17, 2012, the Arab League set up an independent committee to probe the death of the iconic former Palestinian leader.

 

As the independent investigation committee embarks on its mandate, Mr. Jiryis’ analysis can make an important contribution by putting Arafat’s murder into historical context. Israeli leaders have employed murder, assassination and mass slaughter ever since Israel’s founding, and before. The reins of power in Israel remain in the hands of those who seek to murder the Palestinian struggle for freedom and independence. 

 

Meantime, when Arafat’s turn finally came, the trail of evidence left behind was so glaring that it would be an insult to humanity if those responsible are not brought to justice.

 

Whatever happens with this renewed effort to determine how Arafat died and who was behind his death, the Palestinian struggle for emancipation from 65 years of dispossession and 45 years of military occupation will not end. The idea that Palestinians are going to wake up one morning and decide to enjoy life under Israeli military occupation or as refugees is simply hallucinatory, as any thoughtful reading of world history would indicate.

 

Historic twists of fate are unpredictable, with many ironic overtones. Maybe, just maybe, the analysis by an Israeli-trained Palestinian attorney together with the clues to be found in Arafat’s dead body will usher in a long-overdue era of Israeli accountability for crimes against the Palestinian people.

 

Sam Bahour is a Palestinian-American business development consultant. He frequently provides independent commentary on Palestine and serves as a policy advisor of Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network. He blogs at 

 

Source : 

Sheikh Hasina’s ‘Hard Talk’ with BBC World

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, in her Hard Talk interview with BBC World in London, broadcast four times on July 31, was patently hitting hard at her interviewer, hurling back questions in response to questions.


She simply stuck to her guns, unwavering about her expressed position, right or wrong, over her own versions of factual and statistical representation (or misrepresentation) of issues raised. Nevertheless, the interviewer Stephen Sackur, by dint of well-researched, polite and incisive questions, left the general impression that our poor country Bangladesh was in trouble, at the dire mercy of an illiberal ruler and a self-righteous blusterer.

As a sample, I quote hereunder a section of the interview wherein she evades a straight answer to why she was refusing to publish the World Bank’s letters about alleged corruption in the Padma Bridge project:

BBC: The World Bank sent a letter outlining their concerns, there were at least four different itemised concerns about corruption, now you have the opportunity to publish that letter to tell the Bangladeshi people exactly what the concerns were. You constantly refused to do that, why will you not publish that letter?

PM: You cannot do that because there is an embargo.

BBC: No, the World Bank is happy to do that.

PM: No it is not true. They cannot do it.

BBC: Of course they can, they say …

PM: Then ask them to publish.

BBC: But they say they cannot publish.

PM: Why not? Why not?

BBC: Because that’s how World Bank’s relationship with individual states work. You have the right, they do not.

PM: Listen, the letter doesn’t mean anything. They could not supply any substantial proof with that letter. Just a letter cannot prove there is corruption. Time and again we asked them [for proof].

BBC: The opposition says that the letter points at you and other senior figures of your government, is that true?

PM: Listen, you can point at anybody and the opposition can do it. It is the opposition’s job. My point is, our Anti-Corruption Commission is already investigating it and they asked the World Bank to send all the documents and they refused to send. Now my question is if they have substantial proof why they refused to send all the papers and documents they have? They are not giving [those], I personally want it. At first, they sent two letters to me that was not my government, not my ministers. I pointed out this was the previous government. So you give me the proof. Twice they did it but they could not prove. So, unnecessarily you cannot just accuse anyone without substantial proof ... that is important.

BBC: Prime Minister, let me put it this way. It seems a shame for the Bangladeshi people, many of them living in dire poverty that your relationship with the World Bank has soured so badly. It also seems a shame for the Bangladeshi people that your relationship with one of the most respected business leaders in your country, the Nobel laureate Mohammad Yunus has also soured so badly.

Indeed, the suggestion that Sheikh Hasina’s own name came up on account of close family members who might have been implicated in a World Bank letter on Padma Bridge project appears to have been derived from wild speculations amongst white-collared Bangladeshis settled or in sojourn abroad. Rumour is rife in North America that a couple of her close relations came under investigation of Canadian Mounted Police who have already prosecuted two functionaries of a big consultancy company on charges of a bribery deal. The couple is said to have fled Canada. Their passports may have been impounded or cancelled in absentia. In Bangladesh also, BNP leader Barrister Moudud is said to have hinted in a television talk-show that he heard about close relations of the Prime Minister who have fled North America under the shadow of corruption investigations, and they now live in Bangladesh unable to go back.

In North America, it is further rumoured that Bangladesh Prime Minister’s renewed moves to pin down Grameen Bank founder Professor Mohammad Yunus for financial irregularities are prompted by her desperation to find a quid pro quo bargaining chip for out-of-court “political” settlement of charges under investigation against her close relations. Her advisers are rumoured to have cited the example of Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari, who made “political bargains” with the USA to persuade the-then Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan to promulgate a law to condone and by state intervention halt the proceedings in a Swiss court against Zardari and Benazir Bhutto. Unfortunately, the rumours suggest, there is no political meat in the bargain purported to be sought by Sheikh Hasina, whereas clearance for Benazir-Zardari for return to power game in Pakistan in the context of America’s war in Afghanistan and a failing Musharraf in Pakistan was a weighty geopolitical choice, however unsavoury.

Bangladesh Prime Minister’s latest moves against Professor Yunus also appear to have stumbled on a false start. By cabinet decision, Bangladesh Bank and the National Board of Revenue (NBR) were ordered to find out whether the earnings abroad of Prof. Yunus and foreign contributions obtained by him for Grameen Bank and other companies were regular and properly taxed. It transpired that Grameen Bank has been allowed tax-free status on all forms of income by the NBR up to December 2015. Capital inputs are not taxable any way. Under a gazette notification by the Internal Resources Division dated 13 July, 2004, all foreign earnings brought into Bangladesh was declared tax-free, irrespective of the beneficiary being resident or non-resident in Bangladesh. The Grameen Companies are registered with the Income Tax Department as regular tax-payers. The basis for investigation for possible tax-evasion therefore hardly holds.

The other investigation instituted by cabinet order is whether the salaries drawn by Professor Yunus as Managing Director, after he became age-barred under Bangladesh Bank regulation of age limit for Commercial Bank Managing Directors (Grameen Bank is not a commercial bank and was formed under a separate act), were illegally drawn. Professor Yunus obtained only due-remunerations for his services. If there was any irregularity in his continuing as Managing Director, the onus lied with the Board of Directors including government representatives who appointed him and insisted on his continuing in service, and with Bangladesh Bank which failed to raise any objection until 2010. The appointee cannot be held responsible for being duly remunerated for duties performed. The witch-hunt is therefore more for propaganda than for substance.

It is for propaganda without substance again that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina made, in her BBC-World interview, a faux pas claiming that her government has reduced poverty by 10% in 3 years compared to meagre performance by Grameen Bank. Here is what she said:

BBC: Why did you call him (Prof. Mohammad Yunus) a bloodsucker of the poor?

PM: You go to Bangladesh, you see with your eyes, then you will see. But how could he say I said it? Did I mention his name? I didn’t. I said someone. But why it occurred in your mind …

BBC: Sorry, so let’s be clear about this. So are you now denying that you have said Mohammad Yunus is a bloodsucker of the poor?

PM: No, I am not denying anything. I am putting a question to you, why it occurred in your mind that it is him? Why?

BBC: I have been reading the Bangladeshi press, everybody it seems in the Bangladeshi media believes that you referred to him directly when you used this phrase “a bloodsucker of the poor.” If you want to retract or if you want to tell me you didn’t mean him, then that’s fine.

PM: Listen, listen, I am telling one thing. Taking interest 40%, 30% or 45% from these poor people—is it fair? It is not. How can these poor people stand by themselves? If you lend money and take 35 to 45% interest, it’s a shame.

BBC: So the entire model built by Grameen Bank and Mohammad Yunus which has been celebrated around the world as a way of lifting poor people out of poverty—you are saying you do not accept it, you do not want it.

PM: I want that there should be an enquiry [to know] how many people have come out from poverty because of that. If there’s one village, how many people? Poverty reduction has been done by my government. Within three years we reduced poverty by 10%. So it is our government. And about this Grameen Bank, it is a government statutory body ... it was established by government.

The Prime Minister conveniently forgot that over three decades, poor members of Grameen Bank had saved bit by bit to build 97% of the capital of Grameen, which is also their bank by existing statue, whereas the government failed to place reciprocal capital contribution after the initial share money, and was thereby reduced to 3% shareholding only. Her suggestion that Grameen is a Government bank comes from command economy mentality. If the Grameen Bank Act makes it a government body, then any Chamber of Commerce and Industry or any sectoral Association functioning under relevant statutes also becomes a government body. A private members’ club wherein government servants have special privileges and are registered under Societies’ Act also becomes a government body. They are not. They are simply government-recognised bodies.

Speaking about poverty reduction, citizenry in Bangladesh see it and know very well, even if the outside world may not, that in three years of Sheikh Hasina’s current rule, the poor have become poorer by sustained price spiral and crises in all sectors of production and employment. Small savers have been pauperised by chronic sickness of the share markets after repeated scams. Even the vulnerable group development or other welfare and relief programmes of the government have only nominally reached the poor after meeting heavy rent-seeking demands of government functionaries and ruling party spongers at various levels. On paper there is no real statistical evidence of poverty reduction either in the last three years. There is evidence of growth that fed fat racketeers and land grabbers, and bloated the black economy under government protection and beyond the reach of the poor.

The BBC interviewer Stephen Sackur saved his trump card in his HARD talk with Sheikh Hasina till near the end. He candidly suggested that perhaps it was time for Sheikh Hasina (and Khaleda Zia) to step down to allow “new” leadership to step in and run Bangladesh affairs. Here is the vainglorious rebuttal he obtained:

PM: We have the vision—Vision 2021. Already we have adopted our programmes, the sixth five-year plan for dynamic development. We have already started implementing it. And up to 2021, we have mission to develop the country and the long term programme. So I believe that I can bring change because my politics is for people. I do politics not only to bring changes to our politics but also I want to make sure that our people get their basic needs, fundamental rights, and through that way I am working. So I believe that only I can do it.

BBC: As you said this, another question popped up in my mind. “Only I can do this,” you said. In Bangladesh, there is a long struggle between you and Khaleda Zia. So the best thing for Bangladesh is introducing a different political view. So leave the stage for new.

PM: If people want.

BBC: You want to run the country again.

PM: Of course, I will do, if my party permits me. If my people permit me. I do politics for my people, for my party. I mean it is not “I”, it is my party. Actually, I should have used the word “our.”

BY :   Sadeq Khan.