& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Conversation

'The West Doesn't Know the Answer to Bangladesh's Problems'
DAILY STAR: Lets Start at the beginning. Do you have any memories of our War of Liberation?
MARK TULLY: Well, there to something funny about the War of Liberation Whenever I go anywhere in Bangladesh, people always say. We owe you so much for what you did for us during the liberation war'. But I spent most of the war sitting in London, and I always say to these people. You are the ones to whom Bangladesh owes its freedom, you fought and we only reported'.
And actually, most of my time during the liberation war was spent in London as the BBC's chief commentator on the subcontinent. But of course, a lot of the commentaries was done on the war.
I came here in the middle of the liberation struggle for several weeks — I don't remember for how long — and from here I went to Pakistan. I was in one of the first groups of Journalists who were allowed to come independently.
If you remember, first of all no Journalists were allowed to come in at all. then some Journalists were allowed in with escorts, and finally Journalists were allowed in independently. without escorts. I was in that unescorted group, but 1 can't remember the exact date or month.
I managed to travel around quite a bit I remember vividly a rude conversation 1 had with some Pakistanis once.
1 was smoking a birl. and you know, the Bangladeshi blris were longer than the Pakistani ones which caused the problem. These Pakistani plain clothes men standing nearby were saying to each other that I was some hippy, and that perhaps I was smoking ganja. I heard them saying this, but they didn't know 1 understood Urdu. They were debating whether to arrest me or not.
1 was so angry, that I went over to them and said. 'You people are so Ignorant about this country which you claim to part of your country, that you don’t aven roco^Use a tetri because it happens to be different to the btris you have tn Punjab!
They were shattered! And I Just walked away. I’ll always remember that
I remember another incident. We were taking photographs in a Hindu bazaar area in Shakharf Patti. Then some Punjabi policemen arrested us and took us to a police station — Kot wall I think it was
I told them that we were told by the authorities we could go anywhere we liked. Then a Bengalee officer came, and I told him that if he let me out I could prove that. So. he let me out and I said to the Bengalee sub-inspector that the people arrested with me were innocent, because ail of us had been told we could go
Then the Bengalee officer looked a bit worried. and he said he remembered seeing something like that in a gazzette or some police order So got out this bundle of pa per. went through them, and there it mm. in writing. I
Then he turned to the Pakistani policemen and said. You people, you come over to our country and you don't even get yourselves properly briefed: you don't even know what your own government to telling you to do. and then you land us tn trouble with gentlemen like this and you make us look bad and you are spoiling our whole country ! And all the real of tt
The Pakistanis scampered off the police station in a real hurry, and the three of us came out. drank tea and went back to our hotel
What struck me was the *■ ftwa'wcst* east wing of the country and about what they were actually supposed to be doing
Another thing that struck me very much was the road front the other side of Arteta ghat towards Rajahahi I was struck ^thejimy tankatad road. They had obviously driven up that road virtually firing on both sides. Housss and whole villages on either
Another thing I was struck by -fanner enou^i. was the difference between the Pakistanis at the top and Junior levels of
At the junior level, they were rude and i*sorant about this part of the world. But at the top. they wove very suave
TtaT^y^Lm SyZmr
very wefi. in stark eosstrnot to
India for quite sometime.
I don't think India expected anything from China other than what Chia did. It has always been in India's calculations that China would basically be hostile.
DS : Coming on to the present, what is the film, wheth you made for BBC TV. on Bangladesh, about ?
MT : You see. I ve always been very fond of this country, and 1 wanted to make some sort of film on this 20th anniversary (of Bangladesh's independence). But you can't Just go along and make a film say ing how nice a country Bangladesh is. a touristy or pop-history type of film. Or at least we wouldn't like to do that at the BBC ! The BBC is going through a phase where it tries to be more intellectual and thoughtful In tis reporting, and not Just reportig news but also trying to give, interprets ■ tton. .
So if we were going to do a 40-mtnute current affairs pro gramme, we needed to have a theme and Interpretatin. Now. it seemed to me that, a this time especially when you are 20 years old. when communism Is tn deep trouble. If not collapsed, when there is an atmosphere of triumphal tom in the West, that It was an excellent idea to take this chance and look at Bangladesh
It would disastrous if the world fell totally into the hands of Western thingking What I tried to show tn this film was the mistakes many of the aid donors made In deal ing with Bangladesh, mistakes which many of them now do realise and are themselves try ing to change. The film Infact discussed the whole problem of aid. and whether the Wesi really has any solution for the poorer countries of the world
What the film tries to show to that the West does not know the answers to the problems of Bangladesh: that the poor record of aid proves that. Therefore the West should be damn careful about its tri umphal attitude, and It Itself to not omniscient or all-wise That s a sort of sub-theme of the film.
More than anything else the film is about how aid has helped this country or noi helped this country: whether Bangladesh would have been better tf. firstly aid donors had tried not to interefere so much with policy decisions, which they still try to do. like insisting on privatisation, and secondly. whether Bangladesh might not have been a better country if it had not had so much aid. because that would have forced Bangladesh to go for internal resource mobili satton
Part of the trouble with aid for Bangladesh to that it provides a soft option. It has enabled this country to avoid having to take the hard deci toons and hard options.
The World Bank is talking about privatisation, which is another thing we tried to bring out in the film Privatisation depends entirely on having a decent private sector to which you can privatise Now Zia handed over the jute and dbl ton-textiles mills that went bust; Erstad went in for prl-vattoatton and again you ended up with a huge long Hat of de faulters at the banks. So. where to this private sector?
The private sector Isn't a whole tot of individuals sitting there and saying I want some
tie factory’ The private sector ought to be properly-organised small Industries managed by professional people, and of course*. big corporation. with
the Junior officers who were basically crude and ignorant.
DS: Did you get the impression that the Pakistan army was a foreign army of occupation?
MT Oh. absolutely. There is no doubt about that. Armies are no good at winning the hearts and minds of the peo-pfe.
In India. I remember after Operation Bluestar (when the Indian army stormed the Golden Temple at Amritsar in 1984 to flush out Sikh terrorists). 1 asked an army officer why ordinary pilgrims staying at the hostels were also tied up
1 said to the officer. They are your own people, they are are not enemies of the country. they are Sikhs, that's all.'
And the officer replied. 'I know'. But the problem, as he said, was that all armies are taught how to fight an enemy Thsy-are not taught or told, that this time half or some of these guys are really your friends. They are told Dushman to akraman karo. or Hamla karo.
If your average Jawan or havlldar or subedar major captures someone, then he is a Prisoner of War. And the rule with PoWs is that you stop them escaping, and one way of stopping them escape is to tie their hands behind their backs
DS Did you al any point in time. while covering the liber ation war from London, feel that the Independence of Bangladesh was an Inevitable thing?
MT: After I left here, having seen what the Pakistan army was doing. I became convln ed that there was no way East and West Pakistan could live tn peace together Now. U was difficult to put a time-frame on when that would evolve into
Also it became increasingly ceiar that India wm preparing to go to war. When I Interviewed Mrs. Indira Gandhi during a diplomatic mission which was seen as a last ditch attempt to make people stop arhat's been going on. it was quite clear that if the mission did not succeed there would be a war between India and
And very fortunately for India in some ways that Pakistan actually started the war by that pre-emptive raid (on Indian air force bases) So tt was very lucky for India that that had happened, because I'm damn sure that they were going to go to war at some stage or another anyhow
it to now known in India that Mrs Gandhi wanted to go to war earlier, much earlier. And some people in the army said she could do so. But others, more sane voices said no. we must not rush into this thing, we must get every thing Just right That was why the move was delayed I
DS ^*
the Soviet Union, the Untied
Shoes...
MT : One of te most crucial things for India was the sibling of the treaty of friendship with the USSR. be cause that yro laden a tactotop.^lndta the guarantee that would .top China or the US from directly ■^"kur^oar^fooe^ffir Yahya"Somms?1** a result. America loot influence with share-holders, boards of management. annual reports, full and proper discipline. To say that you are going to privatise when what you really mean is you are going to hand out loans to every Tom. Dick and Harry who comes along and says. I can do this or I can do that', and that sort of thing, then that s really no privatisation.
Now. the irony which we tried to bring out in this film was that one could argue that one of the reasons why there Is no private sector Is because of the aid system.
Aid has in many ways stopped the private sector from coming up. by bringing in imported goods. But more Importantly. aid has created a new class of businessmen, contractors or dalals. As a result. the entrepreneurial effort in this country, instead of go-
ing towards setting up enter prises, has gone into buying foreign contracts and doing dalall between aid donors, the government and companies
So. the very thing the World Bank wants to create or hand over things to l.e the private sector. Is non-existent partly because of ail the aid that has flown into this country.
D6;7b prove this point. which particular areas did you focus on?
MT : Basically, what we did was we investigated one who had bad loans. We went to see a government diesel factory and spoke to the man who made dleael engines on gov ernment commission. But he said he could n t compete be cause the World Bank, which provided the money, had a phrase tn Its document which said that nothing could be dis tributed through the public sector So he says. 1ow can I distribute my engines or com pete?' That's one angle
Then there to the drive by the present government, which has realised I he need for internal resource moblllsa tton Then there are the aid agencies themselves, of course, and we talked to the world Bank about one or two problems.
Then we went to the Grameen Bank, which is one success story, by Bangladeshis and for Bangaldeshis You look at their recovery of loans, and compare that to the Shllpa Bank which has taken all this money from the donors to dish out and ended up with a long defaulters list.
Then we looked at this big flood action plan, to point out that for 20 years donors had been rushing In when floods had been taking place. But this was the first time they sat down together and said we must do something to prevent this.
But again, the World bank is saying that the great achievement of Bangladesh In increasing food productin was through privatisation, but privatisation has hardly started.
Basically, the much-abused Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation (BADC) and other government organisations were responsible for reasearch and the exten-sidn work In bringing the fruits of the research to the attention of the farmers
But the other thing is that If you privatise too much of agriculture then you put all the power into the hands of the rural elite, because they are the ones who will benefit most, because they are the ones with the cash
So. my feeling to that what Bangladesh shows to that no one really has the answer yet as to what you do with coun tries with such a large precen tagr of very poor people. If you tries, then things would have been manageable but here you are talking about nearly 00 million people Now. none of the examplee the World bank quotes covers this kind of
OS ; So basically you see a lot errors on the issue of devei apment in Bangladesh?
MT : Yea but there to also the Issue of sovereignty Thal to. how much sovereignty you have, and how much of It has been suttendered to the aid donors.
DS : Perhaps it to not fair to make villains out of donors, because we are all groping for answers.
MT : I don't want to make villains out of donors. What I intended to say was that we In the West do not have an answer to everyone's problem. I think many people In the West behave as though they do. and quite often donors do that. My only point Is that, in the end. tt to upto Bangladesh to look at its own problems and decide what help tt needs and get that, or try to get that.
DS : But perhaps another reason why historically donors became so decisive. was the nature of governments tn Bangladesh itself. With the government of Hussain Muhammad Ershad, for instance. more and more people prefered that the donors by passed the government and dealt directly with non-gov-ernment organisations. The nature of the government inadvertently strentghened the hand of the donors.
MT : Oh. I'm certainly sure there was that, especially with the political instability until the last election. But we still don't know how stable the new government to going be yet.
And there Is another great problem, and it is that you rundown whichever government to In power. I was Joking the other day while driving past the airport that, hardly has the prime minister been sworn-in before he or she has become the worst prime minister Bangladesh has ever known! You are Incredibly critical of your governments. You don't give them a chance. You can't have a democratic system of government where people are not prepared to allow a government to run Its course Under a democratic system, no government to going to last forever But once you have chosen a government, you must allow tt reasonable time to work and get over the problems it may encounter. And also very importantly. It must be allowed to put right the mistakes it might have made.
DS : How does your home beat. India. look now?
MT : I ndla has a lot of troubles.
India to changing a lot now. The death of Rajiv Gandhi was major a political event and a tragedy It means that In the absolutely Immediate future, as possibly in the long-term future, tt Is the end of the Nehru dynasty. It has already meant some major changes, as tle prime minister. Narasimha Rao. to operating in ways wry different to the Nehrus. He Is much more low-key. much more consultative, and works for consensus much more
If the Congress party to to survive it has to be a party of consensus generally a demo crattc party, a party which haa a strong say And tf there to no reversion to the tradition of dynasty, then I think this may
India looking carehilly at the scenario There are not many direct parallels with tha
not an empire but the Soviet Union was There to a certain thing as Indian neaa There to a joint martlet feature There to apart from^atatea tottape-
simllar to the Soviet Union
but in one way it to similar, in that it had a decrepit bureaucracy which tender! to run an over-centralised administration. That I think Is the lesson for India from the Soviet experience. If India is really going to progress it has to devolve more, lot more powers to the states, and the centre has to become the model of a genuine federal state with much restricted powers.
Therefore, like In all federal states, the chief minister should be as important — more important — a person in his state than the prime minister of the country. I think many people in India are now thinking along those lines.
I think If you get greater democracy within political parties, then you will get greater demands within political parties for decentralisation as well.
There is a great debate, a tremendous debate going on tn India at the moment, and I know which side I'm on. though I don’t expect they will win. They are those who are very doubtful about the Western consumerist answer for India. These are people who feel that consumerism will create an enormous political tension in a country of such differences, and run the risk of the haves' having more and the have-nots' getting more and more frustrated, and therefore more and more turbulent and therefore bigger and bigger a threat to law and order.
But fundamentally, which I think are the biggest challenge facing India and which have not been dealt with, are the Institutions left behind by the British.
Government ministries are really beginning to fall apart at the seams now The Judicial system, the administrative system are all beginning to crumble Again. 1 think India will have to. all last, be serious about an administrative structure. indeed a political structure. which are necessary to run a modem country.
Take this example, which applies to Bangladesh as well. You see the way the Indian and Bangladeshi police forces behave. If your grandfather was reborn, or even your father, he would say that there to no difference in the attitude of the police force towards the people they are meant to be serving and administering, between the colonial days and now. I think that has to stop In India, and I'm sure ft haa to stop in Bangladesh. You have to get adminiatratlve ayatema which are responsive to the needs of the people.
There Is one old thing still in India and Bangladesh You go to a district town, which Is a shambfea. but the one bit of the town that to well looked after to where you will find the DC, the PWD engineer the SP of police, all in their little colony all playing bridge with one another at night or what ever It to that they do And none of them have an attitude of service towards the com munity In which they five, and none of them to envlnced with the attitude. After all. If you live In the middle of a town aa a member of the clttoenry. then you will have a deep, personal Interest In the upkeep of the town Ube having the drains in working conditions, adequate public tronaport etc.
But they don’t live in the centre of town. They have their Httle compounds on the outskirts, well insulated from the problems of the townspeople So they don't have any aenae of belonging towards the community. But seper taliy be cause, after you get posted if
you don’t like the place and you find it nasty, you probably can get yourselves pogied somewhere else in six months to.yem
’□1
DS ; So. what you are basically saying is that 44 years of democracy tn India has not really filtered down ...
MT : Yes. that's right to an extent This to an interesting thing about this part of the world — India. Bangladesh. Pakistan. Sri Lanka. Time and time again, its been in and but : should we want democracy, or we want democracy. The last elections in Bangladesh was ail about we want democracy' . There to hardly anything in this country about what you can do with that democracy or how you arc going to build up the institutions to preserve that democracy.
Democracy does not come just by holding movements and elections, does tt ?
That to the way to discredit democracy actually And there to another thing. When in opposition. tf you are going to spend your time trying to destabilise the government by holding movements and that sort of thing, then you are go ing to pay a price when you come to power, because your opponents are going to do exactly the same thing to you. and people are going to be used to that sort of thing. It's a hopeless cycle.
DS : Comparing Bangladesh and Pakistan, which have had long periods of milUary rule and failed to reform colonial systems of administration, with India which despite 44 years of democracy still has the same problems of outdated bureaucracy and police, would you say democracy has failed tn India ?
MT . I wouldn't be so extreme Democracy hasn t failed tn India because It has manifestly survived. One of India's greatest strengths to that It Is a very free country You go there and you can say what you like you can do almost anything you like, some would say that it Is too free. So you cannot say democracy has tailed. But one of the failures of democracy has been to construct and keep nurturing and reforming institutions that are suitable to democracy.
DS . Although you have said that the tragic death of Rrgtv Gandhi was also an opportunity for India's Congress Party to be more democratic. Judging by the member of people still lobbying for Sonia, do you think the dynasty has really departed ?
MT : Well, what you have to realise to that the dynastic sys tern practiced by the Gandhis spawned a whole tot of ruth less beneficiaries Now. one ol aspects of that dynasty Was that you surrounded yourself with people who were depen dent on you and who benefited from you. So obviously, those people are going to go and see Sonia Gandhi or anybody ejse they can tn the hope of reviving the dynasty. Even Narasimha Rao himself has said that If she wanted to enter pohtica. he was sure she would take the right decision and he wouldn't stop her So no one tn Congress can afford to say that Sonia shouldn't come into goii tics And there te an obvltas reason for that.
But underneath all th’at there is still a political battle being fought to keep her out by some people, and then It is very much upto her what she wants to do
DS How do you rate
MT : Well. I would nt rate anyone at this stage of the game If you remember, there was such a sense of relief in 1900 when Mrs Gandhi came back to power, but she waa in such a mess by 1904 And then Rajiv Gandhi enjoyed .a tremendous honeymoon pc rted. but then he went out like a damp squib in 1909 So. all I would a^ about Narasimha tao te that he has handled himaelf with great skill But it te still much too early.
D6 : How you think he Is gavtg to finish hisfidt term ?
MT : You just can't tell at this point But the odds must be pn a mid-term election If he starts to do well, he msv stent to cash In on It: or W he to doing badly then the opppsl tton may setae the chance
Rao has no firm block of support the only guarantee la-fee Is he haa to that nobody wants to bring down the government at this stage. So. on an issue, he may find the Janata Dal voting against him. but the BJP walking out and abstaining to save the govern-
DS : So you see the future of India lying tn a genuine form of federalism ?
MT : Yes. a genuine form of federalism. You see. in the early days.'state chief minis ters were great men in their own right. Men like Govind Bala Pant of UP, Pratap Singh of Punjab, they were great men in their own right and you couldn't- Just order them out They very genuinely represented the Interest of their states In the centre.
DS . Well Mr Mark Tully, thank you very much for your time.