Background information
Religious extremism and terrorism exploits the economic and political
failures of the Middle East, Iraq, South Asia, East Asia and the Russian
Federation, but also relies on ideologies that reject all secular governments
as imperfect. The atrocities of 9/11, the Madrid bombings, the Bali bombings,
and a large number of lesser acts of irrational violence pose a new and
unique challenge to peace and security throughout the world. The terrorists
who commit these dreadful crimes are not linked together in a single worldwide
hierarchical organisation; they belong to small groups or cells, whose
only link is a millenarian ideology dedicated to the destruction of secular
government and the advent of a society based on an imagined model of the
early 7th century. Local problems everywhere are used as one means to
attract people to this worldview, and the extremists then recruit, from
the wider group of those who believe in this model, those who are prepared
to achieve the goal by violence and martyrdom. In Bangladesh, the terrorist
attacks of the last few years are not motivated by the aim of exterminating
or exiling the minorities and producing a monolithic theocracy at home,
but have a global agenda as well. This is why events in Bangladesh are
matters of concern throughout the world.
Bangladesh
The persecution of the minority communities in Bangladesh started soon
after the general election in 2001, when the Bangladesh Nationalist Party
(BNP) and its allies, Jamaat-e-Islami and Islami Oikya Jote came to power.
What began with attacks on the Hindu community was followed by attacks
on the Christians, Buddhists, indigenous communities, and the Ahmadiyya
Muslim Community. The largest opposition political party of Bangladesh,
the Awami League, has also become the target of assassination, torture
and harassment. Journalists, human rights activists, intellectuals, officers
and employees of government, semi government and other organisations believing
in secular democracy are also being persecuted.
None of the terrorists responsible for the crimes of violence against
persons belonging to minority religious and ethnic groups, opposition
parties and NGOs after the present government came into power in October
2001, have been brought to justice.
Amongst those targeted have been the UK High Commissioner, who was the
victim of an assassination attempt on May 21, 2004, in which four people
were killed. On August 21, 2004 the Leader of the Opposition, Sheikh Hasina
narrowly escaped death in a grenade attack in which 21 people died, and
on January 27, 2005 the former Foreign Minister, 73 year old Shah AMS
Kibria, was killed in a grenade attack, which also left 6 others dead.
Top
Conference_working_session
Working sessions:
Keynote paper presentations and themes
Working session 1, room G 60
Human rights: Workshop Chair: Abbas Faiz, Amnesty International
Workshop Speakers:
1 Advocate Sultana Kamal: Datelines Dhaka: Current situation and an analysis
of Human Rights in Bangladesh
2 Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury: Human rights violation by law enforcement
agencies (Clean Heart Operation, RAB etc)
3 Lutz Oette, Redress: Torture in Bangladesh 1971-2004
4 Ahmad Salim, Pakistan: Human Rights Violations of minorities
5 Advocate Mahbube Alam, President, Supreme Court Bar Association, Bangladesh
6 Advocate Sigma Huda, Bangladesh
Working session 2, room G 59
Persecution of minorities: Workshop Chair: Shelina Thawer, Minority Rights
Group International)
Workshop Speakers:
1 Sitangshu Guha: A Glimpse into the State-sponsored Campaign of Religious
& Ethnic Cleansing in Bangladesh
2 Hironmoy Karlekar, India: Bangladesh: Next Afghanistan?
3 Mr Kumar Sivasish Roy: Jumma Peoples Network UK
4 Prof Salim Malek: Ahmadiyya community
5 Advocate Promode Mankin MP, President, Bangladesh Christian Association
& Adibashi Forum: Indigenous communities of Bangladesh
6 Prof Ajoy Roy: Annada Prasad, Cries in silence & anguish
Working session 3, room G 52
Rise of religious extremism & the threat to secular democracy: Workshop
Chair: Prof Dr John Eade, University of Surrey
Workshop Speakers:
1 Dr Reza Kibria: Threat to secular democracy
2 Prof Muntassir Mamoon, Dhaka University
3 Barrister Shafique Ahmed, Bangladesh
5 Dr David Garbin, University of Surrey: Bangladeshi diaspora: religious
trends, socio-cultural dynamics and transnational politics
6 Barrister Amirul Islam, Bangladesh
Working session 4, room Khalili Lecture Theatre
International aspects: Workshop Chair: Justice K M Subhan
Workshop Speakers:
1 Maggie Bowden, Liberation
2 Elianna Moquette, Human Rights Watch
3 Roy Brown, President, International Humanist & Ethical Union:
Islam & Fundamentalism: defending human rights at the UN
4 Ina Hume, Vanishing Rites: International perspectives on human rights
violations by the Military in the Chittagong Hill Tracts
Top
Conference_resolutions
European Human
Rights Conference on Bangladesh
Extremism, Intolerance & Violence
17 June 2005
SOAS (School of Oriental & African Studies), University
of London, Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG, UK
Conference Resolutions
Resolution concerning the persecution of and discrimination against the
religious & ethnic minorities and political opponents, civil society
NGOs, journalists and other groups in Bangladesh adopted at the European
Human Rights Conference on Bangladesh on 17th June 2005 at SOAS, University
of London:
This European Human Rights Conference on Bangladesh,
Recognizing that religious extremism is threatening democratic institutions
and constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion in Bangladesh, and
thus provoking intolerance towards minority ethnic and faith communities
of Bangladesh:
Noting that wherever religious extremism has arisen, it has led to violence,
division, anarchy, intolerance and hatred, not only towards other communities
within the state concerned, but also against people of other cultures
and backgrounds:
Alarmed that the Bangladesh authorities have not only failed to stop extremist
repression and violence, but have colluded with religious extremist groups
to violate and usurp human rights of minority groups, namely, but not
limited to, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Ahmadiyya Muslims, secular
civil society members, NGOs, journalists and members of opposition parties:
Deploring the government ban on Ahmadiyya publication, which violates
the freedom of religion and expression supposedly enshrined in the Constitution
of Bangladesh:
Convinced that renaming of mosques and the burning of books and important
historical documents is deeply resented and opposed by the vast majority
of the people of Bangladesh;
Regretting Bangladesh Government’s abject failure to effectively
investigate and prosecute the criminals responsible for violent, grenade
& bomb attacks on leading members of the opposition, the British High
Commissioner, arts and cultural events, members and institutions of religious
minorities and others;
1. Calls upon the government of Bangladesh to bring
to justice the perpetrators and planners of violence in Bangladesh including
the attackers on Anwar Chowdhury, the British High Commissioner; and Shah
AMS Kibria, the former finance minister; to halt immediately extra judicial
killings and custodial tortures, and to bring to justice those responsible
for throwing grenades at the rally addressed by the Leader of the Opposition,
HE Sheikh Hasina on 21st August 2004, in which scores of people were killed
and maimed.
2. Further calls on the government to halt the abuse
of human rights especially of minority faith communities and civil society
members;
3. Demands that preparations be made to ensure a free
and fair election under a neutral administration, conducted by an independent
election commission along with the interim government, to be chosen in
consultation with the opposition;
4. Urges the government of Bangladesh to safeguard the
independence of the judiciary, and to prevent and reverse party politicisation
of the police, administration and the judiciary;
5. Calls upon the government of Bangladesh to repeal
the 5th and 8th amendment of the Constitution and the anti minority and
racist laws such as the vested property legislation;
6. Demands the implementation of the Chittagong Hill
Tracts Peace Accord of 1997 and an end to the demographic transformation
of the CHT under military occupation,
7. Reminds the government of Bangladesh that in accordance
with the constitutional rights of the people, the ban on Ahmadiyya publication
must be lifted, Ahmadiyya mosques must be restored to the community, and
equal rights secured to the Ahmadiyya community and other minorities,
in employment and the delivery of public services of Bangladesh.
8. Calls upon the government of Bangladesh to establish
a permanent and independent minority and women’s rights commission.
9. Demands that the government of Bangladesh undertake
comprehensive and transparent investigation, with the aid of international
intelligence agencies, in order to bring to justice those who smuggled
truckloads of illegal arms (particularly those recovered from the government
controlled jetties in Chittagong port, Bogra, Kuril, Budda), including
grenades, and to recover those arms which have already found their way
into terrorist hands, and to publish a report on the origin of those arms,
the persons and organisations involved in their smuggling.
10. Asks donors, including the World Bank, USAID, The
EU and others, who will be participating in the Bangladesh Development
Forum 2006, to concentrate on good governance, and in particular, on the
maintenance of stable democracy in Bangladesh, based on respect for human
rights, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
11. Decides to establish a European civil society network
to monitor the progress of Bangladesh towards compliance with international
human rights standards, to make representations to governments and to
the UN Human Rights Commission and to hold further meetings.
Top
Press_statement_by_Lord_Avebury
Bangladesh Conference
2005 Steering Committee
Patron Lord Dholakia Chair Lord Avebury
131 Commercial Street.
London E1 6BJ. UK
Tel Sujit Sen 07766 704005 or 07956 890689
Fax 020 8586 1098
Email admin@shadinata.org.uk or sujit7@hotmail.com
19 June 05
PRESS STATEMENT BY LORD AVEBURY, VICE-CHAIR,
UK PARLIAMENTARY HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP
Ref: European Human Rights Conference on Bangladesh
Friday 17 June 2005 University of London.
Lord Avebury, Vice Chair of the UK Parliamentary Human
Rights Group, and
Chairman of the Steering Committee of the ‘European Human Rights
Conference on
Bangladesh’ held in SOAS, University of London on 17th June 2005,
has issued the following statement in response to allegations of the Bangladesh
High Commissioner in London.
I am disappointed by the false statement issued by the H E Mr A H Mofazzal
Karim, Bangladesh High Commissioner in London about the holding and conduct
of the one day conference on Bangladesh. The UK Parliamentary Human Rights
Group was one of the sponsors of this Conference and its aim was to provide
an opportunity for a factual analysis of the very serious problems affecting
secular political parties/groups as well as ethnic & religious minorities
in context of the growing extremism and the worrying culture of impunity
in Bangladesh.
These are areas of legitimate and continuing interest for the UK Parliament
as well as
the international community and it was hoped that the Bangladesh Government
would use the occasion of the Conference to provide its inputs and engage
in a constructive and mature manner.
We were very fair to the Government of Bangladesh in allotting them two
slots in the
Conference whereas all other groups including even the main opposition
party, the Awami League were given only one slot filled by its representative,
Saber Chowdhury.
The meeting did not "break up in disarray" but continued till
18:00 as
scheduled and was participated by all including Advocate Sigma Huda.
All participants agreed the Conference was an outstanding success in
bringing together representatives of all the beleaguered and persecuted
groups, and in agreeing to further the initiative of the Conference by
forming an international network.
The High Commissioner was interrupted during his presentation by other
participants when he tried to assert there was no violation of human rights
in Bangladesh and later on, in response to questions when he stated that
"many" BNP MPs were assassinated during the 1996-2001 Awami
League term of office. The participants also objected when he appeared
to assert that the rights of the Ahmadiyyas were less important, because
they were less numerous.
But the Chair of Plenary session, Professor Werner Menski had no difficulty
in
maintaining order and in fact allowed the High Commissioner additional
time to compensate for the interruptions.
There was a disturbance in the afternoon Plenary Session when the second
of the two Government speakers, Advocate Khondker Mahbubuddin Ahmed MP
refused to accept the ruling of the Chair, Lord Dholakia, that his time
was up. All the Speakers were strictly limited to ten minutes but the
Chair had allowed Mr. Ahmed an additional five minutes.
The High Commissioner had been alerted in writing on three occasions
that a
list of five persons named by him were invited to attend the Conference
but he brought along an additional five, and together they shouted and
protested the ruling of the Chair as Mr. Ahmed sought to continue his
speech. Some people in the audience shouted back. The High Commissioner
and his party then withdrew.
Professor Mable Gomes was one of the five people invited at the request
of
the High Commissioner and although she had asked questions in the morning
Plenary
and participated actively till then, she also left with him, forfeiting
opportunity
to participate in the afternoon workshops.
It is clear to me, from the High Commissioner's determination to bring
in extra people who were not invited, and from the conduct of his group
when they refused to accept the Chair's ruling, that their object was
not to contribute to the discussion of the unacceptable human rights situation
in Bangladesh but to sabotage the initiative if possible, and if not,
to creating disorder by wilfully choosing not to comply with universally
accepted rules of debate.
End
Lord Avebury House of Lords
London SW1A 0AA Tel 020 7219 3438
Top
Question_to_cabinet_ministers_of_the_Swedish_parliament
2005.06.20
To Cabinet Minister Carin Jämtin
THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN BANGLADESH
The Human Rights Watch (HRW) recently presented a report which
in
detail describes the increasing acts of violence against the Muslim
Ahmadiya sect in Bangladesh. In January this year the
government banned publications by the Ahmadiya sect.
The Ahmadiya sect is very vulnerable as its variant
of Islam is
considered blaspheming
against the dominating Sunni-approach in Bangladesh. The
situation has become aggravated since
radical Islamic groups have gained increased legitimacy as a support
party to the government.
Persecution of other religious minorities in Bangladesh
is
occuring, e.g. of Hindus who have
extensively been forced to flee from the
country. The development is especially tragic as Bangladesh was
founded on secular principles and has considerable experience
of
democratic elections.
HRW has encouraged the international community to
demand the
following of Bangladesh:
withdraw the ban on publications by Ahmadiyas
prosecute those accountable for attacks on politicians in
opposition and on minorities
immediately give U.N.´s reporter on religious freedom, Asma
Jahangir,
admittance to the country.
What measures will you, Cabinet Minister, take in
order to
actively counteract the persecution and discrimination of
religious minorities in Bangladesh?
Cecilia Wikström (The Liberal Party)
Bench number 79
Top
House_of_Lords_debate_on_Bangladesh
23 June, 2005
1.37 pm
Lord Avebury rose to call attention to the level of political and religious
violence in Bangladesh; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, human rights in Bangladesh have not been
high of the agenda of the media or the public in this country, in spite
of the close historical, sporting and cultural ties between our two
countries. The Economist observed last week that the problem was,
"among the most sparsely covered by the international press".
It explained that that was partly because the Government there made
it hard for international journalists to visit and partly because, when
they did visit, the Government did not like what they wrote—in
particular, the recent suggestions that the country was seeing a rise
in Islamic extremism and was becoming a haven for international terrorists.
The biggest headache for western diplomats in Dhaka, the Economist says,
is whether democracy can survive and whether the elections scheduled
for 2006 will be held. The main opposition party, the Awami League,
threatens to boycott the polls, in the face of a rising tide of violence
against its leaders and supporters.
The Home Office was forced to take Bangladesh off the so-called white
list of supposedly safe countries to which asylum seekers could be returned
without the right of an in-country appeal when the High Court ruled
in February, after an exhaustive survey of the evidence, that no rational
decision-maker could have been satisfied that there was in general in
Bangladesh no serious risk of persecution. The FCO's latest human rights
report describes Bangladesh as the second most dangerous country in
the world in which to be a journalist. Even at a distance, one can see
that reflected in the paranoia of the reaction to an attempt to hold
a rational discussion of the rise of extremism, intolerance and violence,
particularly as they affect religious, ethnic and political minorities,
as well as secular and progressive groups. Last Friday, a steering committee
under my chairmanship convened a one-day meeting at SOAS to discuss
the matters. We understood that the high commission had protested to
the Foreign Office about the holding of such a meeting. The noble Lord
may be able to assure us that it was told that, in this country, the
Government have nothing to say about
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1760
any lawful discussions, including those concerned with human rights.
Just for the record, we invited the high commissioner and four other
people representing the Bangladesh Government to participate. We gave
them two 10-minute slots in the plenary session compared with only one
for all other groups, including the official opposition.
The High Commissioner was heckled when he said that there was no violation
of human rights in Bangladesh; that many MPs belonging to the main party
now in government—the BNP—were assassinated during the 1996–2001
Awami League terms of office; and that the rise of Ahmadiyya Muslims
was not so important because there were only a small number of them
compared with the majority Sunni population. But, in spite of those
provocative remarks, order was maintained by the chair and the high
commissioner was allowed extra time to compensate for the interruptions.
When the second government speaker in turn exceeded his allotted 10
minutes and refused to obey the chair's ruling that he should sit down,
the high commissioner and his group—twice as many as the number
that we had officially invited and in spite of being told in writing
three times that we could not accept the additional nominations because
of the limited capacity of the hall—created a disturbance and
then walked out. He subsequently issued a false statement claiming that
the meeting had broken up in disarray, when, in fact, it continued peacefully
until 18:00 hours as scheduled.
By walking out, the high commissioner's group forfeited the chance to
participate in the afternoon workshops, which were very useful in focusing
on particular aspects of the problem; namely, human rights in general,
the persecution of minorities; the rise of religious extremism and the
threat to secular democracy; and international aspects, including the
role of donors and international NGOs.
I believe that this was the first time that an attempt had been made
to look at the situation of all of the besieged minority groups together
and, if possible, to point to ways of halting the downward slide to
anarchy, lawlessness and repression. The participants all agreed, apart
from the Bangladesh officials, that it was an outstanding success. They
were enthusiastic about setting up a network that will continue the
work of the conference, as I hope Ministers will have seen from the
resolution, a copy of which was sent to them.
We would have liked to hear from the two official spokesmen how they
saw the key governance challenges that they face and how best outside
assistance could help to address them. That was the subject of a meeting
held last February in Washington between members of the donor community,
including the UK, US, EU, World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.
Since then, I know that the UK and the European Union have raised further
concerns with Dhaka. Unfortunately, it was as if none of those had registered
with them.
The British high commissioner in Dhaka only a few weeks ago expressed
concern over the lack of progress in the investigation of an attempt
on his life, in which three people died, and over the continuation of
similar attacks. He mentioned the increased aid that the UK is giving
for
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1761
police reform, which is part of a package that makes us the biggest
donors—larger even than the World Bank. Will the Minister say
whether, as Mr Choudury suggested, aid can be deployed effectively to
improve the law and order situation in the absence of much firmer leadership
from the Government, in a situation where we have, as one participant
describes it,
"the politicisation of the Civil Service, undermining of the judiciary
and utilisation of the security forces to promote narrow party interests"?
The UK has repeatedly pressed Bangladesh to investigate terrorist crimes
and to bring those responsible to justice. The dreadful murder of Shah
A M S Kibria, the distinguished former Minister and ambassador to the
UN, and the failure of the authorities to take the steps that might
have saved his life, was only the latest in a series of outrages, which
included attempts on the lives of the Leader of the Opposition in August
2004 and, of course, on our high commissioner earlier in that year.
The Bangladesh high commissioner did not mention the belated request
that I understand has been made by his Government to Interpol and the
FBI for help in tracking down "terrorists sheltered by a foreign
intelligence agency" allegedly responsible for the killing of 21
people in the attack on the Leader of the Opposition's rally last August
or the improper release of confessions said to have been made by two
people held in custody for those offences, although neither of them
have been taken to court. Some of us saw those moves, and the orders
issued to law enforces to strengthen their efforts to arrest known terrorists,
as preliminary results of the conference. Can the noble Baroness in
her reply say whether we have received any requests for help in the
detection of those crimes? If so, what reply have we made?
Even if they convict a few terrorists, that will not deal with the larger
penumbra of religious and communal hatred which has inspired attacks
on secular organisations, such as the Grameen Bank and the Bangladesh
Rural Advancement Committee, which have made significant contributions
in the past towards the country's development, the Ahmadiyya Muslim
community's mosques and members, and places of worship belonging to
the Hindu, Christian and Buddhist communities.
In some of those attacks the police actively collaborated with the bigots.
I hope that the training we provide for the police will help them to
enforce the law more impartially. But what can we do as presidency of
the EU from next week to raise the pressure on Dhaka, not just to end
terrorist atrocities and improve the performance and behaviour of the
police, but to stamp out the hatemongers who create the climate in which
the terrorists thrive?
The UN Rapporteur on Religious Freedom reported to the Human Rights
Commission in March on the killing of an Ahmadiyya Imam, a Hindu priest
and a Buddhist monk, as well as other sectarian outrages and threats.
The Government's response has been merely to reiterate that freedom
of religion is guaranteed by the constitution while, at the same time,
they have banned publications by the Ahmadiyya Muslim community.
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1762
The Government have indeed banned two extremist bodies, but not the
International Khatme Nabuwat Movement Bangladesh, whose members incite
to violence against the Ahmadis, as we saw in a terrifying video that
was shown at the conference on Friday. There is no law in Bangladesh
forbidding incitement to religious hatred. If there is a law against
incitement to commit other substantive criminal offences, it is not
enforced against religious fanatics. An informer from another extremist
group—the Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh—told the police
that that group was engaged in a systematic campaign against cultural
activities considered to be non-Islamic.
Former Minister, Professor Abu Sayed, claims that camps have been established
in Bangladesh for the training of thousands of militants, with the assistance
of coalition partner, Jamaat-e-Islami, and that these groups were infiltrating
public departments and civil society with the aim of launching an Islamist
revolution. He is not the only person to have made those allegations.
But the response of the police is not to investigate those charges,
but to raid the professor's house and to confiscate books on the rise
of communism and extremism.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions said that he has
received no substantive response to the three communications sent to
the Bangladesh Government about killings by the rapid action battalion.
Representations by Amnesty International have also fallen on deaf ears.
Amnesty International says that the RAB killed 147 people in 2004. It
talks about a growing tide of violence on members of the Opposition
and on public places such as cinemas.
Our conference heard from representatives of the indigenous peoples
of the Chittagong Hill Tracts where the 1997 peace accords have not
been implemented as the CHT ministry has now publicly acknowledged.
The people are steadily being deprived of the ancestral lands which
have belonged to the Jumma people from time immemorial. The very demography
of the CHT is being changed under military occupation. The commission
set up to resolve land disputes has never been activated. The attacks
on tribal people in 2003, which involved killings, rapes and the burning
of hundreds of homes, have not been properly investigated, like all
of the preceding atrocities over many years.
Violence against the press is on the rise. The US ambassador says that
journalism is the most dangerous profession in Bangladesh. In the past
12 months, more than 400 journalists have received death threats, 320
have been tortured and five have been murdered, including Mr Golam Mahfuz,
deputy editor of a daily paper, who was stabbed to death less than a
month ago. The editor and publisher of a former weekly tabloid were
charged with sedition and the publisher spent 17 months behind bars
before he was given bail.
Apart from the perilous situation of the religious and ethnic minorities,
violence against women and children in Bangladesh has reached an unacceptable
level and the court system is stacked against the victims, as the Daily
Star of Dhaka noted last Sunday. The Government do not enforce laws
prohibiting discrimination against
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1763
women, minority groups and people with disabilities. Bangladesh is an
increasingly dangerous and threatening place for them as well as those
belonging to minority faiths, ethnic groups, opposition parties and
secular organisations.
At the root of all those problems lies the cancer of extremism. Bangladesh
is at the front line of the war against terrorism fuelled by a maverick
branch of Islam that aims to transform the country into a Taliban-style
dictatorship. But instead of acknowledging the threat to the country's
stability and acting vigorously against the peddlers of hatred and violence,
the government pretend that nothing is wrong. They have colluded with
extremist groups and failed to defend the rights of vulnerable people,
in spite of repeated pleas by the Foreign Office, the US State Department,
the European Union and the agencies of the Human Rights Commission.
They have managed to keep a relatively low profile in Europe, compared
with other hotspots in the world, in spite of the danger that such bigotry
and hatred, if allowed to fester in Bangladesh, could spread outwards
from the sub-continent to the rest of the world including Britain.
The British Government and the people of this country must support embattled
minorities and human rights defenders, and build solidarity in the struggle
to preserve their vanishing freedoms. We must fashion a coalition for
liberty that spans all people under threat and their allies throughout
the world. I beg to move for Papers.
1.51 pm
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for
bringing Bangladesh to the attention of the House. From the outset we
have been well briefed on the debate. I thank all sections of the community
that have provided us with extensive information. I shall make no apology
for borrowing some of their comments, so I ask noble Lords not to cry
foul.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for detailing some of the
issues. To a certain extent, like other noble Lords, I shall merely
add to his remarks.
On a lighter note—if that is possible given the subject of the
debate—I congratulate the Bangladesh cricket team on defeating
Australia. I am glad that England also did very well at Trent Bridge
on Tuesday. As always, I have two perspectives on this debate, which
I shall come to shortly. Most of our household supported England while
my husband and I hung by a thread in support of Bangladesh, so I am
glad that they did not let us down. There lies the dilemma in taking
part in this debate. I do not recall the previous debate in this House
on Bangladesh, to which the noble Lord referred. As noble Lords may
be aware, although Britain has been my home for more than 30 years,
I was born in Bangladesh. I have regarded it as sufficiently important
to spend all my spare time there and to encourage my children to visit
whenever my purse allowed.
I confess that, apart from a deep sense of family belonging, I have
avoided, at all costs, becoming embroiled in the goings-on in Bangladesh.
That is not to say that I do not acknowledge that what happens there
deeply affects the Bangladeshi community in the UK, in which I am totally
submerged.
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1764
I came here as a 13 year-old, just after the civil war, when Bangladesh
was led to victory under the leadership of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who
is respected as the father of the nation. Much of my resilience, tenacity
and ideals come from having witnessed the torture, rape, killings and
utter destruction of that conflict. The knowledge that oppression, however
miniscule, is totally unacceptable drove me to become engaged in fighting
against prejudice and bigotry in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere.
My contribution today comes from a deep love for my birthplace, wanting
it to do well at all costs. The way in which Bangladesh has been seen
this week within the Westminster village—with the historic defeat
of Australia, a meeting held in the House by the Hindu Council on the
treatment of that minority group, the conference chaired by the noble
Lord, Lord Avebury, on human rights and the rise of violence, and now
this debate—has come as a mixed blessing.
For many seeking international attention on Bangladesh, these opportunities
are an invaluable way of acknowledging the amazing progress that it
has made in its relatively short existence. Bangladesh has a lot going
for it, for which all political parties can take credit: continuing
democracy and Bangladesh's steady economic growth of more than 5 per
cent. The struggle for freedom and democracy in Bangladesh achieved
a hard-won multi-party system of political representation in 1991. There
have been elections and a peaceful transfer of power between political
parties twice since then.
Bangladesh has come a long way since its birth in 1971. Despite the
countless lashings of Mother Earth and all the difficulties associated
with civil war and climate change, the country has become self-sufficient
in food provision. It has dramatically cut its population growth rate
and increased access to education, particularly for girls. That is remarkable
by any stretch of the imagination. Bangladesh is rightly proud that
it is no longer dependent on international aid, and the micro-credit
success stories have been acclaimed and acknowledged internationally.
The life expectancy of men and women has increased, and education and
economic opportunities have expanded for Bangladeshi citizens. NGOs
are encouraged, by and large, to play an important role, particularly
in the empowerment of women. Bangladesh should also be rightly proud
of its history of a free and active press. I acknowledge the contribution
of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the FCO's comment, which is deeply
worrying for everyone.
On the international stage, Bangladesh is the second largest contributor
of troops to UN peacekeeping forces. It has demonstrated a strong commitment
to international peace and security through the deployment of more than
8,000 peacekeepers worldwide. They enjoy a well-earned reputation for
discipline and effectiveness. Those are huge national achievements;
they are the achievements of all Bangladeshi people.
Throughout, of course, Britain has stood shoulder to shoulder with Bangladesh.
That friendship and understanding is centuries old, with Britain and
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1765
Bangladesh working together in politics and trade, as well as cultural
and countless social interchanges. We remain the largest single investor
in Bangladesh, with more than 50 UK companies doing business there.
The UK is at the forefront of Bangladesh's efforts to help to combat
poverty and meet the millennium development goals. It contributed £29
million to provide flood relief last year.
The attack in Sylhet on our High Commissioner, Anwar Choudhury, in May
last year was absolutely shocking, and the subsequent attacks on the
mayor in Sylhet, in August; on the Awami League and the opposition leader,
on 21 August, with the subsequent death of a prominent female leader,
Ivy Rahman; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned, on a well-respected
UN ambassador and former Bangladeshi finance minister, have rightly
led to widespread international condemnation and concern. The perpetrators
remain at large, which has propelled an outcry in both Bangladesh and
the international community. I hope that the Government of Bangladesh
will want to do more than provide assurances that those attacks are
being taken seriously and that they will be dealt with using the full
force of the law.
No one, most of all the perpetrators of such crimes, should be left
in any doubt that violence of such a magnitude will not be tolerated
in a democratic country, albeit a young one. So the statistics compiled
by various human rights organisations on human rights abuse allegations
in Bangladesh make for very grim reading. Bangladesh is rightly judged
alongside all other countries according to how it treats the most vulnerable
in society. It too must be treated equally. I hope that there is consensus
that, without respect for universal human rights, there is no potential
for democracy to grow.
As I was growing up in this country, I believed that there was a clear
demarcation between right and wrong— perhaps I was seeing it through
the tinted vision of youth—but, in my latter age, the global context
has shifted and, however much we dislike it, there are several indications
that there is no parity of treatment on the issue of human rights abuse.
It seems to be applied in different contexts and according to different
standards of behaviour. There is a perception in Palestine and elsewhere
that we have allowed a free-fall in standards while overstraining our
sense of justice to accommodate those who are regarded as "friends".
We have to have an internationally agreed basic human rights principle
and an understanding that freedom of speech and a right to religious
expression are fundamental to all of us.
In this regard, as has already been said, I know that there is rising
concern about the level of continuing violence in Bangladesh—not
least because there is a wide-ranging consensus on the fragile law and
order situation, which has meant that the implementation of the rule
of law, particularly by the special forces known as RAB, is counter
to good practice.
Good governance has to be practised at all levels in order to create
confidence in the communities and internationally. From that point of
view, whether it is
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1766
from the policeman on the street, from the local district administrator
or from the top levels of government and the judiciary, we require assurances.
While RAB is regarded as being present by popular demand, it perhaps
demonstrates that the country's force of law is not able to function
properly in the usual way.
It has been reported that the British High Commissioner in Bangladesh
commented recently that he hoped that, if apprehended, the perpetrator
of the grenade attack on him in Sylhet would not be killed in cross-fire.
There is deep concern that cross-fire is one of the tactics used by
RAB, for which it has become well known.
These debates are taking place in the context that we now live in a
global world and are no longer able to be comforted that what we do
in our own country is our own business. I add here a caution that those
who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Globalisation is rapidly
transforming the way in which we live and strong governance, a respect
for human rights and law and order are prerequisites for development
and growth. We have become world citizens. I hope that everyone involved
in the welfare of Bangladesh will accept that debate in the public arena
is a positive and that there is no need to be defensive when things
are not as they should be.
One of the primary reasons for the lack of progress in many arenas of
Bangladesh is that the two main parties remain at loggerheads, thereby
leaving Parliament in limbo and people in doubt about the seriousness
of the commitment to continue building democracy. They have nothing
to look forward to in the way of role models.
I hope that there is consensus that international concerns about the
shape of the political landscape in Bangladesh should lead to some re-jigging
in the light of what has become apparent, and that the Bangladesh Government
will recognise that this is having an adverse effect on the perception
of Bangladesh internationally, notwithstanding its tremendous economic
and social success.
As has been said, the next election in Bangladesh will be a key challenge.
I hope that the political parties can begin to move away from hostile
confrontation to a spirit of accommodation, agree basic standards of
conduct and abide by them. I look forward to hearing from the Minister
what role the UK may play in facilitating this.
Democratic principles cannot be enforced or made hostage to party politics
and personal gain. Surely it is no comfort to the Bangladesh Government
that they are continually regarded as a corrupt force. They now have
the added baggage of having to defend their actions on human rights
violations, particularly against other religious minorities, as well
as the accusation that they are harbouring extreme activities among
their own.
I should like to see the Bangladesh Government make it apparent to the
world outside that they are seriously concerned about the numerous allegations
of violent incidents and abuses taking place against the minority. I
hope they will invite a parliamentary group to visit at the
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1767
earliest opportunity. Opening the doors to a greater understanding and
the reality on the ground may go a long way towards giving some answers.
If left unanswered, these concerns and allegations of corruption and
abuse will tarnish the international reputation of Bangladesh and discourage
further inward investment, thereby damaging the prospects for long-term
prosperity and making ordinary people suffer.
As the next election looms nearer it is important for Bangladesh to
ensure that every step necessary is in place to demonstrate that it
can earn the confidence of the world community. No matter how much each
of us thinks that what we do is our business, that we can cushion our
existence and take comfort from the fact that even the UK and the USA
are under scrutiny for their human rights records, there should be no
place to hide if we are to live together.
Bangladesh faces a thousand challenges—all of those to which I
have referred and, perhaps, impending water shortages, huge floods,
global warming and arsenic poisoning. These should be matters for discussion
and attention. I hope that we will not neglect them in the future.
As a member of the All-Party Group on Bangladesh, I hope that we will
take note of the debate today, perhaps forge some links with other Members
and work through some of the resolutions put forward by the conference.
I also hope that the Minister will look at the resolutions and consider
how best to work with the Bangladesh Government to ensure that they
are open and transparent when discussing difficult issues such as human
rights violations.
Perhaps I may borrow a quote made by the UN Secretary-General earlier
this month. It might not be totally appropriate but, nevertheless, it
shows us where we are. He said:
"Because of globalisation we live in a world of inter-connected
threats and mutual vulnerability between rich and poor and weak and
strong. No country can afford to deal with today's threats alone and
no threat can be dealt with effectively unless other threats are addressed
at the same time".
So, as a daughter of Bangladesh, I ask that we—as friends of the
Bangladesh Government and as partners in adversity—promise to
work together with mutual respect while, at the same time, explicitly
stating that human rights abuse, however small, is the business of all
of us. Let us promise that we will not allow Bangladesh or any other
country—especially those we regard as friends—to get on
with it by themselves.
2.7 pm
The Lord Bishop of Coventry: My Lords, I begin by commiserating with
the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, who cannot read her own handwriting.
I suspect that I speak for many in your Lordships' House when I say
that I cannot read mine either, with or without glasses.
It takes a certain temerity for a white Anglo-Saxon who has never visited
Bangladesh to take part in a debate such as this. I justify it, perhaps,
by reminding your Lordships that the City of Coventry, where I live
and where I am privileged to serve, has a significant
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1768
Bangladesh community. This community has given rise to a number of restaurants,
which are generically referred to as "Indian" restaurants,
where they serve what is generically referred to as "curry".
This is one of the huge advantages that we have in Coventry. In passing,
I would point out that the curry in Coventry is just as good as that
in Birmingham or Leicester, and second only perhaps to that in Bradford.
When I welcomed two new colleagues to my staff team last week I decided
that we would take them out to a meal in a local curry house. Halfway
through the meal the manager of the restaurant came up to me and began
to tell me the story of his family in Bangladesh. It appears that they
are part of the Ahmadi community. As he told the story his eyes filled
with tears and he asked me, an Anglican bishop, to pray for him and
his family. What I wish to say today is to some extent focused on that
community.
The Ahmadiyya community in Bangladesh is small. Its numbers are estimated
at around 100,000 out of a population of some 140 million. As we have
already heard, many respected international monitors point to increasing
evidence of an orchestrated campaign on the part of Islamist extremists
against this small minority. We are hearing stories of mob violence,
including attempts to occupy Ahmadi places of worship. Several homes
have been destroyed and Ahmadi converts, it is said, are being detained
against their will and pressured to recant. The reason for this seems,
at one level, quite simple. These people are held to be at best unorthodox
in their beliefs and at worst heretical.
What concerns us today is not merely the attacks on a heterodox Muslim
sect in Bangladesh. These are a presenting issue for something profoundly
more worrying. We are speaking about attacks on one of the foundations
of justice and peace in our world; namely, the right to religious freedom.
These attacks are all the more sinister because they appear to be tolerated
or even encouraged by the state. Last week the Human Rights Watch accused
the supposedly secular government of Bangladesh of being complicit in
religious violence. I quote from its report:
"This is a dangerous moment . . . the authorities have emboldened
extremists by failing to prosecute those involved in anti-Ahmadi violence
and by banning Ahmadiyya publications".
All this may sound remote and perhaps of little interest to most of
us in the West—that is, until we remember that one of the major
pilgrimage centres for this community is in rural Surrey, where 30,000
people gather each summer. So the geographical links to this persecuted
minority are not so distant as we might at first think. By all accounts,
the largest mosque in western Europe belongs to this community, and
is to be found in Morden.
What should concern us more than geographical proximity is the issue
of the state-sponsored oppression of a religious minority. If the violence
and intimidation against one small community in Bangladesh is tolerated,
whose place of worship or home will next be burned; who will next be
beaten? There are already signs that other minority religious groups
such as Hindus are beginning to suffer the same kind of violence.
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1769
Precisely because we may be tempted to think of this as an obscure persecution
in a far away place, we must redouble our efforts to be intolerant of
intolerance. For some, the persecutions of the marsh Arabs in Iraq,
or of Christians in Pakistan, or the spiral of violence unleashed in
the Great Lakes region, were once similarly obscure and far away.
I speak as a Christian, but most emphatically not with any sense of
moral superiority. I am only too conscious that the Church in this land
has in the past engaged in heresy trials which, in their turn, led to
institutional violence. Those burnt at the stake or disembowelled for
their faith are now generally held by both sides to have been honourable
martyrs. We have, thank God, learnt that there is far more that unites
us than divides us; but, even more significantly, that our common humanity
is a God-given privilege that we despise at our peril.
Equally, I am not insensitive to issues of doctrinal soundness or orthodoxy.
I accept that the Muslim community world wide, both Sunna and Shia,
finds abhorrent the idea that a late-19th century prophet should be
thought to have superseded the prophet Mohammed as the ultimate messenger
of divine truth. For Christians, a parallel might be the arrival of
the Mormons, at about the same time, claiming that their holy book somehow
trumps the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Such claims to authority
can all too easily divide communities, setting erstwhile friends and
neighbours against each other in vicious and violent ways.
The question we all need to ask, whatever our religious affiliation,
is whether violence in the name of God can ever be justified. That very
question has formed the basis of some very fruitful dialogue in recent
years. It gave rise to the Alexandria Declaration in 2001. That was
signed by top religious leaders from the Muslim, Jewish and Christian
communities in Israel/Palestine, a process in which the diocese of Coventry
was privileged to play a significant part. It led, in turn, to the Baghdad
Religious Accord signed on 24 February 2004, in the preface of which
the following statement is to be found: "According to our faith
traditions"—
this refers to Sunna and Shia Muslims, Christians and Kurds—
"killing innocents in the name of God is a desecration of the laws
of heaven and defames religion not only in Iraq but in the world".
As ever, words alone are not enough, but I humbly suggest that such
an approach is not without merit and might usefully be adapted to other
situations, such as that under discussion today.
I realise, of course, that much so-called religious persecution also
has economic, ethnic and political elements. Indeed, power struggles
come in many different guises. That may well be the case in Bangladesh,
and I would welcome any insights that other noble Lords might have to
offer, since such territory is certainly beyond my competence to comment
on.
In concluding, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for initiating
today's debate. I urge Her Majesty's Government to do all they can to
bring pressure on the government of Bangladesh to ensure that basic
human rights are observed and that freedom of religious thought and
practice is not only tolerated but welcomed.
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1770
2.16 pm
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, mentioned
cricket. The expression on Mohammad Ashraful's face after he had scored
his century and Bangladesh had beaten Australia by five wickets in Cardiff
last weekend spoke for itself. So did the slogan on his T-shirt, which
said "Grameen Phones". A great country, which has always unfairly
been seen as a poor relation, first of western Bengal, then of India,
then of Pakistan, has now excelled at the highest level of sport and
boasts one of the most famous and successful examples of rural development
anywhere.
The Grameen Bank has become a symbol of micro-enterprise world wide,
demonstrating how the very poorest communities can support themselves
through their own efforts, and how a commercial bank can benefit from
low rates of interest and exceptionally high rates of repayment. The
poorest, in other words, are shown to be the most financially efficient.
I saw this over many years when I visited eastern India and Bangladesh
several times for organisations such as Christian Aid and CARE. I met
the leaders of local NGOs such as BRAC, GK, Nijera Kori and Gono Unnayan
Prochesta, which all have an excellent reputation in the aid world.
I know that the DfID is involved with BRAC today in a major rural education
programme.
Apart from their business enterprise, I admired the vitality and skills
of all the Bangladeshis I met. I saw health workers visiting the poorest
families, craftsmen making artificial limbs and spare parts in an industrial
workshop, labourers at night school, small farmers and their wives transplanting
rice and fishing in ponds. I became nervous riding behind paramedics
on their mopeds along slippery dykes, then impatient waiting for a delayed,
crowded ferry to carry me across some of the widest rivers in the world.
The people have endured much, and the many stories of survival and tragedy
in successive disastrous floods still haunt anyone who has worked in
Bangladesh, let alone lived there. It can be a dangerous place to live,
as we have heard.
Bengalis, east and west, are a highly intelligent, artistic and articulate
people, and their strong opinions, while they often enliven democratic
debate, sadly sometimes spill over into factional and sectarian violence.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has already spoken of the dangers to journalists,
the threats to democracy, the human rights abuse and the fault lines
between the many political parties and ethnic and religious groups.
I also learnt that political violence can be at its fiercest at a local
level, where the more progressive reforming elements clash with vested
interests and local landlords. For example, I visited a clinic where
a paramedic had been beheaded for asking too many questions about the
causes of poverty.
But I also remember some remarkable individuals who have helped to build
this nation, such as Dr Zafrullah Chowdhury—to mention just one.
He was a young medic who, having fought in the independence war, started
a people's health centre
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1771
called the Gonoshasthaya Kendra in a rural area outside Dakar. This
health centre was remarkable in itself, training young paramedics in
the "where there is no doctor" techniques, but he soon became
aware of the political background and the power of the multinational
drug companies, which were pricing products way out of reach of the
rural poor. With some help from German and British charities, he built
a drugs factory alongside his health centre to manufacture only the
basic medicines on the WHO list, thereby undercutting the big pharmaceutical
companies. Deservedly, he went on to enter politics and became for a
time health minister. He was a man of extraordinary dedication and humanity.
I mention these things because this has always been a nation of great
fascination to me and a country of tremendous potential, character and
colour. Yet it is also a country of great vulnerability because of its
geographical position and its political weaknesses. It is resilient
in dealing with successive natural disasters and very far from the basket
case that is sometimes portrayed in the media.
I should also mention that we in London are fortunate to have such a
thriving Bangladeshi community, not to mention the curry, referred to
by the right reverend Prelate, which brings this lively culture into
the midst of our own.
I was pleased to hear reference made to the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
I would like to mention two minority groups in particular, the Biharis
and the Rohingyas. The Biharis are in some ways the equivalent of Palestinians
in south Asia. They are victims of racism, religious intolerance and
a collapsed empire. Their story is long and complicated. Most of them
are descendants of Urdu-speaking Muslim refugees who came to east Pakistan
after partition in 1947. Before that, thousands of them were transported
from Bihar by the British to build railways and support the administration
in east Bengal. In the Bangladesh war of independence, the Biharis sided
with Pakistan and have since been understandably resented. Few have
been given citizenship, although a High Court ruling two years ago found
in favour of one group. The Tripartite Agreement of 1974, which followed
the independence war between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, failed
to resolve the problem of the Biharis. More than 30 years later, about
300,000 still live in about 70 camps, in wretched, crowded conditions
with inadequate healthcare. They are unrecognised even by the UN as
genuine refugees as laid down by the convention.
As noble Lords will know, the case of the Biharis has at various times
been brought up in this Parliament, notably by the late Lord Ennals,
who achieved the only conference on the Biharis in Geneva, and by Ben
Whitaker through the Minority Rights group and others. Repatriation
to Pakistan was discussed, but, as so often, meeting humanitarian need
through the UN was the only practical outcome.
However, Britain seems to have lost any sense of responsibility that
it once had. In her reply to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on 22 May
last year, the Leader
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1772
of the House said that while DfiD's third largest aid programme was
in Bangladesh, there was no special support for the Biharis through
it. This year's departmental report, which has just been published,
makes no mention of them, although I understand that some funding may
have become available through the human rights and governance fund.
What assistance are Her Majesty's Government giving to the Biharis?
Some Members of this House have been involved with the Dakar Initiative,
which aims to carry out a comprehensive needs assessment of the Biharis
in the camps. Apparently, this project was offered to Her Majesty's
Government, but nothing more has been heard of it. Will the Government
undertake to make inquiries and, if possible, follow up this very worthwhile
initiative as well?
I should also like to bring up the case of the Rohingya, who are a Muslim
minority in northern Arakan State in Burma. Here I speak as a council
member of Anti-Slavery International. The Rohingya people suffer discrimination
in Burma on the basis of their ethnicity and religion and, in Bangladesh,
they are unwanted refugees. In Burma, the Citizenship Law of 1982 renders
them stateless and their freedom of movement is highly restricted. They
are routinely subjected to forced labour, extortion and arbitrary arrest.
Human rights abuses in Burma, which are the subject of attention in
the media today, have led to mass exoduses and a continuous influx of
Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh. I understand that 20,000 refugees remain
in two precarious refugee camps where the literacy rate is only 12 per
cent and chronic malnutrition peaks sometimes at 65 per cent. Last September,
the Bangladesh Government formally rejected a UNHCR proposal for self-reliance
for these camps. Several incidents took place in Kutupalong camp, starting
with a hunger strike in June 2004 and culminating in a violent police
raid on 18 November, leaving three refugees dead and 42, including six
women, imprisoned on what I understand were fabricated charges.
Rohingya refugees continue to face intimidation, pressure to sign voluntary
repatriation forms and serious abuses in the camps. In addition, the
two remaining international NGOs were compelled to withdraw from the
camps in the past two years. This raises concerns about the protection
of, as well as the quality of humanitarian assistance to, the refugees.
In Anti-Slavery International's submission to the UN Commission on Human
Rights on 15 April, it urged Burma to end its policies of discrimination
against the Rohingya and to repeal the 1982 Citizenship Law. It also
urged Bangladesh to cease all coercion and harassment of Rohingya refugees,
to conduct an independent investigation into the November killings,
and fully to implement the recommendations of the joint assessment mission
that was carried out by the UNHCR and the World Food Programme last
October.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke of building solidarity. May I urge
our Government to do their utmost to work with the international community
to find durable solutions for both the Bihari community and the Rohingya
refugees, instead of simply abandoning them?
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1773
2.28 pm
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord
Avebury for this debate. He has a distinguished record of addressing
human rights issues, and he has been fearless in his critique of regimes
which abuse the rights and liberties of individuals. I am aware that
many people are alive today because of the intervention of my noble
friend Lord Avebury on their behalf. I have travelled to many countries,
but have always found that my noble friend has been there before me.
He has a deep knowledge of the issues that we are debating and the Government
should take very serious note of what he had to say.
Perhaps I may also put on record my thanks for the very balanced contribution
of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. She identified the issues of concern,
but she also mentioned the progress that the nation of Bangladesh is
making. More importantly, her stand on human rights issues is most welcome.
We should be equally grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop
of Coventry and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for their contributions.
Bangladesh has had a difficult birth. It was originally a part of Pakistan,
but those two states are now separated by 1,000 miles at the two extremes
of the Indian sub-contintent. Bangladesh's struggle to become an independent
nation was undeniable—and that is precisely what happened. I do
not believe that it is necessary to dwell on history, but suffice to
say that the dreams of an effective democracy in Bangladesh have not
been fully realised. I had the opportunity to meet Sheikh Mujibar Rahman
when he was released from prison in Pakistan and flew to London. He
was a man of great stature, who was determined that Bangladesh, with
its unique culture, would pull itself from the turmoil of the struggle
for independence and build a nation in which the rule of law would prevail.
I love Bangladesh and have many friends there, and I was deeply touched
when I was invited to chair the afternoon session of the European human
rights conference on Bangladesh, held last Friday at the University
of London, in which my noble friend Lord Avebury participated. It was
not an easy job; emotions were running high; and it did not help when
people in authority denied that there was any violation of human rights
there. As I have always said, if there are issues we should not be squeamish
about them but should take the necessary action. With all the evidence
available and documented, it was difficult to accept the statements
made by some of the officers. Despite all that, it was a good conference
with ample opportunity for a constructive approach to problems in Bangladesh.
But I have another worry. There is a large law-abiding Bangladeshi community
here. They have struggled hard to build an economic base and contribute
substantially to the revenue in this country. They were the last people
involved in large-scale migration to the United Kingdom, and despite
adversity they have come out well. They also have close relations in
Bangladesh, so we should be mindful
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1774
that what happens in Bangladesh has repercussions in the Bangladeshi
community here. We ignore that at our peril.
So what are the issues that concern us all? I have studied mountains
of documents, and there are matters that need addressing. Briefly, they
fall under the following categories: the prosecution of religious minorities,
as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, said; extra-judicial
executions and custodial deaths; attacks on the media, educational institutions
and students; violence against women; allegations of political assassinations;
political persecution and torture; evidence of terrorism and growing
extremism; and the security and safety of citizens.
I deplore human rights abuses arising anywhere in the world, because
as part of the global community what happens in one part of the world
has an impact on all of us.
I turn now to the plight of the minorities in Bangladesh. In a Written
Answer to my noble friend Lord Avebury, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons
of Vernham Dean, replied:
"We are concerned about the increasing level of political and extremist
violence in Bangladesh and the dangers this holds for Bangladesh. We
raise these concerns and the need for effective action to ensure that
those responsible are brought to justice on a regular basis with the
Bangladeshi authorities and will continue to do so".—[Official
Report, 7/3/05; col. WA56.]
In a Written Answer to a Question by Jeremy Corbyn in the other place,
the Minister, Mr Alexander, replied:
"We have serious concerns about the security and law and order
situation in Bangladesh. The Bangladeshi Government need to take effective
action to bring those responsible for violence to justice".
Mr Alexander added:
"The large majority of recent attacks have been directed at political
and civil society rather than against British or other foreign nationals".—[Official
Report, Commons, 4/3/05; col. 1441W.]
Again, in answer to another Question from Mr Drew on 8 February this
year, Mr Alexander replied:
"We continue to be concerned about the situation of religious minorities,
including Hindus and Christians, in Bangladesh. I raised these concerns
with the Prime Minister, Khaleda Zia, on 21 December during a visit
to Dhaka. We regularly raise issues of religious persecution and intolerance
with the Bangladesh authorities, both bilaterally and with EU colleagues.
We urge them to ensure minorities are suitably protected, that all incidents
are promptly and fully investigated, that the perpetrators of crimes
against religious minorities are brought to justice and that firm action
is taken against incitement".—[Official Report, Commons,
8/2/05; col. 1453W.]
So what are these allegations? Let us examine the situation in the context
of Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and the Ahmadiyya communities. Religious
persecution is having a devastating effect on their freedom to practise
their faith. It is damaging their culture, and there are numerous examples
of families uprooting themselves from their place of birth. You simply
have to look at the exodus from Bangladesh.
The Amnesty International report dated 1 December 2001 is quite explicit
on the subject. It says:
"The killing of a prominent member of the Hindu community appears
to be connected to the current wave of attacks on Hindus. On 16 November,
Gopal Krishna Muhri, principle of Nazirhat
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1775
College in Chittagong, was shot dead at his home. The circumstances
surrounding his killing point to the strong possibility that he was
targeted because of his identity as a prominent Hindu with a successful
career in the educational establishment of Chittagong city".
There is a continuous flow of refugees who have been forced to leave
their homes and property as a direct result of the discrimination and
persecution to which they are subjected. There is also evidence of looting,
arson and murder aimed at that minority.
Even more disturbing is the plight of women, who are victims of sexual
violence—or rape, gang rape and mass rape. We all know that sexual
violence affects not only the victim but the whole family and in many
cases the whole community. I shall resist the temptation to cite reports
from some eminent and independent foreign journalists and the serious
concerns expressed by international human rights organisations, but
there are serious allegations that these crimes are the direct results
of religious cleansing of the indigenous Bangladeshi Hindus and other
minorities.
The question that we must all ask is why there is a deafening silence
on the subject from the authorities in Bangladesh. Why do the Bangladesh
Government not institute an independent inquiry into those deaths? Why
is there no evidence that perpetrators have been brought to justice?
Why is the full protection of the law not afforded to the minorities
in Bangladesh? Those are serious questions, to which we need answers.
It is not only the Hindu community that is the victim—the Ahmadiyya
community has suffered the same fate. The campaign of hatred has resulted
in attacks on places of worship. Again, I cite the Amnesty International
report on Bangladesh, which says:
"On 31 October, Shah Alam, the Imam of the Ahmadiyya mosque, was
beaten to death in front of his family. Some 90 men led by a local Islamist
leader attacked him because he refused their demands to recant his Ahmadiyya
faith".
To date no one has been charged in connection with that killing.
Although there is a constitutional guarantee for freedom of religion
and expression, Ahmadiyya literature is still being banned, as my noble
friend Lord Avebury said. The Christian community has not been spared,
either. A church in Gopalganj was seriously damaged by a bomb blast.
The constitution of Bangladesh enshrines secularism as one of its main
pillars, and did not allow religion-based politics. However, following
the death of the founding father, Sheikh Mujibar Rahman, an amendment
to the constitution allowed for religion-based politics.
Some months ago my noble friend Lord Avebury and I had the privilege
to meet Sheikh Hasina. She was the Prime Minister of Bangladesh from
1996 to 2001. She is the daughter of Sheikh Mujibar Rahman, the founding
father of Bangladesh. She is the current leader of the opposition in
Parliament. It is a serious concern that she was a victim of a grenade
attack which nearly cost her life. Many were killed on that occasion.
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1776
There have been assassinations of Members of Parliament. First, it was
Ahsanullah Master and then Mr Shah Ams Kibria. In the case of the latter
it is worth quoting the editor of the Daily Star which stated:
"The choice of Kibria as the target should not be lost on anybody.
He was one of the staunchest voices of secularism and against extremism,
terrorism and increasing use of religion in our politics. He was one
of the early warning voices against Taliban penetration into our national
politics".
This is a serious comment against a nation moved from secularism to
supporting fundamentalism. That is not to blame Islam. It is one of
the great religions of the world. Fundamentalism and Islam are incompatible,
as demonstrated by a large number of Muslims throughout the world. Equally,
the rise in extremism often ignored or directly or indirectly supported
by those in power must be a matter of serious concern to all of us.
Bangladesh started as a liberal, peaceful, tolerant nation but is that
the case now? Some of the examples may seem isolated incidents, but
the total of more than 165 deaths and more than 1,700 injuries since
1999 cannot be ignored. The Awami League and its supporters have borne
the brunt of such incidents. However, it is even more disturbing to
find that those figures include leading intellectuals and journalists.
There is evidence that over the past eight months 230 custodial deaths,
apparently in cross-fire with the Rapid Action Battalion, have been
recorded. Again, there are serious allegations of extra judicial executions.
Such allegations will gather momentum until such time as they are properly
and independently investigated. Already the European Union heads of
missions in Dhaka have issued a public statement expressing their "shock
and dismay" and their deep concern that the apparent failure to
investigate previous attacks had led to a climate of impunity.
The US Department of State has drawn attention to the failure of the
government to bring to justice the perpetrators of acts of violence,
fostering an intimidating climate of insecurity and impunity that encourages
further attacks.
Peaceful protests are part of any democratic country but these have
been met with violence and brutality. The conference I chaired last
Saturday also received information on the repression of non-government
organisations in Bangladesh. The NETZ Partnership for Development and
Justice is a German NGO specialising in Bangladesh since 1979. It is
supporting 10 NGOs in development work. I am informed by Ingo Ritz,
the executive director, that NGOs in Bangladesh are facing serious threats.
The government do not allow NGOs to work or hinder their work. Additionally,
there were attacks on the offices and six co-workers were injured. A
fundamentalist group is claiming responsibility for that.
It would be easy to blame the government of Bangladesh for all this.
What is required is a very clear independent investigation to get to
the root of why such violence occurs. The country's non-governmental
organisations are among the most active in the world and successive
governments have developed effective
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1777
partnerships with them to improve services to the poorest people. It
is a tragedy that some of the NGOs are the targets of repression.
The British Government should bring pressure on the Bangladesh Government
to investigate and prosecute criminals responsible for violent attacks
and grenade blasts on leading members of the opposition, the British
High Commission, arts and cultural events, members and institutions
of religious minorities and secular groups.
In essence the world community cares about a genuine democracy in Bangladesh.
That democracy can survive only if the rule of law prevails and there
is a halt to the abuses of human rights quite rightly mentioned by the
noble Baroness, Lady Uddin.
We all have a responsibility to ensure that the Bangladesh Development
Forum concentrates on good governance and maintenance of a stable democracy
based on respect, dignity and freedom for all its citizens. The country
has gone through some turbulent times. It cannot afford to sacrifice
its founder's dream of a truly democratic society. We want a healthy,
prosperous Bangladesh. It has to confront its own problems if it is
to regain respect in world politics.
2.45 pm
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the
noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on sponsoring this important debate. I totally
agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that the noble Lord, Lord
Avebury, has a noble record in addressing human rights issues and that
many people are alive today because of him.
There has been much criticism of Bangladesh in this debate, and rightly
so. However, I would also like to congratulate th
||
Gallary 1 || Gallary
2 || SVB
||
Contact
|| Press
& publications || ||
Press_Release_by_Jumma_Peoples_Network_UK on the "Seminar on the Chittagong Hill Tracts" at the House of Lords
