& 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

Hartal and economic unfreedom

If we want the development of our society, under no circumstances should freedom be hampered. Let this idea of development and freedom dawn on us, especially on the politicians whom we send to the parliament to enhance, not restrict, the frontier of freedom.

Abdul Bayes
MY first article on the adverse impacts of hartal appeared in this newspaper back in 1993. It would perhaps not be an exaggeration to say that the attempt was the first of its kind to calculate the economic costs of hartal. Later on, different agencies also followed the suit.
My estimates showed that an 8-hour hartal, under some crude assumptions, cost about Tk.200 crores at the prevailing prices of that period (obviously it would be more now). To use the jargon of economics, the opportunity cost of a day's hartal was worth a Meghna bridge in 1993. This is just the tip of an iceberg — only the loss of tangible output in money terms.
If we think of human casualties and property damages during hartal, imputed value of the loss of students in academic institutions, the fear and mental agony among citizens etc., then the figure would surely shoot up very high. Of course, the proponents of hartal would argue that such economic loss could also arise even if there was no hartal — from corruption, pollution of environment etc. The more hartals the better it is from that point of view.
There is an overtly immature and childish 'Tove and hate" game hovering around hartal in Bangladesh. Those in power hate it, knowing fully well that they used to love it once. They say that hartal harms the economy; that parliament, not the streets, is the best place for resolving differences.
Those in opposition tend to love hartal, knowing fully well that they used to hate it while in power. In this case also the reasons are simple: it paves ways for bagging popular support against government; that their voices are not heard in the parliament; that people's socioeconomic hardships add to the urgency of hartal.
Then there is a group that ''discovers'1 hartal as a constitutional right of citizens to ventilate their grievances. Pardon my ignorance, I am not aware of such provisions. All that I know is freedom of speech and action for every citizen
is enshrined in the constitution. Hartal is imposed to restrict people's movement, hence it cannot be construed as a constitutional right.
Yes, it becomes a right only when people are free to accept or reject the call for hartal. I personally continue to hate hartal as I feel that it is a kind of economic unfreedom imposed upon the people by the so-called freedom loving politicians.
To add meat to the argument, let me relate an episode of economic unfreedom cited by Amartya Sen in his seminal book: Development as Freedom. When the Nobel laureate was around ten and playing in the garden of their home incalled Dhaka, a man named Kader Mia came through the gate screaming pitifully and bleeding profusely; he had been knifed in the back by some communal thugs in largely Hindu area while he was coming to work.
Kader Mia was rushed to the hospital by Sen's father and, on the way to hospital, said that his family had nothing to eat and he had to come out despite serious protest by his wife. The penalty of his economic unfreedom turned out to be death, which occurred later in the hospital.
According to Amartya Sen, economic unfreedom in the form of extreme poverty can make a person a helpless prey in the violation of other forms of freedom. Had his family been able to survive without this little income, Kader Mia need not have to come to a hostile area.
Economic unfreedom can breed social unfreedom, just as social or political unfreedom can also foster economic freedom. In fact, the freedom of economic transaction tends to be a great engine of growth.
Kader Mia was killed by communal thugs. But we see that people are burnt in buses when the bus operates during hartal; office-goers are harassed on the way to work; poor rickshawpullers are beaten up and their rickshaw destroyed; shops are pelted to cause damage. Maybe there are many Kader Mias who come to work and, while returning home, lose their lives.
A denial of opportunities of transaction.
through arbitrary controls such as hartal, can be a source of unfreedom itself. People are then prevented from doing what can be taken to be -- in the absence of compelling reason to the contrary — something that is within their right to do.
There was a time when such political programs paid dividends during our national struggles. But that dates back many years. Meantime, Bangladesh has emerged as an independent state. Over time, various economic reforms helped us gain on socioeconomic fronts. The per capita national income is $700 now.
Reforms in the political culture are a long-awaited need. The party in power should always try to strengthen political institutions by injecting a sense of inclusion in the opposition. The opposition parties, on the other hand, should shun the traditional mode of airing their views and avoid the sense of seclusion from the government (shadowgovernment).
The responsibility of ensuring freedom for
the people lies squarely on both, as they have vowed to uphold people's freedom. I may agree with many of the arguments of the opposition, as I may also argue that there are many ways of ventilating political grievances besides undertaking programs like hartal. The non-monetary implications of hartal — restricting others' freedom — should top the agenda.
The socio-political and economic efforts that we make every second of our lives are the means to an end called development. Freedom is a kind of development and, hence, an end in itself. But it can also be a means; fostering freedom implies attaining development on different scores. So if we want the development of our society, under no circumstances should freedom be hampered. Let this idea of development and freedom dawn on us, especially on the politicians whom we send to the parliament to enhance, not restrict, the frontier of freedom.
Abdul Bayes is a Professor of Economics at Jahangirnagar University. Email: abdulbaayes@yahoo.com.