National Reconciliation Ordinance 2007 - The Text

Friday, October 30, 2009


Lets make an informed decision about what should be our political opinion! Lets have a reading of what this NRO actually says. What are the motivations of various parties to support or oppose it? What should be our motivation to oppose it?

As for me, my opinion can never be un-biased. Mine would always be a little biased towards collective good of people, progress of Pakistan, stability of democracy and strength of civilian regimes. You make your decision. But lets make it an informed one, as against being an induced and influenced one!




NRO 2007 -


Bookmark and Share

Mannerism - a Forgotten Value?

Saturday, October 17, 2009



Not at all! That it is not forgotten, was such a pleasant discovery! I was so happy to get a demand from the National Assembly and the Senate of Pakistan to train their staff in mannerism and Protocol. The sense of protocol we imparted in the training was quite different from the vibes this word normally gives. Instead of reinforcing the VIP culture through wrongly perceived definition of protocol, it was great to talk about a more localized "Hifz-e-Maraatab" - the ethics and mannerism according to one's stature (age, knowledge, wisdom, gender, office and other more egalitarian variables!).

The above picture was taken after a training session on Protocol and Mannerism, specially held for the Public Relations Staff of the Senate and the National Assembly. This was an advanced session, held in compliance of the demand from the staff of both the Houses. This five days course (held in May 2009) was an advanced and detailed form of the earlier course on this theme, which we held in 2007. I'm so happy to record here that not only all the participants liked it for being informative and practically supportive for their work, but their bosses have recently regarded it beneficial in improving the capacity of their staff, in  a recent post-training evaluation.

Bookmark and Share

Parliamentarians Learn about International Agreements



With Ahmar Bilal Sufi, orienting the parliamentarians from Sindh on international agreements and mechanisms of signing these agreements along side how to ensure their compliance.Senator Samin Siddiqui (PML-Q) and Senator Tahir Mashadi (MQM) look on.
Bookmark and Share

Story of My Shoe - Speech of the Man Who Threw Shoes at Bush

Sunday, September 20, 2009

“In the name of God, the most gracious and most merciful.

Here I am, free. But my country is still a prisoner of war.

Firstly, I give my thanks and my regards to everyone who stood beside me, whether inside my country, in the Islamic world, in the free world. There has been a lot of talk about the action and about the person who took it, and about the hero and the heroic act, and the symbol and the symbolic act. But, simply, I answer: What compelled me to confront is the injustice that befell my people, and how the occupation wanted to humiliate my homeland by putting it under its boot.

And how it wanted to crush the skulls of (the homeland’s) sons under its boots, whether sheikhs, women, children or men. And during the past few years, more than a million martyrs fell by the bullets of the occupation and the country is now filled with more than 5 million orphans, a million widows and hundreds of thousands of maimed. And many millions of homeless because of displacement inside and outside the country.

We used to be a nation in which the Arab would share with the Turkman and the Kurd and the Assyrian and the Sabean and the Yazid his daily bread. And the Shiite would pray with the Sunni in one line. And the Muslim would celebrate with the Christian the birthday of Christ, may peace be upon him. And despite the fact that we shared hunger under sanctions for more than 10 years, for more than a decade.

Our patience and our solidarity did not make us forget the oppression. Until we were invaded by the illusion of liberation that some had. (The occupation) divided one brother from another, one neighbor from another, and the son from his uncle. It turned our homes into neverending funeral tents. And our graveyards spread into parks and roadsides. It is a plague. It is the occupation that is killing us, that is violating the houses of worship and the sanctity of our homes and that is throwing thousands daily into makeshift prisons.

I am not a hero, and I admit that. But I have a point of view and I have a stance. It humiliated me to see my country humiliated. And to see my Baghdad burned. And my people being killed. Thousands of tragic pictures remained in my head, and this weighs on me every day and pushes me toward the righteous path, the path of confrontation, the path of rejecting injustice, deceit and duplicity. It deprived me of a good night’s sleep.

Dozens, no, hundreds, of images of massacres that would turn the hair of a newborn white used to bring tears to my eyes and wound me. The scandal of Abu Ghraib. The massacre of Fallujah, Najaf, Haditha, Sadr City, Basra, Diyala, Mosul, Tal Afar, and every inch of our wounded land. In the past years, I traveled through my burning land and saw with my own eyes the pain of the victims, and hear with my own ears the screams of the bereaved and the orphans. And a feeling of shame haunted me like an ugly name because I was powerless.

And as soon as I finished my professional duties in reporting the daily tragedies of the Iraqis, and while I washed away the remains of the debris of the ruined Iraqi houses, or the traces of the blood of victims that stained my clothes, I would clench my teeth and make a pledge to our victims, a pledge of vengeance.

The opportunity came, and I took it. I took it out of loyalty to every drop of innocent blood that has been shed through the occupation or because of it, every scream of a bereaved mother, every moan of an orphan, the sorrow of a rape victim, the teardrop of an orphan.

I say to those who reproach me: Do you know how many broken homes that shoe that I threw had entered because of the occupation? How many times it had trodden over the blood of innocent victims? And how many times it had entered homes in which free Iraqi women and their sanctity had been violated? Maybe that shoe was the appropriate response when all values were violated.

When I threw the shoe in the face of the criminal, Bush, I wanted to express my rejection of his lies, his occupation of my country, my rejection of his killing my people. My rejection of his plundering the wealth of my country, and destroying its infrastructure. And casting out its sons into a diaspora.

After six years of humiliation, of indignity, of killing and violations of sanctity, and desecration of houses of worship, the killer comes, boasting, bragging about victory and democracy. He came to say goodbye to his victims and wanted flowers in response.

Put simply, that was my flower to the occupier, and to all who are in league with him, whether by spreading lies or taking action, before the occupation or after. I wanted to defend the honor of my profession and suppressed patriotism on the day the country was violated and its high honor lost. Some say: Why didn’t he ask Bush an embarrassing question at the press conference, to shame him? And now I will answer you, journalists. How can I ask Bush when we were ordered to ask no questions before the press conference began, but only to cover the event. It was prohibited for any person to question Bush. And in regard to professionalism: The professionalism mourned by some under the auspices of the occupation should not have a voice louder than the voice of patriotism. And if patriotism were to speak out, then professionalism should be allied with it.

I take this opportunity: If I have wronged journalism without intention, because of the professional embarrassment I caused the establishment, I wish to apologize to you for any embarrassment I may have caused those establishments. All that I meant to do was express with a living conscience the feelings of a citizen who sees his homeland desecrated every day.

History mentions many stories where professionalism was also compromised at the hands of American policymakers, whether in the assassination attempt against Fidel Castro by booby-trapping a TV camera that CIA agents posing as journalists from Cuban TV were carrying, or what they did in the Iraqi war by deceiving the general public about what was happening. And there are many other examples that I won’t get into here.

But what I would like to call your attention to is that these suspicious agencies — the American intelligence and its other agencies and those that follow them — will not spare any effort to track me down (because I am) a rebel opposed to their occupation. They will try to kill me or neutralize me, and I call the attention of those who are close to me to the traps that these agencies will set up to capture or kill me in various ways, physically, socially or professionally.

And at the time that the Iraqi prime minister came out on satellite channels to say that he didn’t sleep until he had checked in on my safety, and that I had found a bed and a blanket, even as he spoke I was being tortured with the most horrific methods: electric shocks, getting hit with cables, getting hit with metal rods, and all this in the backyard of the place where the press conference was held. And the conference was still going on and I could hear the voices of the people in it. And maybe they, too, could hear my screams and moans.

In the morning, I was left in the cold of winter, tied up after they soaked me in water at dawn. And I apologize for Mr. Maliki for keeping the truth from the people. I will speak later, giving names of the people who were involved in torturing me, and some of them were high-ranking officials inthe government and in the army.

I didn’t do this so my name would enter history or for material gains. All I wanted was to defend my country, and that is a legitimate cause confirmed by international laws and divine rights. I wanted to defend a country, an ancient civilization that has been desecrated, and I am sure that history — especially in America — will state how the American occupation was able to subjugate Iraq and Iraqis, until its submission.

They will boast about the deceit and the means they used in order to gain their objective. It is not strange, not much different from what happened to the Native Americans at the hands of colonialists. Here I say to them (the occupiers) and to all who follow their steps, and all those who support them and spoke up for their cause: Never. Because we are a people who would rather die than face humiliation.

And, lastly, I say that I am independent. I am not a member of any political party, something that was said during torture — one time that I’m far-right, another that I’m a leftist. I am independent of any political party, and my future efforts will be in civil service to my people and to any who need it, without waging any political wars, as some said that I would.

My efforts will be toward providing care for widows and orphans, and all those whose lives were damaged by the occupation. I pray for mercy upon the souls of the martyrs who fell in wounded Iraq, and for shame upon those who occupied Iraq and everyone who assisted them in their abominable acts. And I pray for peace upon those who are in their graves, and those who are oppressed with the chains of imprisonment. And peace be upon you who are patient and looking to God for release.

And to my beloved country I say: If the night of injustice is prolonged, it will not stop the rising of a sun and it will be the sun of freedom.

One last word. I say to the government: It is a trust that I carry from my fellow detainees. They said, Muntadhar, if you get out, tell of our plight to the omnipotent powers’ — I know that only God is omnipotent and I pray to Him — ‘remind them that there are dozens, hundreds, of victims rotting in prisons because of an informant’s word.’

They have been there for years, they have not been charged or tried. They’ve only been snatched up from the streets and put into these prisons. And now, in front of you, and in the presence of God, I hope they can hear me or see me. I have now made good on my promise of reminding the government and the officials and the politicians to look into what’s happening inside the prisons. The injustice that’s caused by the delay in the judicial system.

Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you”

The Octagon of Governance

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Published on March 4, 2007


Amid various international country ranking reports where Pakistan is fast approaching the victory stand of corruption, terrorism, lack of accountability, transparency and rule of law despite being a front line state in war against terror, one is inclined to see the larger canvas of overall governance in the country.
The term governance is being increasingly used in the latest development literature, among development professionals and political analysts all over the world. The gospel of governance, in simple terms, is the way where certain decisions are taken (or not taken) and implemented (or not implemented) to manage a society’s political, economic and social affairs. The onus of all the evils of a society is conveniently put on bad governance. Major donors and international financial institutions are basing their loaning and aid strategies in developing countries on the demand from the respective governments for a broader reform agenda ensuring good governance. In the presence of these “chaperons” for good governance, one can still see all the elements that contribute to the worst form of governance in the entire developing generally and in Pakistan particularly.
It becomes imperative to have a closer look at the term and its components in order to discern Pakistan’s performance on this pitch. Good governance, as the Governance Matters Report 2005 of our financial Vatican – the World Bank – warns us, has eight important elements: accountability, transparency, participation, responsiveness, effectiveness & efficiency, inclusiveness, stability and last but not least, rule of law. A steady performance and progress on these eight indicators would make the octagon of governance look balanced and poised.
Accountability – a self explanatory but largely misunderstood and abused term in Pakistan’s context – is a measure of the degree to which people are able to participate in selecting their government, have freedoms of expression and association alongside a free media. The need of making public officials and people’s representatives answerable for government behavior to the entity from which they derive authority can not be overemphasized. In countries with established democratic ethos and strong egalitarian roots, the accountability is ensured by audit covenants at one level and broadly elected legislatures and narrowly conceived committees etc at another. In Pakistan a simulation of democracy is doing the trick. Pakistan’s percentile rank (0 to 100) for accountability in governance among world’s largest populated twenty countries was 12.6 in 2005. Pakistan was fourth country from bottom, while China and Vietnam stood at the base of accountability pyramid. In South Asia, Pakistan was ranked second last among eight countries in 2005. The least accountable governance was carried by Afghanistan.
Transparency, correlated to accountability explains the accessibility of general public to information and government rules, regulations, procedures and decisions. The difficulty with ensuring transparency is that public access to information might very easily be restricted by the same authority that is responsible for providing that information. So, it is crucial to give the freedom of information a legal and legislative cover. Pakistan, having a scarcely envisioned Freedom of Information Act (which never saw itself explored by the parliamentarians on the floor of the House), is not displaying a pleasing picture on this front. With a country average of 16.1, Pakistan stands at the third least transparent country in its governance practices, rules, regulations etc. among South Asian countries closely beating Bangladesh and Afghanistan with country averages of 15.2 and 10.3 respectively. Maldives secures its place as the most transparent country with very tight regulatory framework among eight South Asian countries having a country average for transparency at 66.2 in 2005.
As far as government effectiveness is concerned, it’s a bit tricky to comprehend the concept and its relevance to good governance. As per definition accepted by most international governance assessment institutions, it measures the quality of civil and public service and degree to which both these services are independent from political pressures. It also gauges the quality of policy formulation and process of its implementation along with credibility of government’s commitment to such policies. Pakistan stands at fifth position among eight South Asian countries having a country average for effectiveness of 34 as opposed to Bhutan at number one with 64.6, India at number three with country average of 51.7, Nepal at number seven with 14.3 and Afghanistan at number eight with country average of 9.1. It demonstrates a devious kaleidoscope of political activity related to government effectiveness. Countries like Bhutan and Maldives may show higher averages of government effectiveness on account of being governed by autocracy and / or oligarchy, which leaves little space for non-state actors to dissent government’s actions. Countries with stronger democratic values may show a mid level average like that of India where government’s effectiveness indicators may confront a potent civil society interference. Countries like Nepal for example may show a major diversion and stay at the bottom as far as effectiveness stats are concerned, in the presence of a strong people’s opposition to autocracy. That explains Pakistan’s comparatively higher average compared to other indicators!
Rule of law, an important cornerstone of governance in any country is the measure of the level of social agents’ confidence in and abiding by the rules of society in particular, the value of writ enforcement, the police, the judiciary and the likelihood of crime and violence (we may use the word terrorism complying with emerging international linguistics). Pakistan ranks sixth among eight South Asian countries with a country average at 24.2 compared with Bhutan at number one with 64.7, Maldives at number two at 60, India at number three with an average of 56.4, Sri Lanka at number four with 54.1, Nepal at number five with 25.1, Bangladesh with 19.8 and Afghanistan with 1.4 at numbers seven and eight respectively. A country with greater value for democracy and people’s voices may display foreign and domestic policies with greater mass acceptance. A factor that minimizes people’s concerns resultantly less violent attitudes, more people-friendly policies, greater political and social freedom and social safety nets. All contributing to a just and equitable society thus leading to rule of law.
Conceptually and rationally, all these elements of governance support and reinforce each other. Accountability is related to citizens participation in decision making processes, which in turn is linked to transparency, information openness, government responsiveness to people’s needs and concerns, government efficiency and predictable decision making of autonomous government agencies. Similarly, the transparency and accessibility can not be ensured with out legal frameworks to balance people’s right to information against governments’ right to confidentiality along side a wide institutional acceptance to accountability. Finally, a democratic system facilitates governments to take informed decisions, incorporate people’s interests and voices in policy formulation, a free media to act as autonomous watchdog that props predictable outcome of governance. It, therefore, appears to be an unmistakable reality that the flag of good governance can only be unfurled under the bright sunlight of democratic system. The octagon has to be perfectly figured if soft image of Pakistan is to be popularized!

Two Courts, Why Not?

Published on:          May 19, 2008

As the judicial imbroglio thickens the air between two coalition partners, the speculative analyses and predictions keep creeping through the op-ed columns and current affairs talk shows on umpteen TV channels in Pakistan. Whatever the analysts say, however serenity and reason PPP leadership tries to bring to the negotiating table, the fact remains that it’s not the dearth of solutions that is leading to uncertainty in reinstatement of judges, its lack of political commitment to do so. The solutions that have came up so far range from an executive order to a constitutional amendment or the act of Parliament. Considering the significant moves on the part of political movers and shakers, it is becoming all the more necessary to reach an upshot as soon as possible. The more time is spent on proving that every proposed way out has more cons than pros, the easier it would be for the anti democratic forces to draw the conclusion that no solution is possible for this political riddle.  
The recent proposal, which was instantly denied by the Prime Minister, was that of establishment of two supreme courts. The idea perceptibly seems to be mala fide and an attempt to appease the lawyer / civil society pressure and placate a presidency that is shamelessly being lactated by the world powers. But at the same time, it deserves a serious thinking and analysis. The two Supreme Courts would mean a judicial system that allows the power of constitutional review to concentrate within a single judicial body. This proposal has a history of being in force in various countries of Western Europe alongside new democracies of Eastern Europe; and has displayed a widely accepted version of constitutional protection and control.
The presence of Constitutional courts gives rise to the anomalies of overlapping jurisdiction of Federal Constitutional Court and the supreme civil court, their absence critically contradicts with the principles of sovereignty of parliament and judicial review especially in democracies like Pakistan and India whose constitution remains a major source of this paradox. In India, where no Constitutional Court exists, the constitution has successfully fought back to be the supreme law of the land; in Pakistan, it still is a political instrument that every regime uses to consolidate its power. This fundamental difference in political cultures of both the countries makes them incomparable as far as judicial system is concerned. The emerging democracies in the European world, on the other hand, might offer an attractive judicial package to be replicated here in the backdrop of fierce battle between the state and the judiciary in Pakistan over last one year - a case much similar to postwar Germany when Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) was established.
The German Constitutional Court had to encounter five branches of specialized courts already well established in the pre-Natzi tradition of German judiciary. The specialized courts had to overcome the failure of their immediate past, whereas, the Constitutional Court was offered a considerable chance of success by the climate of postwar reform. If in Pakistan, the existing Supreme Court takes on the jurisdiction of civil, criminal and administrative cases and a new Federal Constitutional Court is established with the mandate of constitutional interpretation, it is expected to correspond well with the democratic tradition of separation of power and centrality of constitution.
It should, however, be kept in mind that developing a commonly accepted model of cohabitation at the supreme judicial level will be extremely difficult and would require stronger political commitment from parliament, the existing Supreme Court as well as from other power players. The answer to fundamental question of distribution of judicial power between the two courts would largely depend on the intent of establishment of such bi-faceted judicial system that divorces American system of diffused judicial review. If the sole objective is to keep one single individual from heading the apex constitutional court, and limiting his power to civil and criminal suits, the new system may lack vision and design to sustain and might not produce popularly desired results.
The apprehensions of some experts, as reported in media over last few days, about the establishment of Constitutional Court in Pakistan weigh much lesser compared to the positives of it. If established on the following lines, the system can, by design, respond to most of the apprehensions:
1.      The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) should be structurally independent with respect to the Executive Branch and to the Supreme Court
2.      The FCC should be mandated to develop the concept of direct applicability of the Constitution (including its guarantees of fundamental rights) and to impose that concept on other segments of the judicial branch.
3.      Procedures of the constitutional complaints should be such designed that they should extend the applicability of complaints to all the situation involving conflicts with fundamental rights of individual liberty
4.      The FCC, while preserving the last word in the wake of a controversy, should not claim a monopoly over application of the Constitution but, rather, should act as a coordinator of that process.
5.      The FCC should be vested with the competence to review ordinary statutes and other legal regulations as well as to annul them in case of unconstitutionality or nonconformity with any international instrument to which Pakistan is a party. Such decisions of the FCC should be universally binding i.e., also binding on all other courts, including Supreme Court.
6.      Each court (Higher and Supreme) while resolving an individual case should consider whether the statutory provisions based on which the judgment will be give, are in conformity of the constitution or not. In case of a doubt expressed by the complainant or the judge herself about the constitutionality of such provision, the judge should refer that issue to the FCC as a legal question. The decision of FCC should be binding on the other courts to be applied to the case(s).
7.      The FCC’s composition should be such that all the provinces and other federating units are equally represented.
While smoothening public opinion on any set of judicial solutions, we need to keep in mind that present crisis has a hidden opportunity – the opportunity of making our judicial system more relevant to a parliamentary democracy and constitutionalism. Change is sometimes uneasy, but it surely bears the fruit of development. And the key to change is . . . let go of fear!

Positive Thinking or Self Delusion?

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

September 2, 2009 — Marvi Sirmed 

The phrase “Positive Thinking” has always been intriguing to me, for the misconceptions and myths it has been carrying from time to time, from culture to culture. In modern world, this beautiful concept is being excessively used politically for its deceptive nature and the intent deeper than one could think. So, I have been trying to find resources to understand the concept in as deeper a manner as possible, and about how it has been used by the movers and shakers of societies since long. But this particular piece is triggered by a Facebook link uploaded by a friend. The link asks for being positive in all situations and in fact gaming with ourselves in trying to find a positive aspect of every happening around us. It also termed our mind as a sacred enclosure in which nothing harmful should enter except by our permission. Now that’s where my problem starts.
Let me take you to the journey this concept has been through, before indulging in an uncomfortable discussion! The concept of ‘positive thinking’ is probably as old as human civilization. But it emerged in an organized form, from Christian religious dissertations in early 1920 s. When Joseph Murphy(1898–1981) wrote his famous “The Power of Your Subconscious Mind”, he probably did not know how this psychological concept would be turned to a sociological phenomenon and resultantly, would be used politically. It did not take very long for the Vatican to base its texts and lectures by a host of religious figures, on the concept of ‘No Negative thinking’ and ‘positive attitude’. These were the years of great depression in a democratic America. It seemed a very effective strategy to put a permanent stop on questions. See all positive. That was the potent message of that era.
And then there was Second World War. It was again surprising for me to realize that father of the modern concept of Positive Thinking (PT), Norman Vincent Peale (1898 – 1993) came up with his best seller “The Power of Positive Thinking” in a troubled post WWII era. He, like Murphy, had come from a religious background and made himself conspicuous for his religious works like “In God We Trust: The Positive Faith for Troubled Times” and “Faith is the Answer”. The state has made optimal use of clergy for manipulating people’s collective thought. With love terrorism, so peculiar of religious elite of the time, Peale refuses to allow his reader to hear, speak and see an evil, and looking for only positivity in whatever they feel and see. This was, by the way, the era when budding women liberation feminist movement was seen as villain among religious quarters in America. So much so, that the wise and the mature of that time called these women Feminatzi (Femina + Natzi). Positivity was selective it seemed!
In recent times, this term took a new turn after 9/11. In almost all corporate training programmes, self development courses and even in school curricula in few states of USA, the concept of PT became prominent. Bush administration wanted people to see everything positive on ground zero as much as Musharraf led Pakistani establishment became too worried about Pakistan’s negative image because of the fact that people of Pakistan “. . . think negatively and are overly obsessed with their faults rather than achievements”. In every paper, programme, adverts, official interviews, everybody got stuck in PT. Our self-righteous lot of “learned” TV anchors and columnists regurgitated the PT propaganda with such vigour that otherwise reasonable thinkers went into the hands of few opinion leaders. Popularizing Pakistan’s soft image through making positive statements internationally and through looking at every phenomena with a closed mind (lest anything negative might not enter it) and an eye blinded by the overly emphasized Positive Thinking, became the key propaganda points.
It would be unfair to give all the credit for this bankruptcy of vision to Bush and Musharraf duo, though. In Pakistan, for example, this has been done since at least five decades through a very organized campaign of killing every germ that could germinate into self criticism. People have been made absolutely ready to fool themselves by not doing any exercise of trying to find the truth through examining situations with fair eye. People absolutely forgot that in order to value our selves, it is absolutely necessary to criticise ourselves, and not let this self-criticism become guilt and self-loath. So much so that after 62 years of our existence, if someone tries to indulge in self-criticism, s/he is termed as the one who is obsessed with failures, who is self-loathing and is against the collective wellbeing of the nation – in other words, is a traitor!
Blowing up small time achievements, as couple of kids who sing well, a sports team who wins the nation a sports event once in five years or a high achieving software engineer for example, is self destructive in a big way. It leads to self delusion, which does not let us concentrate on bigger problems we face as a nation – the problems that have their root cause in not recognizing them in initial juvenile stage, in not nipping the evil in the bud. It makes us insist on, “I’m looking good”. This self delusional positive thinking takes you where we are right now – abyss of oblivion. It compromises your readiness to acquire knowledge and being aware. It makes it difficult to come out of the cult of the “self”. It makes us believe that Positive Thinking is the route to success, whilst it is only intelligence, hard work and fairness.
I think the real test of positive thinking comes when we become centre of criticism from others. To deal with it positively, we need to understand where the criticism stems from. It has two scenarios, as far as I can think of. One: it comes from real friends who genuinely want us to change in a positive manner. Two: From those who have no interest in seeing you improve. They are doing it to probably make you look smaller than them. In either case, this is where positive thinking comes to operate.
In this way, positive attitude does not come in conflict with the self criticism. It, rather, complements later by being honest with ourselves and valuing ourselves by knowing true strengths and weaknesses.  If we can learn to be honest with ourselves our conscience will prevent us from undertaking regrettable actions, thus no negative image, no bashing from outside world. It’s just about recognizing the true us. But it requires guts. I’m sure we do have these guts as nation. Let’s discover us from within ourselves, lost since ages under the layers of falsehood and self righteousness.

Amar Shonar Bangla - Some More Random Thoughts

April 23, 2009 — Marvi Sirmed 
Hameeda Hossein - An Indra Gandhi Look-alike
Hameeda Hossein - An Indra Gandhi Look-alike
This is the end of my third day in Dhaka and I’m back to my little room in BRAC Inn, a guest house facility of BRAC. We had long discussions in the morning about parliamentary oversight and consented on a set of recommendations to be given to SAARC countries’ parliaments to increase transparency and openness to civil society / people / media. The deliberations ended with a comprehensive document carrying specific recommendations for each country in South Asia. On the previous day, broad framing of issues had been done around Judicial, parliamentary and government regulations. There were around 30 delegates from all the SAARC countries save Bhutan. As usual, the discussion was dominated by Indian and Pakistani delegates. Pakistani delegation was led by revered I. A. Rehman and comprised Advocate Asad Jamal, Mukhtar Ahmad Ali, Executive Director CPDI and the author.
Among the delegates, Yamini Mishra immediately got my attention due to her focussed approach and for her knowledge on budget and government accountability. Also, my eyes kept slipping from one face to other looking for Amitabh Behar, for his first name – he is namesake of my favourite actor !
Well, all these details need to be pushed to a later writing for we had an excellent evening after the session that deserves a mention here. Shaheen Anam and Hameeda Hossein were worried about me ending up in overspending on sarhis. Shaheen zealously kept on jotting down names of shops and marketplaces where I can get good variety of Jaamdani and silk sarhis in reasonable prices (little did she know that I have already spent major chunk of my cash on the first day, in Arung!). Hameeda was concerned about my ability to get to a roadside shop to get matching Teeps. These passionate women wanted to be as much of help to me as possible. Sweet!
Before I could barely move out of this crowd, Rehman uncle was seen suddenly leaping towards me against all odds- the randomly placed chairs in a tight Board Room. I was alerted for a moment, did I say something wrong during the discussions? God, how should I control my emotionally charged harangues during political discussions? Well, lets see what did I do recently to deserve a chide from Rehman uncle in his usual slight way. And he has reached where I am. Tick tick tick… please uncle speak up . . . Ji Khatoon, kia programme hay aap ka? What? Aahh . . . Rehman uncle actually wants me to accompany him somewhere! He wanted to get a shopping comrade to go to Arung with him, where he wanted to buy something for his grand children. As soon as we snaked our way out of the Board Room, we saw a de-hyderated Asad Jamal and a routinely calm Mukhtar who too wanted our company.
It was very humid but pleasantly airy outside. For the first time I did not mind absence of a car. I normally use rent-a-car service of the hotel I’m staying in, when I travel in our outside the country, for being an extremely lethargic person. But today, it felt really good to be with people, walk along crowded roads without footpaths lined with encroachments and with lungi clad men, sarhi clad women waiting for transport. Public transport is in shambles. Busses can merely move, taxis are few and very expensive, auto-rikshaws are abundant still not enough for an ever increasing middle class of Dhaka city, cycle rikshaws are most popular and most abundant. I could not make it out. Around the world, everything that involves human hand and effort, is far more expensive than the machine based work. Here, cycle rikshaw was much much lesser in price than any other transport! From Mohakali to Beli Road, we had given 250 takas to a taxi, an auto rikshaw (I checked later) would charge around 100 taka, while a cycle rikshaw would be extremely happy if you give him 30 takas instead of his expected 20 takas.
Anyway, we kept waiting for any transport to be available until a fan of Rehman uncle reached out to us and sweetly offered a lift in his small Maruti sized car. Before uncle or any of the gentlemen could say anything, I accepted his sweet offer, in an equally sweet manner! He dropped us at Arung in Gulshan. We got stuff from there and moved to the road once again to get a transport back, while holding all those bags in our little hands! While waiting for an angel at the road, Asadf got this brilliant idea of eating out. I called Usman to guide us to a restaurant, who immediately took it upon himself to host us a dinner. So sweet!
After an effort, we were able to get a taxi. We were unable to convey the taxi driver that we want a drop at Street 7, Gulshan 1, while he has to take Uncle back to Mohakali . . . language barrier. Most of the Bangladeshis do not understand Urdu, hindi or English. Their education is largely in their mother tongue – Bengali – till graduation, except few science subjects, which too are not enough for communicating in English without difficulty. We somehow managed to drop uncle first and then going to street 7, where the rendezvous with Usman was a book shop Words and Pages – city’s only big book shop.
Words and Pages was a small sized deserted shop which did not have most celebrated works like Nazrul, any history book covering pre 1971 period and about personalities like Sirajud Daula, who had hailed from Bengal. The culture of reading, the sales manager told us, was rapidly diminishing from Dhaka. We could not find anything that we were excited about. One badly printed version of Lalun ( a sufi saint poet of Bengal) and Tagore was surely there. A corner was allocated to the music CDs but sadly, we could not find Firdausi Begum, Shehnaz Begum or Nazrul geeti sung by anyone, Tagore Shongeet etc. Big disappointment indeed.
One thing that I could not miss in Dhaka was, women engaged with all aspects of life. Economic activity, intellectual discourse or arts, women are everywhere. Gender segregation practically does not exist. Music is a pet of every household. A very religious practicing Muslim, Nirupama Abdul Waheed, wakes up early in the morning to say Fajar prayer, and cannot think of missing her riaz on harmonium immediately after namaz. People’s names are quite misleading as well. Nirupama Abdul Waheed, Uttam Biswas s/o Ghulam Haider . . . and many.
More later!