& 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

Our sovereignty
I am truly grateful to Mr. Maswood Khan who recently wrote an article (Financial Express September 20, 2009) summarizing his take on a televised political discussion show titled "TYitio Matra" (third degree) and expressing his own news on the subject of Bangladesh's geographical sovereignty. While I cannot comment on the episode itself, I see the emergence of such media circulated public debates on matters of national interest as another healthy sign of maturity of democracy in Bangladesh. I have enjoyed reading Mr. Khan's comparison of a childhood personal experience to that of the predicament of a young and weak nation like Bangladesh. However, I have some fundamental disagreements with him which I would now like to express.
Bangladesh's weakness is not confined only to its diplomacy or military’ might - it goes much deeper. Essentially it is the inability of the average Bangladeshi to think and act for themselves based on what they perceive to be right. Everything else follows this basic lack of pro-activeness in their character. People are afraid to ask difficult questions or formulate complex solutions for the fear of upsetting cultural norms built up over years of foreign rule where it was simply not required since one's destiny was to a great extent determined ultimately by external powers. Rather titan negotiating one's way through major roadblocks, people either relegate their responsibility or when frustration reaches a boiling point, it results in violent and destructive means of seeking recourse. While violence was an effective way of ridding itself of foreign rulers, the scars remain even though the country is responsible for its own destiny. Until this much forgotten trait of survival is revived in each and every individual, national stakes will continue to be at peril at the hands of anyone who wishes to take advantage.
I am not saying people in 1 Bangladesh are fundamentally weak - far from it. There needs to be introspection and focus on becom-Ing reliant oh one s self, on sharing responsibility and on learning management skills, so control over direction is no longer beyond reach. Some of this will come naturally with time and through perseverance and some of it through being creative once people start taking some pride in their achievements:
the Bangladesh army is the darling of the UN peacekeeping missions because they are disciplined; the Bangladesh cricket team is a focused group who have dedicated themselves to training; Bangladesh garments industry is successful because management has been able to harness an easily trained low cost labour force. While there is nothing inherently lacking in the people of Bangladesh, there are no short cuts and it's never too late to change course to a path of self-sufficiency.
Mr. Khan suggests Bangladesh should rely on strategic alliances for safeguarding its sovereignty. This may be a second tier option, but it is fundamentally flawed as a first option. Today Bangladesh is a good friend of the United States but in 1971 it was merely an inconvenient conflict of interest for the US
administration that was a strong ally of Pakistan. Today Bangladesh is at odds with Myanmar which he cites as being backed by China and he professes to seek the might of the United States to tell China to back off to protect the interest of Bangladesh. But wait, isn't China a huge investor in Bangladesh? And aren't China and the US two of the biggest trade allies who have more pressing issues of mutual interest than dealing with what's most important for a third country like Bangladesh? Instead of fostering a feeling of enmity with its neighbours, shouldn't Bangladesh be actively trying to advance itself where the neighbours have more to lose than gain by harassing it?
Bangladesh's biggest asset is its people. Untapped, this is now its biggest burden. Instead of leading,
most "leaders" are involved in jostling for petty causes that not only distract them but often stands in the way of national interest. Most Bangladeshis seem to pride them selves in giving vetoes against someone else's ideas rather than providing constructive support or alternatives; the legal system inherited from foreign rule specifically designed to stand in the way of the ruled rather than provide protection to them has not been modified for self rule; knowledge is seen as something to be used as a weapon to put someone down rather than be shared and put to practical use; anyone in a position of authority very quickly forgets the all important responsibility for which they were given that authority in the first place. With these destructive values that the Bangladesh society espouses, blaming all its ills on its neighbours is yet another way to justify inaction. Doesn’t it seem audacious then to go ask another nation to protect Bangladesh's sovereignty? It is the Bangladeshi laws, taxes and high bank interest rates that are preventing local industries from succeeding; while its neighbours are sending out satellites into space, manufacturing their own cars and building townships dedicated to science and technology all connected by a well planned transport system, Bangladeshi experts from a certain self acclaimed institution of engineering and technology could not even seem to demolish a multistoreyed building without causing death let alone propose simple zoning and building codes for the crowded capital city. Why? Because no one is allowed to question anyone's authority while everyone points to someone else when it comes to responsibility: there is no public accountability.
Until there is healthy public debate about these root causes and the dysfunctional value system, outsiders will always take advantage of Bangladesh. No amount of sugar coating from the sawiest of Bangladeshi diplomats can convince even the friendliest of its allies to take on the task of protecting its sovereignty unless as a nation it shows that it is serious about its own survival and is prepared to do its fare share of the work.
ShabbirA. Bashar, PhD
Vancouver, USA