Nobel Laureate professor Muhammad Yunus (L) talks to New Age editor Nurul Kabir. — Sultan Mahmud Mukut/Drik
Professor Muhammad Yunus (1940-), founder of the micro-finance famed Grameen Bank and a Peace Nobel Laureate, who is controversial at home and hailed abroad, now facing corruption charges brought up by a visibly hostile government, explains in an exclusive interview with New Age, the contentious issues relating to the allegations. Besides, he talks, among other issues, about his abortive venture of launching a political party in 2007, but asserts that democratic transformation of society and the state is a must for a better, more inclusive economic development in Bangladesh while only democratic accountability of the authorities concerned can arrest financial corruption of various kinds. The interview, originally conducted in Bangla at the Yunus Centre in Dhaka on March 6, was taken by New Age editor Nurul Kabir
New Age: While you hardly gave interviews to the local press in the past, this is heartening that you have recently started talking to the national media. What prompted your change of mind?
Muhammad Yunus: True, I initially chose not to speak much to the national press, for I thought the more I would speak, the more I would be exposed to unnecessary controversy. So, I just concentrated on my works.
New Age: It means you believed in the Bangla proverb — ‘the dumb has no enemy’. Finally, you discovered that a ‘dumb might also have enemies’ and, therefore, ‘resolved to speak to the local press’?
Muhammad Yunus: (Laugh) Yes, despite my silence, I am repeatedly being branded as a ‘usurer’, a ‘bribe taker’, a ‘blood sucker of the poor’, a ‘tax evader’ and even a ‘money launderer’. And, what not? These are false allegations — very insulting and painful. I am, therefore, compelled to speak out to our press and, thus, clarify my position to the people and remove the misgivings.
New Age: Well, you have lost a case in the labour court, in which allegations had it that your company, Grameen Telecom, did not meet the legal obligation of distributing 5 per cent of the company profit to the workers.
Muhammad Yunus: You see, the organisation in question is a non-dividend, non-profit company. The directors and shareholders of the company do not take any profit or any remuneration from the company. Instead, the returns of the company are invested and re-invested in ‘social business’, which is meant for the greater good of society. So, when the directors and shareholders do not take any profit, in our views, or in the views of our lawyers, the question of giving ‘profit’ to the workers did not arise. However, when we were accused by the government of violating the law, we went to the court for settling the legal issue. The court asked us to give the money and we complied.
New Age: There was an ‘out-of-the-court settlement’ of the issue while the court was yet to come up with its verdict. Why did the company make the efforts to settle the dispute outside the court?
Muhammad Yunus: That was a horrible situation going on in and around office premises. Unhealthy slogans were chanted. Demonstrations had been staged for some days. It was a total chaos. So, we thought it was important to make efforts to stabilise the situation and restore normalcy through negotiations.
New Age: Well, while the attempt for peace was appreciable, there arose another controversy that a bank account had been opened to disburse the money to the workers before reaching a negotiated settlement. Would you, please, explain why this ‘irregularity’ did happen?
Muhammad Yunus: Simple! It was done to end the crisis as soon as possible. The unofficial negotiation was almost done and the company authorities resolved to honour the negotiation and, therefore, opened the account so that there could be no doubt about the good intention of the authorities to resolve the problem.
New Age: There is another allegation that your company evaded a huge amount of income tax. Eventually, you paid the tax only after the court had asked the company to pay. Would you say that the non-payment of the tax was a result of certain legal oversight on the part of the management?
Muhammad Yunus: No, it was our conscious legal position that the income tax law concerned did not oblige our non-profit, non-dividend social business entity to pay income tax. Our lawyers were totally convinced about their interpretation of the law and they still believe that they are right. Nevertheless, we complied with the court verdict and paid the tax as it decided.
New Age: If you and your lawyers are convinced that a social business entity, non-profit and non-dividend is not supposed to pay taxes under the Company Act, you are supposed to appeal against the court verdict.
Muhammad Yunus: We won’t, for we don’t want any more hassle. We want to work with all our dedication.
New Age: What was your first personal reaction when you, the peace Nobel laureate with a global fame for micro-credit programme and chairman of the ‘social business’ enterprise called Grameen Telecom, were prosecuted in the labour court by the government in September 2021? Did you apprehend earlier that the court would eventually give you prison sentence, as it did in January this year?
Muhammad Yunus: I was obviously shocked. But, given the hostile environment of the country I am exposed to for some years, I was not surprised. However, we have appealed against the sentences. If appeals court upholds the verdict, we have to serve prison terms.
New Age: There is an allegation, particularly voiced by the opposition political camps and some human rights bodies, that the court system of the country is not entirely free of the government control. Do you, under this circumstance, expect fair justice?
Muhammad Yunus: We only hope that we would eventually get justice.
New Age: Thousands of opposition activists fighting for democracy are indiscriminately arrested, harassed and jailed. Are you sympathetic with them?
Muhammad Yunus: I am sympathetic to anybody whose human rights and democratic rights are denied.
New Age: You were talking about being exposed to a hostile circumstance. What is that and why?
Muhammad Yunus: Well, it is visible to everybody that I am frequently and publicly being called a ‘blood sucker’, ‘bribe taker’, ‘usurer’, ‘tax evader’ and even a ‘money launderer’ while I have no money of my own, I do not own any private property and I don’t have any intention to own any property. I want to die a free man — free from the ownership of any property.
New Age: Recently, on February 12, some outsiders reportedly entered your Grameen Telecom office forcibly and tried to take control of the building. What had exactly happened?
Muhammad Yunus: We are running some non-profit companies from here, while money came from different donor bodies across the world for social businesses. None of us are owners of the companies in question. Suddenly, on February 12, some people forcibly entered the building and claimed that the companies belonged to the Grameen Bank and that the Grameen Bank Board had decided to take over the companies, and therefore they were there to take control of the building. Strange! When we could not stay with Grameen Bank, we took so much of trouble to arrange the piece of land and construct the green building on it to house those companies. We have been here for two years now.
We told the intruders that if the Grammen Bank had any legal claim on these organisations, it could go to the court. Why should there be an attempt of a forcible takeover? But our words fell on deaf ears. Then we called the police, but they were of no help. So, we announced a press conference for February 15.
On February 15, they brought in to our office premises many people, including Student League activists, who started staging agitation in front of our building since morning. They brought in some women with brooms in their hands to hit me! However, as the media people started arriving, they left, and we explained our position on the issue. Since then, nothing much has happened.
New Age: Are you concerned about your personal safety and security, particularly after all that happened in and around your office building on Feb 12?
Muhammad Yunus: I don’t think about it much, I want to work peacefully. But my colleagues around me are making efforts to ensure my safety particularly while coming to the office and returning home.
New Age: Well, prime minister Sheikh Hasina often makes those harsh comments against you and, that too, publicly. But why does she, in your view, sound bitter about you, particularly when you personally were on good terms with her in the late 1990s and the early 2000s?
Muhammad Yunus: I don’t have any clue as to why she is so angry at me. Many people speculate many reasons, but I really don’t have any clue.
New Age: Some say it is mainly due to your brief political adventure that you undertook when a military-driven regime illegally took over power in 2007 with an objective to, particularly, oust Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia from the political arena.
Muhammad Yunus: I don’t know, but it was a matter of only 10 weeks, when I took a political initiative and abandoned the idea. Is this believable that only 10 weeks of my political activism can upset and anger her so much? I really don’t know.
New Age: You launched a political party called Nagarik Shakti (the People’s Power) in February 2007 and abandoned the project in May that year. What inspired you to launch the party and, again, what prompted you to drop the project so soon?
Muhammad Yunus: Some military officers came to my residence [in the first week of January 2007] to pursue me to head the non-party, caretaker government that they were to set up. Despite several hours of their persuasion, I refused to accept the offer, for I didn’t have any ambition for political power.
Then, some patriotic friends and well-wishers who felt the need for freeing the country’s political process from corruption and autocratic practices requested me to launch a fresh political party, which they would also actively help to flourish. I agreed and announced the decision. Interestingly, as soon as the announcement was made, many not-that-clean people, who were with either of the two major parties till the other day, started gathering around me. The phenomenon puzzled me, for, as I thought, one cannot constitute and run a clean political party with unclean people. I soon realised that politics was not my cup of tea and decided, on my own, to abandon the perceived project. I announced my decision to stay out of politics without having any prior discussion with anyone.
New Age: So, doing politics is not that easy?
Muhammad Yunus: [Laugh] True, it isn’t.
New Age: Well, don’t you think that it was not morally right to choose a time for launching a new political party, when a group of military officers was out to discredit the entire political class in the name of democratising politics, that too, keeping fundamental rights of the citizens in abeyance under the state of emergency?
Muhammad Yunus: It was a mistake on my part.
New Age: The prime minister calling you — I am sorry to mention — the ‘blood sucker of the poor’, perhaps, refers to the ‘high rate of compound interest’ of Grameen’s micro-finance. What is actually Grameen’s rate of micro-finance now?
Muhammad Yunus: Firstly, micro-finance in Bangladesh is now run by many organisations while Grameen’s rate of interest in the lowest at 20 per cent. Secondly, there is a government body, a regulatory body, that decides, in addition to many other things, the rate of interest. If one finds the rate unreasonable, the government is free to revise the rate. Moreover, I am not there anymore to fix or unfix Grameen Bank’s interest rate. Why don’t they reduce it?
New Age: Another allegation against the Grameen micro-finance is that if one woman of a group defaults on timely repayment of loans, the entire group is held responsible. The concept of justice and human rights does not endorse the idea of punishing one for the fault of another.
Muhammad Yunus: The allegation is baseless, for Grameen never holds the entire group responsible for the default of one member of a group. What an entire group of loan recipients needs to ensure is that none of the members would entertain or indulge in inhuman social practices like dowry for marriage. Dowry was a huge problem in rural areas.
New Age: But there are reports that some micro-finance recipients have suffered for the fault of others in the group!
Muhammad Yunus: If there is any, that is an aberration while there is an inbuilt mechanism to monitor and redress such aberrations.
New Age: Well, although many of us know of your micro-finance journey, would you briefly describe it for our young readers?
Muhammad Yunus: I thought of the concept of micro-finance long ago, on my return home after my higher education in the United States in the early 1970s. When I was teaching economics in the University of Chittagong in late 1972, I found extreme poverty in rural areas adjacent to the university campus. I felt helpless, became frustrated at theoretical promises of economics in practically addressing the poverty of the rural poor. I visited the nearby Jobra village with an objective to help at least one person to come out of poverty. I gave a very small amount of money out of my pocket to a person and advised him [not to eat that out, rather] to invest. This was the beginning. Then came the ruinous famine. Poor people were dying from hunger. It was very painful to watch. I took my students to the village, pursued some villagers for collective farming in nearby land, started a small project of rice cultivation, arranged for collective irrigation and established a mechanism for crops distribution among themselves, et cetera. Then, I developed a small micro-finance project with the help of a local Krishi Bank branch. It is a long journey, which I started to help the poor, not to suck their blood. I am happy that micro-finance is now helping millions of people across the world. But I do not have any money of my own.
New Age: How do you finance your personal expenditure?
Muhammad Yunus: I get a significant amount of money from the lectures that I deliver in different countries. Besides, I get quite a good amount of money in the form of royalty from my books, sold across the world. Still, I don’t use all the money for myself or my family. I have set up a trust with the money, from where my family receives 6 per cent of the income.
New Age: The government has accused you of laundering Tk 25 crore, which you have rejected in the court. How do you look at the government’s ineffective steps about those responsible for the government’s officially admitted millions of dollars of capital flight?
Muhammad Yunus: The huge amount of capital flight has taken place because of the lack of democracy. Had there been democracy and, thereby, democratic accountability of the rulers and powerful sections of the ruling classes, it could not have happened. So, ultimately, democracy is the most important thing for us to establish.
New Age: You have recently said that ‘there is no democracy’ and ‘no politics’ in the country. The incumbents are, however, talking more about development. What is your take on it?
Muhammad Yunus: Development has definitely taken place. But had there been democracy in the country, the rate of development would have increased manifold. Democracy facilitates different classes and sections of the people to have sound debates and discussions among themselves on better ways and better models of development, helps the stakeholders to reach consensus on the issues and makes the government adhere to the people’s consensus.
New Age: Do you think that the political parties having no internal democracy, such as the scope for choosing party leaders at all phases by elections, can deliver genuine democracy and development?
Muhammad Yunus: No, the organisations having no democratic practices within themselves cannot contribute to the democratic growth of politics, which is essential for higher rate of development. You see, the people of Bangladesh are immensely creative, which they have proved in many areas of national life, such as the export-apparel sector, productive migration, agriculture, et cetera. People need a better environment and better opportunities to unleash their full potential. And democracy can help them realise that enormous potential.
New Age: The peasants, the apparel workers and the migrant workers, whom you just talked about, remain the main driving forces of Bangladesh’s economy, but don’t they live the most undignified life?
Muhammad Yunus: Yes, they do, which is unacceptable. If there had been democracy in the country, the rulers would have been forced to ask for views of these sections of people in the state’s policy-making process. If their views had been accommodated in the policy-making process, their lots as well as social status would really have improved. That’s why for integrated development, democratic transformation of society and the state remains the most important issue for the country.
New Age: How do we achieve this objective?
Muhammad Yunus: Through unity of and consensus among people. The politics of acrimony won’t help.
New Age: Would you respond positively, if prime minister Sheikh Hasina invites you to work together, [particularly after all these bitterness]?
Muhammad Yunus: I have no problem to work with anyone for the greater good of the country.
New Age: How do you feel about foreign powers, such as India, America and China, meddling in Bangladesh’s national politics?
Muhammad Yunus: I definitely feel bad. This is undesirable. However, democracy and people’s unity are the solution to this problem.
New Age: Well, you have personal friends among the ruling elite of all these countries. Don’t you dissuade them from meddling in our politics?
Muhammad Yunus: I definitely do, in my personal capacity. Only the other day came a reputed Indian journalist. I told him about the collective potential of South Asia if the countries in the region work together, based on mutual respect and interests.
New Age: You are a Nobel peace laureate. What is your take on the United States’ continued support for Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian land, killing of innocent Palestinians for decades and finally the United States’ repeated veto in the UN Security Council against the proposal, seeking immediate ‘ceasefire’ in Gaza where thousands of Palestinians have already been killed by Israel over the past few months.
Muhammad Yunus: The Gaza killings are absolutely inhuman and, therefore, unacceptable. I support a two-state solution to the problem. The United States once helped leaders of Palestine and Israel to work out a ‘two-state solution’ in the region. Americans should stick to the proposed solution.
New Age
