Two PMs and their diaspora

Today we address two different topics-one of the two PMs trip to the UN and another of a “rotten apple”, linked only by the fact that they both occurred in New York.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina made what can be termed as ” a significant trip” to the UN. Her active participation in the various pre-General Assembly summits and making substantive inputs in them were credible demonstration of Bangladesh’s important role in such vital development and security areas as poverty alleviation, gender discrimination and UN peacekeeping.

Our PM likes the global stage and seldom misses any chances of being on it even when protocol and relatively low level of other participants should have led her to decide otherwise. She enjoys being in the company of other

Presidents and PMs (and why not), and what we can gather from footage and photos, and some personal accounts , she excels in them. She definitely is smarter than many of them; we would even venture to say, most of them. After all, her quick mind, ready wit and ability to think on her feet ( which, at home, she exclusively uses to denigrate her opponents, the civil society and the media) is well known and definitely sets her apart in the global-leadership circle still largely dominated by men.

Coming back to her just concluded UN trip, Sheikh Hasina deserves praise for her robust speech at the Climate Summit hosted by the Secretary General. Her participation in the GEFI meeting on Global Education was appropriate, representing the country that has made significant advances in this sphere. As the largest contributor to the UN peacekeeping she legitimately co-chaired the US sponsored Summit on Peacekeeping and played a leadership role in it. All this testifies to her rising stature as a member of world-leader’s club and she is increasingly being recognized for that.

As it happened a few times before, both the Indian PM and ours were in New York together. For Modi it was his maiden trip, made more satisfying by the fact that he was refused visa earlier and now the US was doing everything to make up for it. Sweet revenge indeed!

For Sheikh Hasina it was her first trip to the UN after “winning” the legally correct but politically controversial and, participation wise, highly questionable election.

Like PM Modi she had a skeptical world to convince and win, skeptical because of Modi’s past and Hasina’s dubious “victory.” Both tried in their own ways.

Whereas Sheikh Hasina’s performance within the UN is comparable to her Indian counterpart, if not a few notches better, it is in their interactions with their respective diaspora and the different messages that emanate from those interactions that the contrast becomes stark and something, we feel, to learn from.

Modi talked about the future and we indulged in self-praise. Modi gave a picture of united India and we thrashed the opposition. He spoke to all US-based Indians, we spoke to our chosen crowd. When speaking to his compatriots he never brought in the opposition and we hardly left them. He inspired, we bored; he presented himself as a servant of the people and we as its indisputable leader; youth sparkled in his speeches, we ignored them in ours. In him, humility was written all over (he never missed a chance to repeat his ‘tea boy origin’ story). In ours, it was ‘opulence.’ (The Indian PM took a 75 member entourage most of whom were self-financed business leaders. We took 185 of which only 75 paid for their trip and the rest 110 were paid from the public exchequer).

In all, ours was déjà vu and his was oven fresh.

Coming to the “rotten apple,” whatever Sheikh Hasina achieved in her trip was totally, jarringly and unnecessarily marred by her ill-tempered, ill-mannered and totally uncouth minister. Not only the unbelievable nature of his comments, but also his choice of words, foul-mouthed expressions and overall body language — evident from the widely circulating footage — speak of an arrogant person totally given to self-indulgence, crudity and gangster-like behaviour.

The fact that he has been sacked from the cabinet, all party posts and even its primary membership is all well and good. It was largely unavoidable too, given the outrage all over and within his own party. But the crucial question to us is that how could such a person join the cabinet in the first place? What criteria, if any, are followed in choosing cabinet members?  Even if Sheikh Hasina personally makes these choices, does she follow any rule of her own?

The reports of his abuse of power and corruption were in abundance in the media. Regrettably, they made no impact on the PM.  As is well known, more the media exposed, more she becomes determined to do the opposite. (There is a joke prevalent in media circle that when a minister feels he may be dropped from the cabinet, he persuades an editor friend to write against him. That ensures his continuity. We don’t know whether it is true but every time we exposed a minister’s misdeeds his position got strengthened or at least he never got punished).

As more were written about Latif Siddiqui in the media and as nothing happened to his power or party stature, he became a law unto himself making it clear to all, especially his ministerial staff, that rules and procedures were only for the faint hearted and that he was of a different mettle. His favourite story was how he once beat up a senior civil servant who wanted to inform him about some procedure.  “Throw your rules in the Bay of Bengal” were his oft quoted words.

We believe years before PMO completed its report on Siddiqui, Sheikh Hasina knew about his activities. So why did she allow him to continue and vitiate her own administration? How many more such ministers are still there in her cabinet? When will she take steps against them? Or do we have to wait for them to make a disastrous “faux pas” for her to act.

Dozens of cases pile up against opposition leaders within days if not hours on trivial issues of ‘throwing stones’ and ‘obstructing police work’ whereas nothing happens when stories of corruption against ministers and ruling party members are made public. This does not enhance public trust in the present administration. More the people lose faith in the governance process, more will they indulge in corruption leading to a time when it will become impossible to control the malaise.

Sheikh Hasina would do well to take the Latif Siddiqui instance as a starting point for a thorough purge within her cabinet and her party so that she can begin afresh.  Coming from the media it may not be very palatable but the truth is when people hear talks of “Vision 2021” it is taken more as wish to continue in power; when mega projects are taken up it is seen as a chance to make “mega-bucks” for some people. A serious, thorough and merit based cleansing of the government and her party may add a new momentum and freshness to her tenure.

Since we are suggesting, dear readers, you may count it out from happening.