Letters to the Editor Himal Southasian

Hard-working caretaker

We are happy to know that Himal is observing the present political situation in Bangladesh, but feel you have been unfair in your coverage (see May 2007, "Khaki politics in Dhaka" and "The Dhaka regime's messy surgery"). It is crucial to note that the current caretaker government does not belong to any political party, nor does it have an alliance with any foreign entity. During the last 36 years, it is these combined elements that have proved disastrous for our country – creating intolerance, failing to listen to the people's demands, and creating a corrupt society, full of nepotism and favouritism. The common people have never had anyone in political power to speak for their sufferings, nor has basic progress been made in the country's socio-economic, industrial or educational sectors. The present government is now trying hard to bring developments in these sectors. We urge you not to support any political party until all reformation of Bangladesh's political anomalies are properly executed by the current government. The authorities clearly cannot allow any election at this time, as this would cause the country to fall into turmoil. For the past three months, it has seemed as though Bangladeshis have finally been enjoying the fruits of their independence, and we urge you to refrain from any irritation or disrespectful comments towards the current government. This administration is trying hard to clean up every aspect of the country – to give Bangladeshis a real sense of democracy, whereby they can control their own country. 

Mohammad Zubayer, Mohammad Alamgir,
Majeedul Chowdhury, Abdul Awal Siddique,
Vajan Sarker, Golam Kibria, Monaj Kumar Barua

Dhaka 

Tibetans within Tibet

Thanks for your recent coverage on Tibet (see April 2007), which gave much-needed insight into the issue. It is time that the Tibetan government-in-exile starts to think of alternative methods in its dealings with China, as well as with the international community. Dharamsala needs to ask itself how much more it is willing to compromise, as Tibetan overeignty, to some extent, has already been sacrificed. It should also be noted that most of the articles and viewpoints in Himal's coverage came from outside Tibet. It would have been significantly more interesting to have gotten views from the inside. Do Tibetans in Tibet view issues the same way as the exiles and non-Tibetans do? Probably not. There are, after all, very diverse viewpoints on many of these issues within the Tibetan community in Tibet itself. Freedom and unity within and towards the Tibet struggle will depend upon the integration of these diverse views.

T Jigme

Toronto, Canada

An American colony

It was with a sense of immense pleasure that I read your articles on the suspension of democracy in Bangladesh in the May issue of Himal. Nothing could have been more timely or persuasive. I do have one query, however: given that Bangladesh is ruled from Washington, DC and other Western capitals, does it really matter whether we have a democracy or an autocracy? What can freedom mean for a colony, which is really what we are? A colonial democracy is a political centaur, and may not be a very desirable animal outside a zoo. The paradox of being a colony and a democracy must seem incongruous. Yet the origin of this oxymoron goes back to the time of Darius, the ancient Persian king who sought submission from Athens. The Greek democracies of Asia Minor were content to be ruled by the 'great king', so long as he allowed them their little fiction of self-government. How thoroughly modern these arrangements seem, looking at Bangladesh.

Iftekhar Sayeed

Dhaka

Dangerous bargains

The concerns of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), as well as the headline of our 8 April press release ("Bargaining with Taliban Increases Risk to Foreign Media"), have been misread (see May, "Mediafile"). The point of the press release was to criticise the process of bargaining and reaching deals with Taliban or other terrorist groups. It is inevitable that (as in the case of abducted Italian journalist Daniele Mastrogiacomo, who was later released) if you make a bargain with kidnappers, you put a price on the next media correspondent in town. This increases the risk to foreign correspondents pecifically, because it is Western governments that are most prepared to bargain. However, it is obvious that the people working with foreign correspondents, and local correspondents, are equally at risk, and the IFJ has been trenchant in its criticism of the killers and the lack of regard of the Afghan authorities. The IFJ is well aware of the risks facing Afghan journalists, and we have been the first international organisation to take steps to try to improve their levels of safety. In this case, we were drawing attention to the hypocrisy of treatment, and seeking an end to the bargaining process that puts all our people at risk. 

Aidan White
General Secretary, IFJ
Brussels