Mohammad Yunus : Banker To The People, Bother To The State

Muhammad Yunus works in his modest office in the Grameen Bank tower. The curtains are made of checked cotton produced by weavers his bank supports; so is the blue cotton kurta he wears. The walls are lined with books on economic theory, and he writes in longhand with a fountain pen. Beside him rest a BlackBerry and an iPhone, chiming out when messages arrive. Weak sunlight leaks in through the smog cloaking the Bangladeshi capital, and the Nobel laureate has an air of serenity. There is no hint in his genial demeanour that he is in the midst of a messy legal battle to keep control of his life's work. High on the wall above Prof. Yunus's chair hangs a portrait: a grainy, black-and-white picture of a serious, spectacled man. He is Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, known as the father of the nation, who led the fight for independence in the early 1970 s. He is also the father of Sheikh Hasina Wazed, the woman who leads Bangladesh today – and whose government now seems hell bent on using every possible instrument at its disposal to discredit its most prominent citizen. At 70 , Prof. Yunus might have expected this to be a golden period, overseeing dozens of social enterprises that now bear the Grameen name. Instead he is mired in a bitter feud with the only Bangladeshi with a story to rival his own. Asked about the cause of his current troubles, Prof. Yunus smiles wearily and ticks off all the " gossips," and runs through the conspiracy theories. And then he shrugs and lays his broad palms flat on the desk. "I don't have the slightest idea why this is happening," he says. "I was just doing my work …" Beyond the borders of Bangladesh the professor tends to be seen as a naive champion of the poor, persecuted by a jealous Prime Minister. But here in Dhaka, the story is as snarled and chaotic as the streets, alleys and canals below Prof. Yunus's windows. It's a story about what Bangladesh is today: a newly vibrant secular democracy with a booming economy – but also, it seems, a country that has not yet shed all the baggage of its messy political past. The Grameen legend goes like this: in the early 1970 s, when Mohammed Yunus was a mild- mannered professor of economics working far from the centre of things in Chittagong, he made a personal loan of $27 to 42 village families. He watched them use the tiny loan to make relatively dramatic changes in their lives, and began to experiment with providing credit to the poor. It was a revolutionary approach; the landless poor had long been considered "unbankable" with no way to obtain capital to start small businesses. Prof. Yunus's model was formalized as a bank in 1983 ; today the Grameen Bank has 8.2 million borrowers, and lends $125- million a month. Grameen lends mostly to women ( who, research shows, are more likely than men to repay, and who channel what they earn into the health and education of their families) in small groups, where peer pressure encourages repayment. That model has been exported across the developing world. The work of Grameen is seen as instrumental in sowing the seeds of greater autonomy and prosperity in Bangladesh's rural women. The 2006 Nobel Peace Prize citation said Prof. Yunus had "shown himself to be a leader who has managed to translate visions into practical action for the benefit of millions of people." But microfinance has come under critical scrutiny in recent years, while Grameen's reliance on foreign donors raised particularly pointed questions at home. Meanwhile the bank – long the most powerful civil institution in the country – has had an increasingly uncomfortable relationship with government as the country moves out of decades of dictatorship. These troubles burst into public view last fall, when a documentary on Norwegian television alleged Prof. Yunus had, in his role as managing director, improperly transferred funds loaned to the bank by the Norwegian national aid agency to Grameen Kalyan, a separate not-for-profit entity. The bank says the financial transfer was only on paper and was made for tax purposes. An investigation by the Norwegian aid agency said it violated the terms of its agreement with the bank but found no misuse of funds, which were fully repaid, and the filmmakers stressed that there are no allegations that Prof. Yunus profited. But the film received sensational coverage in Dhaka, especially from outlets whose owners are close to senior government figures. And it created an opening for those with a grudge against Grameen. In rapid succession, the government ordered a review of the bank's affairs; declared that Prof. Yunus was a "public servant" because the state owns a small share of the bank; and ruled that he was 10 years past the mandatory age of retirement (the finance minister who delivered that news is himself 77 , while Sheikh Hasina is 63). The finance minister also appointed a new chair of the board, a former Grameen employee with an open dislike of Prof. Yunus, who quickly moved to dismiss him as managing director. While Prof. Yunus will not discuss the specifics of the ongoing legal case, his lawyers point out that a year ago he wrote to the Minister of Finance asking to work with him on a succession plan at Grameen. Not only was there no response, lawyer Sara Hossein said, but the governor of the central bank and other senior government figures who sit on the bank board went on regularly dealing with Prof. Yunus on bank affairs. Prof. Yunus challenged the dismissal in the country's highest court. But he found little solace there; the rapidity, and surly language, of the court orders have many convinced Bangladesh's quasi-independent judiciary has been ordered to side with government. The Supreme Court will hear an appeal in May. The whole episode has been immensely damaging for Bangladesh, at a time when the country strives to swap an image of famine and misery for that of a growing economy and flowering pluralist society. So what's driving the attack? The first explanation starts with the complex character of the Prime Minister. Sheikh Hasina has been jailed for alleged bribery and organizing political violence; when she was in power in the 1990 s Bangladesh earned Transparency International's title of "most corrupt nation." But it's too easy to dismiss her as a crooked despot. She was thrust into politics when her father and almost all the rest of her family were assassinated in the military coup in 1975 ; she and a sister escaped only because they were on a visit to Germany. She was repeatedly jailed during her 20- year campaign for a return to civilian rule. She has survived multiple assassination attempts and is loathed by the country's powerful network of far- right Islamists for her commitment to secularism and equality. And today she heads a government that has some of the most progressive policies in the world around educating girls and improving the lives of the poor. Nevertheless, she enjoys nothing like Prof. Yunus's global stature. A decade ago, Sheikh Hasina publicly praised Grameen, but her views later soured. In December she accused it of "sucking blood from the poor." Prof. Yunus seems to have earned her ire with a fiery speech he made in 2007 accusing all the country's politicians of corruption and pledging to start a party of his own. He soon backed away from that plan and today he says he wants nothing to do with politics. But many people here believe Sheikh Hasina's mistrust and anger are unabated, and the allegations against Grameen gave her a convenient opportunity to take out a potential rival. "Remember that in 2013 the country will again have elections – this is a way to send a message not just to Yunus but to anyone else who might be considering politics," said Lamia Karim, a Bangladeshi native who teaches at the University of Oregon and has long studied Grameen. A more subtle explanation is that the government wants control of Grameen. With 8.2 million borrowers, it provides a natural political constituency; with 22 ,000 staff members, it has a "store" of jobs that could be doled out in a country where delivering jobs is critical to getting elected. And slashing its interest rates (from the roughly 20 per cent rate that the bank says it needs to be viable, to perhaps 5 per cent) would cost the government nothing and win it wild popularity – at least until the bank failed. Ironically, Prof. Yunus's troubles may in fact reflect a new political maturity in Bangladesh. The Grameen enterprises include the country's largest telecom firm and 45 other affiliates; taken together, they now form the biggest business in the country. Its reach is matched by that of BRAC, a non- governmental organization which has schools and clinics across the country and also has huge business interests, with which it funds its charities. Together BRAC, Grameen and a couple of smaller NGOs form a sort of parallel Bangladeshi state. Elected in a free, fair election by a large margin, it appears many in Sheikh Hasina's government feel it is time to cut the NGOs down to size. "Perhaps through the restructuring of Grameen Bank the government will step in and take back some of the powers that were outsourced to the NGO sector in the 80 s," Prof. Karim said. "The state is reasserting itself." But it's hard to see how the dissolution of Grameen, which increasingly seems to be the government's goal, would leave the poor any better off. The new, government-appointed chair of the bank, Muzammel Haq, is a former Grameen employee with a bitterness toward his celebrated former boss that he can barely disguise. He insists to a reporter that he should not speak on the record, then leaks venom and allegations about Prof. Yunus for more than three hours. "What are the true non-performing assets? I have to establish the financial health of the organization," he said, then added smugly, "I will try that a dignified transition will take place and he [Prof. Yunus] will play a global role." Prof. Yunus has groomed no obvious successor, and many potential candidates have left the bank in recent years on acrimonious terms. He says he cannot simply abandon the bank, though his 40- odd other social businesses demand his attention. "I have plenty to do – that's not a problem. The problem is what happens to Grameen Bank. This bank will run perfectly if I step down, as long as they [the employees] feel it's in good hands and I bless them. If I tell them I am happy and you work, they will work. They will not raise a single question. But they see now I am being pushed away and everybody gets tense." A three-week adjournment in the court case may give moderate elements in government time to broker some sort of settlement. But it will not be easy. "Prof. Yunus is a modern-day King Lear, in his arrogance and hubris, his unwillingness to see the faults: since the 1990 s the critique of Grameen has been ongoing …," Prof. Karim said. "I think Prof. Yunus forgot that Nobel Prize or not – he has to live in Bangladesh and by the codes of Bangladesh society."

Islamic Zealots Threatens To Paralyze Bangladesh

AN ISLAMIST leader threatened on Friday that he could paralyze the country in an hour if his missing son does not return home at the soonest. Recently the Islamists shutdown throughout the country on April 4 demanded of the government to scrap the women’s policy which advocates gender equality and education policy, which the Muslim zealot described both as anti- Islamic. The government rejected their claim. Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini, leader of Islamic clerics said in the morning that he had no doubt that prime minister have knowledge of the disappearance of his son, Abul Hasanat, who has been missing since Sunday last. Amini, chairman of faction of the Islami Oikya Jote (IOJ) claimed that plainclothes security agents kidnapped his youngest son in the capital Dhaka. However, the law enforcement agencies have vehemently denied it. Police is yet to trace the whereabouts of Hasanat. Missing person’s elder brother Abul Farah described to an English daily last week that five to six people with weapons and walkie-talkies dragged his brother in a sports utility vehicle having tinted windows, leaving two witnesses who are his friends. The Islamist party also a major alliance partner of the mainstream opposition warned while addressing a meeting of Muslim bigots at the National Press Club. Amidst thunderous claps he spoke loudly that “if my son is not set free, I have the power to make the country paralyze within an hour.” "We will not retreat from the campaign to implement Islamic Sharia law in the country, even if his family is intimidated, like they did to my son." The Islamist vowed that no anti- Islamic groups would be allowed politicking secularism and western democracy to take charge of the state power.

Is Robert Blake's Warning And Aminis Hartal Mere Coincidence?

What could have had gone so wrong that only two years into the incumbency, the government is drawing flaks from the Western allies? At least, Robert O. Blake's repeated warning of dire consequences on bilateral relationship between Washington and Dhaka and international media blitz against the government for ousting Yunus from the helm of Grameen Bank seem to clearly indicate foreign displeasure. However, it would be naïve to think foreign displeasure as reaction only to the government's sacking of Professor Yunus. Whether Blake's warning, international media blitz, and Fazlul Haque Amini's violent enforcement of hartal against the Women Development Policy are symptoms of a coordinated effort to destabilise the government or a mere coincidence, remain to be seen. Blake's warning, apparently catered to the demand of special interest groups rather than intending to resolve conflicts, risks energising religious extremists and alienating the progressive forces in Bangladesh. One aspect of the recent turn of events is that it bears strange resemblance to those during 1972-75 period, but with different twist. As one turns the pages of history on the foreign interventions during 1971-75 , one would find that frequent foreign interventions, insurgency, and severe economic and political crises during post-war period did not only add to the sufferings of the people of a country, already torn by the war of 1971 , devastated by massive flood of 1974 , and ravaged by the famine of 1974 ; it also led to the brutal killing of the father of the nation. Afterward came the 15 years of military rule with concomitant rise of religious extremism. The post- independence interventions could hardly be deemed as beneficial for Bangladesh. In 1971 , Bangladesh became the causality of cold war politics when Pakistani regime, with blessing from the Nixon administration, perpetrated one of the worst massacres in the modern history. Two subsequent cases of intervention during 1972-75 , by the donors and the World Bank indicate how cold war politics got prioritised over humanitarian crisis [description here largely draws on personal accounts of Professor Nurul Islam in Making of a Nation, Bangladesh: an Economist's Tale ( 2003) [1 ] and on Aid and Influence… by Just Faaland (1981)]. [2 ] In the first case, donor countries and the World Bank unduly pressurised Bangladesh to accept the debt liabilities of Pakistan, which accrued before December 1971. In the second case, the Nixon administration used food aid as a weapon to punish a government viewed as aligned too much with the Soviet bloc. Donors' pressure on Bangladesh in accepting debt liabilities accrued before December 1971 The issue of sharing of assets and debt liabilities was first raised by the World Bank when Bangladesh applied for Bank's membership in 1972.   Later, three bilateral donors, the United States, Germany, and France also joined the fray. Donors heavily pressed Bangladesh to resolve the debt liabilities of Pakistan while bypassing the issue of sharing of assets. Amid donors' pressure, government countered with three arguments: (1) since Pakistan was yet (in 1972) to recognise Bangladesh as an independent country, Bangladesh was under no obligation to discuss the issue of sharing external debt with Pakistan; (2) when Pakistan recognised sovereignty of Bangladesh, only then the issue could be discussed in a broader context of sharing of both external liabilities and assets created by such liabilities; (3) the resources that was transferred to Pakistan on a net basis during the pre-1971 period would also be offset against the flow of foreign assistance during the same period. Until then, the burden of external debt would solely be the responsibility of Pakistan. Even, the international legal experts, when consulted by the government, assured Bangladesh of having no obligation of sharing external debt the accumulated prior to December 1971. ( Islam, p. 290) In response, donors and the World Bank stressed that as quoted in Islam (p. 291) "the introduction of such factors as flow of resources or transfer of assets between the two parts of Pakistan before 1971 would be regarded by them ( donors and Bank) as "extraneous factors." Donors warned that any delaying or jeopardising of the negotiation of the debt settlement caused by bringing up "extraneous factors" would be termed as " unreasonable attitude" of the country, specifically referring to Bangladesh.  Concerning donors' attitude, Islam (p. 291) argues that "The creditors, by delinking the two issues, were, in fact, doing a great favour to Pakistan by letting off the latter from an obligation to negotiate with Bangladesh." Eager to start the process of economic recovery, Bangladesh eventually had to accept limited liability on debt as condition to reactivate projects inherited from Pakistan period. The issue of asset sharing is yet to be resolved and Pakistan still owes Bangladesh an estimated $5.5 billion measured in 1971-72 prices. The politics of food: invoking US PL-480 amid severe food crisis During 1973-74 , Bangladesh plunged into severe political- economic crisis. The massive floods in July-August, 1974 , which destroyed the jute crop, the country's most dominant source of export earnings, and interrupted the Aman production, made the matter even worse. Amidst the crisis, in August 1973 , government requested the USAID for 300 ,000 tons (later scaled down to 220 ,000 tons) of food assistance for the fiscal year 1973-74. The negotiation dragged on for seven months and, then, hit a snag when, on March 27 , 1971 ,  the US government, invoking a provision of the US PL 480 , informed Bangladesh that it could not provide the food aid as Bangladesh was having an on-going trade relation with CUBA! Under the provision, country having trade relation with Cuba would be prohibited to receive US food aid. The government argued that since it had not been aware of this provision prior to entering a trading relationship with Cuba and exceptions had been to Argentina and Brazil while they had also been having active trade relation with Cuba, exceptions should also be made for Bangladesh. The arguments were ignored. Instead, the government was notified that, if Bangladesh were to receive stipulated food aid, it either obtains an assurance from the US president certifying that such trade would be to the national interests of the United States or sever trade tie with Cuba. Given the widely known detest of the Nixon administration against Bangladesh and its founding father, the first option was deemed infeasible. Thus, the government opted for the next option. A written assurance from the government showing that it had severed trade tie with Cuba was provided to the US government in July 1974. However, the lawyers at the State Department determined that since the jute bags were yet to be shipped out of the port, Bangladesh would be still considered as "currently trading with Cuba". Thus, the government had to ensure that all the jute bags shipped out of the country to ensure the receipt of food aid. By the time (in December), food aid reached Bangladesh in December, 1974 , the worst spell of the famine of August-September 1974 was already over. Perhaps, the wrath of famine could have been alleviated somewhat had the food aid not been used as a tool to make a government unpopular, thus hastening its violent departure. The past interventions show that foreign pressures tend to increase with (1) growing domestic political polarisation, (2) incumbent's loss of political capital, (3) increasing foreign dependency, and (4) failure of the government to comply with the interest of the intervening country. Geo-politics also played significant role in the past intervention. The questions remain, why Pakistan, one of the largest recipients of US external aid, an extremely polarised nation, and with an unpopular incumbent, has been more successful in subverting foreign interference? Are members of interest groups in Bangladesh easy to be manipulated by foreign interests than those in Pakistan? One should note that inviting foreign intervention for group interests would be like "cutting nose to spite own face." Unfortunately, that appears to have been the convenient strategy of the feuding groups in Bangladesh.

The Future Of Nuclear Power And Rooppur

Japan’s nuclear disaster at Fukushima will have a significant impact on the future of nuclear power around the world and possibly on the Rooppur nuclear power project. The nuclear industry got its first major shock after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 in the US and the second shock in 1986 after a more serious one in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the former Soviet Union (now in Ukraine). The industry took lessons from all such accidents, both major and minor, and improved the safety features of nuclear reactors over the last fifty years. True, it was believed that another major nuclear accident after Chernobyl was most unlikely. But it has happened, though the time gap increased from seven years between the first two major accidents to a quarter of a century between the second and the third ones. The only difference is that while the earlier two accidents occurred for manmade reasons, the Japanese disaster was caused by two successive natural calamities, an 8.9- magnitude earthquake followed by a 10 to 14 metre high tsunami, both being unprecedented in recorded history. It is too early to make any meaningful evaluation of the nuclear accident at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant. A full picture of what has happened has yet to emerge. We need to know the exact sequence of events that unfolded at the plant. Every event will be critically and thoroughly analysed to find the reasons and remedies. Moreover, the crisis is not yet over. It is important to observe how the situation progresses and how it is finally resolved. For the time being, our hearts and prayers are with the Japanese people who have been struggling to overcome the aftermaths of three disasters including the one at the nuclear power plant. The workers at the plant site are doing a remarkable job.  Shaken physically and mentally by three consecutive catastrophic events, they are working hard day and night keeping cool in a high-radiation zone taking great personal risks. The plant workers and others engaged in the rescue and rehabilitation operations are the brave sons of Japan. They truly deserve our appreciation and applause.      Out of six boiling water reactors at the Fukushima plant site, units 1 , 2 and 3 were operating at the time of the earthquake. Units 4 , 5 and 6 were shut down earlier for routine maintenance. Unit 4 had its fuel removed from the reactor core. All the reactors had spent fuel pits close to the reactors where used nuclear fuel was being cooled by water for the removal of decay heat generated by the intense radiation within the fuel. Apparently, there was no damage to the nuclear reactors during the earthquake even though the ground acceleration at Fukushima unit 3 was 507 cm/sec. sq compared to the reactor design value of 449 cm/sec. sq. All the three operating reactors shut down automatically as expected and, in absence of any power from the grid, the captive diesel generators started to supply electricity to the emergency cooling systems for the removal of the decay heat from the cores. The emergency generators, however, were knocked out by the tsunami. The cooling systems of the nuclear reactors and the spent fuel pits thus became inoperative. The reactor cores and the spent fuel began to overheat. A mixture of steam and hydrogen produced by the intense heat caused explosions in the reactor buildings in units 1 , 2 and 3.  The high temperature of the spent fuel in unit 4 caused fires in the building. It is believed that the cores of units 1 , 2 and 3 have been damaged badly, probably resulting in partial meltdowns. Offsite power has now been restored to the reactor site and is being used to cool the reactors of units 1 , 2 and 3 by injecting fresh water, instead of seawater pumped earlier. Efforts are being made to restore the reactor cooling systems. Water is being sprayed in spent fuel pits in units 1 to 4. Cooling of spent fuel in units 5 and 6 has been restored. The radiation levels around the site are fluctuating. Areas around the reactor site up to Tokyo have been contaminated. Two leakage paths from unit 2 were detected and later sealed. Huge quantities of contaminated water have accumulated inside the reactor and turbine buildings. Some contaminated water was released to the sea for shortage of storage space resulting in increase of radioactivity of the sea water. Clean-up of the reactors may take years once the core temperatures stabilize. If the recovery of the damaged fuel from the reactors becomes too difficult and risky, the reactors of units 1 to 4 may be entombed like that at Chernobyl. Following the Fukushima disaster, questions are being raised about the future of nuclear power around the world. Germany has temporarily shut down seven of its oldest power plants whose operating lives were extended after expiry of their design lives. This prompt decision is believed to have been taken more on political grounds than on technical reasons, mainly to woo voters at the state elections. The safety aspects of all nuclear power plants in the US are being reviewed. EU countries agreed to carry out assessment of possible damage by earthquakes and other natural calamities on the 143 nuclear power plants located in 14 countries. Spain and Portugal are in favour of gradually phasing out nuclear power, a move opposed by France and Britain. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has called for new international nuclear safety standards during his recent visit to Japan. Russia is also reviewing its nuclear policy. Russia, China and India have significant long-term programmes for the expansion of nuclear power. Opponents of nuclear power are advocating closing down all operating nuclear power plants and not to build new ones. Is this proposition feasible? There are now 442 nuclear power plants with a combined installed capacity of about 375 ,000 MW in operation and 65 nuclear plants with a combined capacity of about 63 ,000 MW are under construction worldwide. In 2009 , the share of electricity generated by nuclear power plants was about 13.5 % of the total generation. The closure of all the nuclear power plants in operation and under- construction will have a tremendous impact on the demand of other sources of energy, mainly oil and coal, raising their prices to prohibitive levels. This will make energy as a whole too expensive and practically unaffordable. As a result, the global economy will be badly affected, perhaps initiating another recession. A greater share of fossil fuels in electricity generation will also increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thus accelerating global warming and climate changes.  It may be noted that not many nuclear power plants were closed down after either the Three Mile Island accident or the Chernobyl accident. A few nuclear power plants under construction were abandoned in the States because of the delay in getting construction permits. One nuclear power plant in Austria was never fuelled and started up after completion of construction because of a referendum against it. A few Chernobyl type nuclear reactors in the former Soviet Union had their cores modified for reasons of safety or were phased out. One reactor in the Philippines was mothballed because of design faults. These are only isolated cases of closures for specific reasons. The probability of any large-scale closure of nuclear reactors after the Fukushima disaster should, therefore, be ruled out. It will be difficult to phase out even the reactors which operated for 30 years or more as there are now 173 reactors which fall in this category. Most of the countries with operating nuclear power plants are likely to review their safety features in the light of the Fukushima accident and make necessary modifications. Only the very old ones which do not conform to modern safety standards deserve to be retired. Modern generation-III nuclear power reactors incorporate passive safety features which make the reactors inherently safe. For example, generation-III nuclear reactors can have their emergency core cooling systems in operation without any electricity, the flow of water through the core being governed by gravity and convection. Both gravity and convection flows are natural processes which cannot fail.  The proposed nuclear power plant at Rooppur will be based on generation-III pressurised water reactors with containment buildings like those built in the US and Europe. The containment building can hold any radioactivity that may leak out of the reactor and prevents its leakage into the atmosphere. Modern reactor containment buildings are designed to withstand severe shocks including the impacts of Boeing 747 airplanes. The reactors at Rooppur will be designed to withstand all probable natural calamities like earthquakes, tsunamis (if any), tornados, cyclones, floods, river erosion, etc. The maximum ground acceleration at Rooppur is unlikely to exceed 0.25 g i.e. 245 cm/ sec. sq, which is less than half of that experienced at Fukushima on March 11. Moreover, the design philosophy of the Rooppur plant must also take into consideration whatever lessons we may learn from the Fukushima nuclear accident. There is, therefore, no reason to abandon the Rooppur nuclear power project at this stage. It will, however, be advisable to take a pause and incorporate whatever additional safety features are necessary in the light of the Fukushima experience. The supply contract for Rooppur must have a clause to take advantage of any improvement or innovation in design, particularly on safety systems, that may take place during the tenure of the contract.   Compared to other available alternatives, nuclear power is still the safest and the cleanest form of energy. In terms of fatalities, it has the lowest fatality rate per unit of energy generated compared with other forms of energy. Nuclear reactors produce practically no greenhouse gases. The world is, therefore, likely to depend on nuclear power, like it did during the last fifty years, for generation of electricity for a long time to come even after the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Bangladesh To Legalize Political Islam, Ignoring Courts Decision To Restore Secularism

Despite electoral promises and an apex court’s ruling to restore secularism, the Bangladesh parliament is poised to pass an amendment to establish Islam as the state religion and legalize religious politics. The Sunni Muslim majority nation of 158 million will relax stringent restrictions imposed in the constitution of 1972. The constitutional amendment committee members said in “ prevailing political reality” the parliamentary special committee on constitutional amendments on Monday decided to advocate for relaxing restrictions on political Islam so that Islamic parties can continue functioning without any restrictions. The provision of Article 38 of the Bangladesh constitution bans use of religion for political purposes. Instead, the article allows every citizen to form associations or unions, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of morality or public order. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, leader of the ruling Awami League, at Monday’s meeting said the ruling party would not curb the political rights of Islamist parties. The secularist activists expressed there frustration and women rights groups are disgusted after recently hearing prime minister's political vision to keep Islam as state religion in the constitution. The Awami League government in 1972 banned religion-based organizations after Islamic parties collaborated with the marauding Pakistani army that killed 3 million people in nine months in 1971. Hasina, also the leader of the House, made it clear to the committee that her government would keep “Bismillah’ir Rahman’ir Rahim” (Faith in Allah) in the preamble of the constitution and retain Islam as the state religion. Two previous military rulers, Gens. Ziaur Rahman and H.M. Ershad deliberately doctored the constitution to keep the Islamists in good humor. In 1978 , the provisions of article 38 , prohibiting communal bodies, were dropped while in 1988 Islam became the state religion. The dreaded Islamist party Jamaat- e-Islami, whose leaders are now facing war crime charges, became politically active following the 1978 order. Earlier in July last year the apex court, in a landmark judgment banned political parties that propagate Islamic ideology, reverting to the original constitution of 38 years ago. Moments after the judgment the rights groups seems to be excited by the court’s verdict and interpreted that it was a major blow to the Islamist parties which foresees Sharia law for apparently a secular Muslim population and also advocates Koran and Sunnah which will eclipse the state constitution. "It seems that the government is reading a wrong message from the secularists and liberal Muslims," remarked Shahriar Kabir, a researcher on Muslim radicalism and extremism. A secularist advocate, Shahriar Kabir, said the prime minister’s statement has confused the nation and it seriously contradicts the verdict of the superior court. It seems that the war criminals and their adversaries have nothing to fear. Their parties would continue to function and overtly work against the war crimes trial, he remarked.