The brain drain

Had he not omitted a sentence while quoting from my e-mail I would not have thought of writing this article. In his first article Dr Abdullah raised several questions, quoting some of his expatriate friends pointing their finger at former bureaucrats.

The observation that: "One thus wonders if the newspaper columns of many retired secretaries, disapproving policies and activities of the same politicians they served so obediently are in part a manifestation of 'crybaby syndrome' or a genuine concern now about achieving good governance" was neither appropriate nor kind.

Wasn't that a veiled attempt to present former secretaries as selfish, cowardly, and unpatriotic? Interestingly, Dr Abdullah persuaded at least one former secretary to write newspaper pieces either jointly or separately.

In a private rebuttal I wrote to Abdullah, a friend since college days: "May I ask you a simple question? Why did your friends, who raised all these questions, leave their country of birth, which subsidized their education and gave them so much, without giving it anything in return? Had they remained here, possibly the country would have been a better place for everybody to live in. Do they really have the right to raise questions regarding the intentions of retired secretaries-turned-columnists who at least did not abandon their country of birth, and tried to serve it faithfully and to the best of their abilities? I would be delighted to see a piece by you focusing on these questions."

Dr Abdullah first wrote back that he would consider writing a piece, but then changed his mind. Instead, in the concluding paragraphs of his second article while defending his "right to criticize anything, or anyone, " he discovered in my e-mail "harsh words" against him.

The way Dr. Abdullah projected his rights by omitting from my e-mail the sentence which emphasized the fact that those who left the country "seeking opportunities" abroad could have stayed back and worked towards making the country a better place, really perplexed me.

Did I question his rights as a columnist? In any case, I would like to conclude this miscommunication by quoting Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it. But that does not mean that I waive the right to argue with you. That is as much my constitutional right as it is yours."

I lived in the US for several years as a Bangladesh embassy official. I observed that many who left Bangladesh "seeking opportunities" here were homesick. However, their personal situations were such that it would be really hard for them to come back. Some of them used to find bad elements like political bickering, the ever-worsening law and order situation, corruption, etc as justification for their staying abroad. They blamed politicians, bureaucrats, and businessmen from a distance for the sorry state of affairs back home.

I have no doubt about their patriotic zeal, but for them "opportunities" had greater attractions than patriotism. They suffer from a psychological conflict within themselves, but their next generation would not. In the US once I asked a boy whose family lived next door to ours: "Where are you from?" He replied, "My parents are Indians, but I am an American."

Doctors, engineers, economists and other professional people who left the country "seeking opportunities" abroad have not done anything wrong from their personal perspectives. However, I sincerely believe had people like Dr Abdullah and others who opted to live abroad been here, the country would, perhaps, have remained a better place for all of us.

In an informal survey, I found not very many meritorious students who occupied the top 20 positions in Matriculation examination in 1950s or earlier left the country for better prospects abroad. Those who got higher degrees abroad came back home. The large-scale exodus started since independence in 1971.

Meritorious students are leaving the country in ever increasing numbers every year and settling abroad in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the US, etc as those countries offer them better opportunities than the country where their ancestors lived.

Someone told me over 100 agricultural scientists from Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI) left for Australia and New Zealand, taking permanent residency, but many of them are now driving taxis and doing odd jobs. Many of them had gone on training programs abroad with government scholarship.

Hard working expatriate workers, who will come back sooner or later, are sending billions of dollars home, which is aiding the country's development. But, most professionals would settle abroad if they get a chance and would take resources out by disposing of whatever properties their ancestors left behind in this country.

They never realize that without them the country is poorer. One day some of them would come back when they find that this land of their ancestors has more to offer than their "dream land." I believe that day is not far away.

The former secretaries-turned-columnists have been making many good suggestions in their columns. I find it hard to comprehend why someone should object to them and blame them for not having implemented them when they were at the helm of affairs. In most cases they did not have the authority to do so. Moreover, in the governmental system individually no one can do much.

An example may shine some light. In the second half of the 1980s, I was a director in the President's Office. One day in 1987 or early 1988 President Ershad ordered an inquiry into the affairs of House Building Finance Corporation (HBFC). A 4-member committee was constituted with Mr Rezaul Karim, the then additional secretary, Ministry of Finance as chairman and myself as member-secretary.

The committee submitted a thick report with various recommendations. The president took the trouble of reading the report minutely, underlined extensively with green ink, and approved all the recommendations in principle. The principal secretary forwarded the report to the Ministry of Finance for implementing them.

One of the recommendations, I remember, was establishment of House Building Finance Companies in the private sector. Believe it or not, the first private sector housing building finance company Delta Brac Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (DBH) was established in 1998, a full decade later.

If the entire government machinery dealing with a particular issue does not move in unison, no individual, however powerful he might be, can really do much, particularly if the question is of reforms and of changing the rules of the game.

To move the entire government machinery in unison, a group of meritorious and dedicated bureaucrats under the able guidance of a patriotic political leadership, driven by ideology not profit motive, is the need of the hour. Surely, the brain drain has made the emergence of such a group more difficult.

Fortunately, the country has many dedicated patriotic young men and women to put the country back on the road of peace and prosperity. In conclusion, I would like to assure the expatriates if any time any one of them finds their "dream land" unlivable or decides to return to serve the land of their forefathers, the nation would welcome them with open arms. After all, they are our siblings.

Ghulam Rahman is freelance contributor to The Daily Star.