What is the mystery of the letter to Dr. Rice?

The letter visibly outraged Dr. Fakhruddin, which was obvious through his rather incoherent reactions. On the one hand, he blamed the Bangladeshi who, in his view, orchestrated this anti-Bangladesh campaign, and took an extremely critical view of the observations made in the letter, while, on the other, raising the apprehension if the legislators 'did actually sign the letter', an incredulity that overtly undermines the integrity and accountability of some of the US politicians from both sides of the political divides, any of whom has the potential and prospect of becoming the next President of the United States.

In his research to find the geographical identity of lawmakers, his conclusion was 'bizarre': 'most of the lawmakers come from the New England area and some one or some groups are orchestrating anti-Bangladeshi smear campaign'. Dr. Fakhruddin miserably failed to distinguish between the State and the government. If the criticisms against the policies and the wrong doings of the Bush Administration are considered smear campaign against America, then Dr. Fakhruddin's name should feature in the forefront of that list of the 'anti-Americans' and Fahrenheit 911 famed Michael Moore, who portrayed the ugly face of the US government to the billions of audience around the globe should be tried for treason.

Because of the Bush administration's ill-intended policies and attitude towards the rest of the world, albeit George Bush is the elected President of the United States, respect for Jefferson's America is never been at such low ebb in the international arena. Being disenchanted by the faltering image of their beloved country and failing to avail any other internal avenues to redress the situations, if a group of Americans urge the UN to censure Bush Administration's policy, will Dr. Fakhruddin, presumably an American citizen, add his chorale to those voices or term their effort as an act of 'smear campaign' against US? The maverick independent MP of the British House of Commons George Galloway in his crusade against the labour party goverenment brought his case to the western side of the Atlantic. Only the other day, he was cheered by thousand of students of Canada's biggest univerysity when he delivered a fiery speech castigating the catastrophic policy of the Bush-Blair administrations. Neither the British government nor any of its citizens ever criminated Mr. Galloway of mounting smear campaign aginst his motherland.

In his own admission it is clear to Dr. Fakhruddin that 'those who stand to gain by Bangladesh becoming a failed state promote and pereptuate the myth that Bangladesh is well on its way towards national suicide'. It would be natural to enquire the identity of the elements who stand to gain from Bangladesh becoming a failed state. Is he pointing his finger to Senetor Kennedy, who travelled all the way to our devastated land in 1971 to express his support and solidarity with our life and death struggle for freedom, or to the freedom fighter who moved from village to village in the occupied land with curbides on his shoulder to free his motherland from the foreign occupation or to the school girl, who happens to teach in Boston Univeristy now, donated his tiffin allowance to the cause of Bangladesh's creation? In fact, one does not have to be a scholar to concieve the hypothesis that those who opposed the creation of Bangladesh stand to gain from its failure of becoming a viable state in order to prove that they did nothing wrong by opposing its creation in the first place. It is worth noting that the debate of 'failed state' started during the tenure of the current alliance government; it was never featured even during the regime of martial or quasi-martial law, which the people of Bangladesh, unfortunately, had to endure during half of its life since its inception. Moreover, Dr. Fakhruddin should not be on the receiving end of the lecture in identifying the perpetrators when a State is considered failed. Are these the people who are in the helm of the State or those who are out of it?

Dr. Fakhruddin commented that as in neighbouring countries, political and religious violence are facts of life in Bangladesh. In which other democracy in our neighbourhood grenades after grenades are thorown in the public rally, in broad daylight, pointing to the leader of the opposition and former PM, killing and wounding hundreds and the law enforcing agencies, instead of rescuing the victims, would fire tear gas? Whose interest was served by this nefarious acts of the police force? How one could dismiss the natural inference about the collusion of the authority with the perpetrators? Dr.Fakhruddin is irked by the prominence that slain Mr. Kibria received in the letter, overlooking the full contents that Sheikh Hasina and British HC received due importance as well. He also found fault with the lawmakers' inaction as regard to the case of Narinder Modi of Gujrat. In fact, Narinder Modi is already in the criminal list of the State Department who has been denied US visa.

What is wrong with the US lawmakers' comments that 'the lower courts are under the authority of the executive and they lack independence'? Does Dr. Fakhruddin want to deny this well-known fact? In fact, the US lawmakers did not touch on the Bangladesh's higher judiciary, which has been allegedly politicised by the current administration. It was ridiculous that Dr. Fakhruddin drew a parallel between the appointments of judges in US Supreme Court with those under the current administration in Bangladesh. Most of the judges in the US Supreme Court possess illustrious legal career with their formal education received in Harvard, Yale or similar reputed education institutions. Their differences come not from their affiliation to the Republican or the Democratic parties; they differ on social and constitutional issues. In addition, they are so much grilled during the Senate confirmation hearing that the whole nation comes to know about their past records and their standing on unsettled social and constitutional issues. They never felt embarrassed to hear the appeal of the self-confessed killers of a victim as because the victim incidentally believed in a political faith different from their own.

In conclusion Dr. Fakhruddin asked the Bangladesh government to verify the authenticity of the letter, which I believe, the government with its multiple mission offices in US soil has done so. The Daily Star possesses an extended periphery of readership that extends beyond the national boundary of Bangladesh. Only on the other day, David Boster Jr., a US citizen, issued a rejoinder in response to a story by Lawrence Lifschultz. On a similar token, my article questioning the statistical validity of CPI data to declare Bangladesh as the most corrupt country of the world in 2001 prompted a response from the Transparency International headquarters in Berlin. We even did not have the perception that fraudulency can occur in the communiqué that is customarily being issued about the outcomes of a talk between two foreign leaders until we read a protest statement issued by Senator Kennedy regarding his talk with Bangladesh government's minister of Home Affairs. Being a US citizen and residing at a vantage point in New Jersey, transparency of American democracy should give him little trouble to verify the authenticity of the letter. If his apprehension is not true, and if the statement was made 'to oblige the constituent', Dr Fakhruddin who seemingly possesses an unflinching trust on the Bangladesh government's records on Human Rights, Liberal Democracy, Rule of Law, the RAB actions of extra-judicial denial of right to life, dysfunctional parliament, politicisation of every organ of the state, including the election commission and the judiciary, surely could obtain a few testimonials, 'a routine service to their constituents', from his Senators such as Frank Lautenberg and Robert Torricelli of New Jersey endorsing his own views on those burning issues. It would be, indeed, a befitting reciprocation to counter the 'anti-Bangladeshi campaign' allegedly waged by his compatriots residing in US soil!

Dr. Mozammel H. Khan is the Convener of the Canadian Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Bangladesh.