Rights, responsibilities and privileges

The year was 2006. It was a leisurely Friday afternoon, and I had just woken up from a rather comfortable afternoon siesta. Everyone at home seemed to be glued to the television set, which was an odd thing at that hour of the day. So I walked over and joined them to see what was so interesting. What followed was one of those moments that you remember and recall many times over for the rest of your life.

You know how there is this cliché of people saying they remember exactly where they were, or what they were doing, when they heard some big news? Well, clichéd as it might be, I remember thinking at that very moment, that 20 years from now that is probably exactly how I would talk about this moment. Today, some seven years later, the memory of that afternoon is still just as vivid in my mind, even though a lot has transpired since then to somewhat tarnish the unadulterated pride and happiness it once afforded me.

On that afternoon, all media in Bangladesh was reporting just one item – Dr. Muhammad Yunus, and the Grameen Bank, had just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their contributions towards eradicating poverty and creating a more equitable society. For those who kept abreast of such issues, the announcement was not even remotely a surprise. On the contrary, many would claim that this recognition was in years in the coming and it was about time Muhammad Yunus was thus honoured. There were detractors, and there were people who found fault with everything that Yunus had done and achieved until then, but then nobody has universal approbation. Taking that into consideration, I think it was still safe to say that at that point in time, Dr. Muhammad Yunus had reached a height no Bangladeshi had reached before, and probably precious few will reach in the future.

On that note though, allow me to mention a few points. Firstly, a lot of people, when trying to sell how influential Yunus is, will cite how he has methods of direct contact to the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton, or even the current President of the United States. Once I had a chance to give this enough thought, this started to prick me a little. Why would a man whose life mission is to eradicate poverty in his own motherland, a man who is above all trying to work for the common man, have his influence measured in terms of how many heads of states and business tycoons he knows? Why would he not prefer measures like how many families he has helped out of hardship, and how many communities around the world are adopting his ideas and methods? True influence, I believe, has to be bottom up, not top down. You see, any upper level that chooses to back you today, can choose to not back you tomorrow. However, tangible measures and effective results are less volatile and thus, I feel, better measures of the difference one can make.

The second point is how people often get all mushy about how no one had ever heard of Bangladesh, no one respects Bangladesh, but then all that changed in September 2006 and everywhere a Bangladeshi went, people ran to embrace him because he belonged to Muhammad Yunus’ country. I highly doubt these claims. Yes, there are people all over the world that belittle you for being a Bangladeshi. No, just knowing that your country produced a Nobel laureate does not change their attitude about you overnight. The same immigration officer who treated you like scum yesterday will not shake your hand because you are from Yunus’ country. There are people who will, people who will mention the micro-credit initiative and how it will change the world. I doubt that those people would cause you hardship about nationality in the first place. Such mush simply does not hold up to logical scrutiny.

Coming back to the main issue, around the time Dr. Yunus won the Nobel, the country was going through rather difficult times, not unlike what is going on at the moment, albeit with some role reversal. This gave rise to the obvious question of whether Yunus himself has any intention of stepping into the political scenario. Memory betrays me as to the details, but I remember that the general sentiment was that we need this man to be above politics and serve as a kind of moral beacon for society. He himself did not seem to keen to come into politics either, and seemed to rather continue his work as a social entrepreneur, the same work that had earned him the Nobel.

But then a lot of things changed in a very little time. The first caretaker government struggled to establish their authority, and then in January 2007 major changes took place and a whole new interim government was sworn in. Then suddenly, the man who claimed to have had no interest in politics announced that he was about to enter politics. Many interpreted these actions as sheer opportunism, but many, myself included, refused to give in to cynicism so readily. That unshakable faith in Muhammad Yunus, his abilities, and his good intentions took their first major hit when he summarily backed out within months if not weeks. Apparently he had not received sufficient response, and was therefore not coming into politics after all. If nothing else, I would have expected a businessman of his calibre to know that one does not ask for guarantees of success even before embarking on a project. If Dr. Yunus thought his credentials put him on the fast track for political success, then he was probably not the man many of us thought he was. One cannot transfer achievements and simply expect guaranteed success in a field because they have been successful in past endeavours.

Many years have passed since then. I had been away from the country for a good bit of time in the middle, and returned in early 2011. Within a few months of my return, a lot of things started happening on the Muhammad Yunus front. The government seemed hell-bent on somehow getting him into trouble, and soon they seemed to succeed due to certain irregularities within the Grameen Bank administration. Suddenly the whole nation seemed up in arms to defend him. For once, even the BNP seemed to be in agreement with the more sensible members of society in their support for Muhammad Yunus, regardless of course of what their motives might have been. I do not pretend to understand all the intricacies of the matter, and do understand that it may well have looked like Yunus was being harassed because he had tried to enter politics when the two major parties were practically crippled, but that does not change the fact that if there were irregularities, then actions had to be taken. The same BNP who seemed to not fathom this had at one point shut down Ekushe TV because of discrepancy with their paperwork. Selective amnesia is a wonderful thing.

Fast forward to the recent past, and new rules are being legislated in order to ensure that the Grameen Bank is more accountable to both the Government of Bangladesh and the Bangladesh Bank. Once again, Muhammad Yunus seems to think this is not a proper demand. Once again, I fail to understand why the government of a country cannot ask for greater monitoring of an organisation that has already been questioned several times as to their methods. Muhammad Yunus seems to think that his awards and achievements give him privileges that place him on a pedestal above other people.

Of course, I am far less qualified than most people, let alone a man of Yunus’ standing. So I am happy to assume that he knows or understands something that I do not about why Grameen Bank has to be autonomous and why he himself is above all questions. However, there are still issues that have disappointed me and many others like me, who once looked up to and practically idolised the man. Firstly, a few weeks back in a meeting with women who are clients of Grameen Bank, the Nobel Peace laureate used language that we are not completely unfamiliar with from lesser men, but find a little unbecoming from a man who can apparently call Bill Clinton up anytime he wants. Using phrases like “We’ll break the hands that try to take hold of it (Grameen Bank)” sound very surreal coming from a man who once spoke about taking Bangladesh to new heights. I am sure many will try to explain how he is simply reacting to the injustice that has been done to him. I wonder if these people will feel equally generous if a political leader behaves the same way, citing that they have been wronged and can do as they please to seek revenge.

Then we come to last Thursday, when a news item caught my attention. Dr. Muhammad Yunus has finally made the leap and unequivocally stated that people should vote for the party that is lenient towards Grameen Bank. (Prof. Yunus said this while talking to a group of Bangladeshi reporters at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He was there to attend the 5th Global Social Summit). Of all the issues that plague this country, of all the concerns about whether war criminals will finally receive their dues, and in the midst of a rising fanaticism as demonstrated by Hifazat and Jamaat, the one issue our Nobel laureate has picked as the most important, is whether a party is going to go easy on him. All I can say is that I am sorely disappointed. Either Dr. Yunus is blissfully ignorant of the realities of this nation, or he is simply not the man he was once painted to be.

I still remember my graduation ceremony from a university here in Bangladesh. It was easily the biggest moment of my life until then, and still is one of the major milestones in life. I still remember standing up to receive my degree, and what really made an impression on me was when the Chancellor said “…confer the degree with all rights, responsibilities and privileges”. It has always been on my mind since then, that I do not just have a degree, I have responsibilities. I wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize comes with any such clauses. I wonder what happens when someone chooses to only avail the rights and privileges, and not discharge of the responsibilities.