৪২ comments

1. 

   মাসুদ করিম - ১ মে ২০১২ (৫:২৮ অপরাহ্ণ)

   মানুষ হয়ে উঠছে আরো আকর্ষণীয়। অভিযোজন থেমে নেই, চলছে।

   Men are evolving to more attractive, proving that English naturalist Charles Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ theory still holds true for humans in the modern age, says a new study.

   Researchers have found that human customs, such as marriage, have not slowed the drive of natural selection – and men are evolving traits to increase their mating success, which could include factors like good looks or intelligence which might help them achieve success.

   This is because mating with more partners increases the chance of reproductive success for a man, whereas it doesn’t for a woman, the Daily Mail reported.

   A popular misconception is that humans stopped evolving when they took up farming and embraced monogamy. But evidence from detailed church records of almost 6,000 people born in Finland between 1760 and 1849 suggests this is not so.

   The researchers looked at economic status, births, deaths and marriages to examine four key natural selection factors. They were survival to adulthood, mate access, mating success and fertility. They found that the Finns’ natural selection opportunities were on a par with those seen in the wild.

   Dr Virpi Lummaa, from the University of Sheffield’s department of animal and plant sciences, who led the study, said:”‘We have shown advances have not challenged the fact that our species is still evolving, just like all the other species ‘in the wild’.”

   “It is a common misunderstanding that evolution took place a long time ago, and that to understand ourselves we must look back to the hunter-gatherer days of humans.”

   Dr Lummaa said evidence had already proved important selection had been taking place in very recent populations.

   She added: “Humans continue to be affected by both natural and sexual selection. Although the specific pressures, the factors making some individuals able to survive better, or have better success at finding partners and produce more kids, have changed across time and differ in different populations.”

   The findings have been published in the ‘Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences’ journal.

   লিন্ক : Evolution theory holds true: ‘Men getting more attractive’।

2. 

   মাসুদ করিম - ২ মে ২০১২ (২:৩৩ অপরাহ্ণ)

   চীন-আমেরিকা অন্ধ বিদ্রোহী ‘চেন’কে নিয়ে দ্রুতই একটি সিদ্ধান্তে আসবে বলে আশা করা হচ্ছে। আর আজ সিনহুয়ার খবর

   BEIJING, May 2 (Xinhua) — It is informed here Wednesday that Chen Guangcheng, a native from Yinan County of eastern China’s Shandong Province, entered the U.S. Embassy in Beijing in late April and left of his own volition after staying there for six days.

   খবরের লিন্ক : Chen Guangcheng leaves U.S. Embassy in Beijing

   • 

     মাসুদ করিম - ৩ মে ২০১২ (১০:৪৫ পূর্বাহ্ণ)

     ‘বিদ্রোহী চেন’কে ঘিরে চীন-আমেরিকা সম্পর্কের জটিলতা বাড়বে, অথবা ‘বিদ্রোহী চেন’ সম্পূর্ণ উপেক্ষিতই থাকবেন আগামী দিনে। বেইজিং-এর আমেরিকান দূতাবাস থেকে পায়ের চিকিৎসার জন্য ‘চেন’কে হাসপাতালে পাঠানো হয়েছিল এবং বলা হয়েছিল ‘চেন’ এরপর তার পরিবারের সাথে থাকতে সম্মত হয়েছে। কিন্তু এখন পরিস্থিতি ভিন্ন ‘চেন’ নিজেকে আর চীনে নিরাপদ মনে করছেন না, তিনি এখন দেশের বাইরে চলে যেতে চান। আবার ‘চেন’কে দ্রুত বেইজিং-এর আমেরিকান দূতাবাস থেকে হাসপাতালে পাঠানোর পেছনে অনেকে মনে করছেন হিলারির সরাসরি তৎপরতা জড়িত রয়েছে, হিলারি কোনোভাবেই চীনের সাথে তার পূর্বনির্ধারিত বার্ষিক ‘স্ট্র্যাটেজিক ও অর্থনৈতিক সংলাপ’ বিলম্বিত করতে চাইছিলেন না।

     Blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng appealed Thursday for safety abroad, saying he feared for his life after his dramatic escape to Beijing, as US and Chinese leaders sparred over human rights.

     The fate of the lawyer-dissident has engulfed a top-level Sino-US meeting which started in Beijing Thursday, after Chen left the shelter of the US embassy under a deal between the two countries that has rapidly unravelled.

     “I want to go overseas. I want the US to help me and my family. They helped me before,” he told AFP by phone from a Beijing hospital where he is being treated for a foot injury suffered during his daring escape from house arrest on April 22.

     “I don’t feel safe here. I want to leave.”

     Chen said he did not initially want to seek asylum overseas but changed his mind Wednesday after emerging from the US embassy in Beijing amid concern for his safety and that of his family.

     “I did not make the final decision at the US embassy, I made it yesterday. I don’t think the US is protecting me,” he said.

     US officials said Beijing had pledged that Chen and his family would be treated “humanely” and moved to a safe place.

     But according to US-based rights group China Aid, Chen “reluctantly” left the embassy after Chinese authorities threatened his relatives in the eastern province of Shandong.

     Interviewed by CNN, the 40-year-old Chen said after his escape his wife had been tied to a chair for two days by police in Shandong who threatened to beat her to death with sticks.

     The activist, who riled Chinese authorities by exposing forced abortions and sterilisations under the government’s “one-child” policy, appealed directly to US President Barack Obama to get him and his family out of China.

     He also accused US embassy officials of pushing him hard to leave the safety of the embassy, where he had sought refuge for six days after fleeing his home.

     লিন্ক : Blind activist in China appeals for safety abroad।

     • 

       মাসুদ করিম - ৪ মে ২০১২ (১:৪১ পূর্বাহ্ণ)

       বিদ্রোহী ‘চেন গুয়াংচেঙ’, আমেরিকা (আঙ্কেল স্যাম) ও চীন (প্রধানমন্ত্রী ওয়েন জিয়াবাও, এখানে পিনোক্কিও) — এদেরকে নিয়ে একটি চমৎকার কার্টুন : More Glorious than the Sun।

     • 

       মাসুদ করিম - ৫ মে ২০১২ (২:১৪ পূর্বাহ্ণ)

       আমেরিকার পররাষ্ট্র দপ্তরের আনুষ্ঠানিক বিবৃতিতে দেখা যাচ্ছে, বিদ্রোহী ‘চেন’ সপরিবারে আমেরিকায় পড়তে যেতে পারবে এবং চীনও তা মেনে নেবে।

       Today, State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland provided an update on Chen Guangcheng. In a press statement, Spokesperson Nuland said:

       “The Chinese Government stated today that Mr. Chen Guangcheng has the same right to travel abroad as any other citizen of China. Mr. Chen has been offered a fellowship from an American university, where he can be accompanied by his wife and two children.

       “The Chinese Government has indicated that it will accept Mr. Chen’s applications for appropriate travel documents. The United States Government expects that the Chinese Government will expeditiously process his applications for these documents and make accommodations for his current medical condition. The United States Government would then give visa requests for him and his immediate family priority attention.

       “This matter has been handled in the spirit of a cooperative U.S.-China partnership.”

       লিন্ক : Statement on Chen Guangcheng।

3. 

   রাকিন - ৩ মে ২০১২ (১:৩১ অপরাহ্ণ)

   আমার ওয়েবসাইট টি মূলত প্রযুক্তি বিষয়ক তাই লিঙ্ক দিতে আগ্রহী হলামঃ
   http://techntrick.com/

4. 

   মাসুদ করিম - ৩ মে ২০১২ (২:০৩ অপরাহ্ণ)

   আগামী রোববার ফ্রান্সের রাষ্ট্রপতি নির্বাচনের দ্বিতীয় ও চূড়ান্ত পর্ব। যারা ফরাসী বোঝেন, তাদের জন্য Présidentielle 2012।

   আর যারা আমি ছাড়া ফরাসিকানা তাদের জন্য : French 2012 presidential election।

   • 

     মাসুদ করিম - ৭ মে ২০১২ (১২:২৬ পূর্বাহ্ণ)

     ফ্রঁসোয়া ওলন্দ (Francois Hollande) ফ্রান্সের রাষ্ট্রপতি নির্বাচিত।

     • 

       মাসুদ করিম - ৭ মে ২০১২ (৬:৫০ অপরাহ্ণ)

       ফটোগ্যালারি, এলিজেতে এক সমাজবাদী, সেই ফ্রঁসোয়া মিতেরঁ-এর পরে আরেক সমাজবাদী ফ্রঁসোয়া ওলন্দ! দেখুন এখানে।

       • 

         মাসুদ করিম - ১৬ মে ২০১২ (৭:৪০ অপরাহ্ণ)

         প্রেসিডেন্ট হিসাবে ফ্রঁসোয়া ওলন্দের কিকঅফ হয়ে গেলে। কিন্তু তার চেয়ে গুরু দায়িত্ব ছিল একই দিনে জার্মানির চ্যাঞ্চেলর এঙ্গেলা মারকেলের সাথে দেখা করা। এবং বৃষ্টি ঝড় বজ্রে প্রেসিডেন্ট একবার উড়ে আবার ফিরে এলেন প্যারিসে এবং পরে আরেকটি বিমানে গেলেন এঙ্গেলা মারকেলের কাছে। তাকে যে যেতেই হবে, এবং নির্ধারিত সময়ের ৮০ মিনিট পরে তিনি পৌঁছলেন। ফ্রঁসোয়া ও এঙ্গেলার এটা প্রথম দেখা, নিকোলাকে যেভাবে দুগালে চুমু খেয়ে স্বাগত জানাতেন সেটা করলেন না এঙ্গেলা — একবারেই প্রথম দেখা, করমর্দনই সই। ইউরোপের বর্তমান সংকট নিরসনের প্রচেষ্টার গতিপথ এই দুই সরকার প্রধানের সম্পর্কের রসায়নের উপর অনেকাংশে নির্ভরশীল। তারও কিকঅফ হল গতকাল। বৃষ্টি ঝড় বজ্রে অনেকে অশুভের হস্তক্ষেপ দেখছেন — কিন্তু ফরাসিতে প্রথম দৃষ্টিতে প্রেম যেঅভিব্যক্তিতে প্রকাশ করা হয় তার অর্থই যে ‘বজ্রপাত'( coup de foudre)! তাই অনেকে মনে করছেন মারকেলের সাথে ওলন্দের সম্পর্ক সারকোজির চেয়েও উচ্চকিত হবে। বাকি কথা ভবিষ্যতই বলবে। এখানে দেখুন ফটোগ্যালারি : A Handshake Instead of a Kiss।

5. 

   মাসুদ করিম - ৩ মে ২০১২ (৬:৫৬ অপরাহ্ণ)

   হরতাল বন্ধ করতেই হবে। এফবিসিসিআই ঠিক পথেই ভাবছে।

   দেশের অর্থনৈতিক উন্নয়ন ও রাজনৈতিক স্থিতিশীলতার স্বার্থে আইন করে হরতাল বন্ধ করার দাবি জানিয়েছে ব্যবসায়ীদের শীর্ষ সংগঠন এফবিসিসিআই।

   ‘নিখোঁজ’ ইলিয়াস আলীর সন্ধান দাবিতে দুই দফায় বিএনপির পাঁচ দিনের হরতালের পর উদ্ভূত রাজনৈতিক পরিস্থিতির মধ্যে ব্যবসায়ীরা বৃহস্পতিবার এ দাবি জানালেন।

   এর আগের দিনই রাজধানীর একটি হোটেলে বৈঠক করেন এফবিসিসিআইয়ের সাবেক কয়েকজন সভাপতি ও বর্তমান সভাপতি। রুদ্ধদ্বার ওই সভায় রাজনৈতিক পরিস্থিতি নিয়ে তারা আলোচনা করেন।

   মতিঝিলে এফবিসিসিআই ভবনে বৃহস্পতিবার সংগঠনের পরিচালনা পর্ষদের সভা হয়।

   এরপর এফবিসিসিআই সভাপতি এ কে আজাদ সাংবাদিকদের বলেন, “আমরা চাচ্ছি, সংসদে সবার প্রতিনিধিত্বে চিরতরে হরতাল বন্ধে আইন পাস করা হোক।

   “আমরা দেখেছি, বেশিরভাগ মানুষই হরতাল পছন্দ করে না। কিন্তু যেভাবে হরতাল হচ্ছে, লোক মারা যাচ্ছে-এভাবে চলতে পারে না।”

   রাজনৈতিক অস্থিতিশীলতার জন্য দেশের অর্থনৈতিক উন্নয়ন ও বিনিয়োগ ব্যাহত হচ্ছে উল্লেখ করে আজাদ বলেন, প্রয়োজনে তারা প্রধানমন্ত্রী ও বিরোধীদলীয় নেতার সঙ্গে দেখা করে রাজনৈতিক স্থিতিশীলতার প্রয়োজনীয়তা তুলে ধরবেন।

   পরিচালনা পর্ষদের বৈঠকের বিষয়ে এফবিসিসিআই সভাপতি বলেন, “আমাদের পরিচালনা পর্ষদের সদস্যরা দেশের অর্থনৈতিক অবস্থার উন্নয়ন ও রাজনৈতিক পরিস্থিতি স্থিতিশীল রাখতে অনেকগুলো প্রস্তাব দিয়েছেন। এর মধ্যে রয়েছে আদালতে যাওয়া, পেশাজীবীদের সঙ্গে বসা, মৌন মিছিল করা ইত্যাদি।”

   এসব প্রস্তাবের ভিত্তিতে একটি কার্যতালিকা প্রণয়ন করে সংগঠনটির সাবেক সভাপতিদের সঙ্গে বৈঠক করা হবে বলে জানান তিনি।

   খবরের লিন্ক : হরতাল বন্ধে আইনের দাবি এফবিসিসিআইয়ের।

6. 

   মাসুদ করিম - ৩ মে ২০১২ (৭:৫৫ অপরাহ্ণ)

   পৃথিবীতে এখন একটাই কমিউনপুরী, আসুন এই ফটোগ্যালারিটা দেখতে দেখতে সাম্প্রতিক উত্তর কোরিয়া ভ্রমণ করি : A Visit to North Korea।

7. 

   মাসুদ করিম - ৫ মে ২০১২ (১:৪৫ পূর্বাহ্ণ)

   নেপালে যখনই সংবিধান পাসের ডেডলাইন (এবারের ডেডলাইন ২৭ মে, ২০১২) কাছাকাছি আসে তখনি সরকার পরিবর্তন, ডেডলাইন বাড়ানো, ঐক্যমতেসৃষ্ট জাতীয় সরকার এসবের কথা শোনা যায়। এবার শোনা যাচ্ছে ঐক্যমতেসৃষ্ট জাতীয় সরকারের কথা। দেখা যাক শেষ পর্যন্ত কী হয়! এনিয়ে হিমালয়ান টাইমসের সম্পাদকীয় Come together।

   There have been bids to form a national unity government as it is believed that such a government would be of help in delivering the constitution by the May 27 deadline. But, as things stand now, the major political parties, the UCPN-Maoist, Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and the United Democratic Madhesi Front, even after agreeing to form a consensual government, have failed to give the formation of such a government the needed momentum. However, under no circumstances should such a government try to extend the stipulated deadline for the promulgation of the constitution as former prime minister Madhav Kumar Nepal had mooted only last week. The Constituent Assembly (CA) has had enough time to write the constitution— more than four years—but all they have been doing so far is dilly dallying and pushing their partisan political interests, much to the dismay of the people who have by now virtually stopped believing that the constitution is possible from these political parties and leaders. What we find is that the political parties and their leaders stick adamantly to their stubborn stances and fail to accommodate their differing interests and views, without exercising the flexibility that is so essential for compromises to be made in the larger interest of the country and people. And, that is what has the constitution-drafting process stuck up.

   Of course, the various political parties can have differing viewpoints and interests as can only be expected in a democracy, but it behooves on them to seek common ground on the contentious issues that are leading the negotiations to an impasse. As such, a consensus government could facilitate this demanding need whereby there would be a situation of give and take, preferably leading to a win-win situation for all the stakeholders. The daunting task that the political leaders face is trying to please everyone, which is next to impossible. This is why we may need a consensual government, as in the past the various governments could not reach an agreement. Like always, the Maoists try to negotiate seriously at the eleventh hour perhaps hoping that they would be in a stronger bargaining position.

   Now, however, there is a ray of hope as the major political parties are close to an agreement on the contentious constitutional issues, namely federalism and forms of governance. They are also close to an agreement on amending Article 70 of the Interim Constitution, which shortens the various procedures for the ratification of the contentious constitutional issues in the CA. Again, having a consensus government alone is not the panacea to all the problems that are besetting the country, though for long this had been touted as such. Even as we see that the country will actually have a unity government, the hopes of the people should be high that their aspiration for an all encompassing statute will materialize. But, only if the political leaders mend their ways will the much-awaited constitution be ready for promulgation by the end of the CA’s latest extended tenure. This is the need of the hour and political leaders should not let the people down, again.

8. 

   মাসুদ করিম - ৭ মে ২০১২ (৯:৫০ পূর্বাহ্ণ)

   ০৫ মে ২০১২, আমেরিকা-বাংলাদেশ সম্পর্ক এক ধাপ এগিয়ে গেল, এখন থেকে প্রতিবছর নিয়মিত দুদেশের পররাষ্ট্র মন্ত্রণালয় পর্যায়ে বহুবিধ বিষয়ে অংশীদারি সংলাপ চলবে।

   Joint Statement on U.S.-Bangladesh Partnership Dialogue

   Media Note
   Office of the Spokesperson
   Washington, DC
   May 5, 2012

   Secretary Clinton and Foreign Minister Moni signed the following agreement on May 5, 2012 in Dhaka, Bangladesh:

   We, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton of the United States of America and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Member of Parliament Dr. Dipu Moni of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, affirm the strong bonds of friendship and shared values that exist between our two countries and reaffirm our desire to deepen our partnership in addressing bilateral, regional and global issues to the mutual benefit of both Bangladesh and the United States.

   We believe that a strong partnership between Bangladesh and the United States, working together to further mutual peace, security and development, is in the interests of the people of Bangladesh, the United States and the world. As we look to the challenges of the 21st century, our shared interests and values, including respect for human rights and the rule of law, should guide our collective engagement on addressing the challenges of our time.

   Leveraging the values of tolerance, respect for human rights, inclusion and resilience of Bangladesh society, including a robust civil society, we intend our broader collaboration to be anchored in a strong bilateral development partnership focused on joint development priorities, including food security, maternal and child health, family planning, climate change, strengthening democracy, youth and women’s empowerment, among others.

   We reiterate our support for the United Nations system, underscore the value of UN-led peacekeeping and peacebuilding initiatives, and note Bangladesh’s singular contribution to such activities.

   We affirm our dedication to deepening dialogue in security cooperation, including in combating terrorism, violent extremism, and transnational crime, such as narcotics trafficking, piracy, and trafficking in persons and arms.

   We also intend to develop deeper and broader people-to-people ties between the United States and Bangladesh, including through educational and cultural exchanges, encouraging innovation and expanding our commercial and trade relations by building on the creativity and rich diversity of our societies. We further support the exchange of information, skills and technology bilaterally, regionally and globally to promote new economic opportunities for our citizens.

   To advance these and other shared objectives, and to review and give strategic direction to the bilateral relationship and its wide array of ongoing and future cooperative activities, we intend to hold regular, annual consultations under a Partnership Dialogue. The Dialogue will be led at the level of Foreign Secretary/Under Secretary of State and held at times mutually convenient to both parties, alternating between our respective capitals. We also intend to hold periodic consultations at the Foreign Minister-Secretary level.

   Signed in duplicate on May 5, 2012, in Dhaka, Bangladeh

   Hillary Rodham Clinton
   Secretary of State
   United States of America

   Dr. Dipu Moni
   Minister for Foreign Affairs
   People’s Republic of Bangladesh

   লিন্ক : Joint Statement on U.S.-Bangladesh Partnership Dialogue।

   ০৬ মে ২০১২, হিলারি ক্লিনটন, আমেরিকান অ্যামবেসির তত্ত্বাবধানে ”A Conversation with Bangladesh” শিরোনামে বাংলাদেশের তরুণদের সাথে সিভিল সোসাইটির উপস্থিতিতে এক ঘন্টাব্যাপী এক সাক্ষাৎকার প্রদান করেন।

   MS. SAHA: Welcome and good morning. Please welcome our honorable guest here, Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

   MS. SAHA: Welcome. (Applause.) I’d like to start our show. We call it our Conversation with Bangladesh. Bangladesa sange Adda. And I’d like to now introduce my friend here, Ejaj. He’s a young leader. I call him leader of the leaders. (Laughter.) Well, shall we start?

   MR. AHMED: Sure. Madam Secretary, welcome to Bangladesh. We are so pleased to have you with us in Dhaka. First time you visited us 17 years ago in 1995 as the First Lady of the United States, second time, here as the Secretary of State. How do you feel to be in Bangladesh?

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first I want to thank you, Ejaj, and you, Mooni, and all of you for being here at the International School for this conversation, because I am very interested in Bangladesh and everything that you’re doing, and I’m particularly interested in the young people of this country. So I’ve met some of the young leaders who are here, and I see others out in the audience, and I’m looking forward to hearing from you. I want this to be a real conversation, and I thank you both for moderating it.

   I was here 17 years ago and had just the most wonderful experience with my daughter meeting so many Bangladeshis at that time not only here in Dhaka, but going out into the country, going to villages, visiting Grameen Bank, Bowers, people working BRAC projects, really getting a sense of the potential of the country. And coming back 17 years later, it just confirms my confidence that there is a tremendously positive path for this country. And it’s not easy; you know that better than I do. But the changes, the economic growth, the continuation of democratic sustainment – all of that is very encouraging. So I’d love to hear more about what you think is needed for this country to realize its potential. As I said last night in my press conference, I’m betting on Bangladesh. I’m betting that you’ll be able to work through all the problems that developing countries have everywhere.

   MS. SAHA: Wow. Wow. (Applause.)

   SECRETARY CLINTON: And the United States wants to be your partner, because what we care about is a successful – (applause) – prosperous, peaceful, democratic country.

   MS. SAHA: Well, Madam Secretary, you know the word adda? May I explain you? In Bengali, we call adda, is that Bengali expression like (inaudible) or chitchat. So before I go to the audience, I would like to ask you one question. We heard that you had a meeting with Sir Abed and Dr. Yunus, of course.

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

   MS. SAHA: And how was that?

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, I was honored to meet with both Sir Abed and Yunus. I’ve known them for many years. I’ve actually known Yunus longer, for more than 25 years. I think they are two national treasures of your country. They are two men who have – (applause) – they have created organizations with the Grameen Bank and BRAC that are viewed internationally as the two best development organizations in the world. (Applause.)

   And I will say that I am committed to every way that I can and my government can to supporting their efforts, because we think they are so valuable. And I have followed the dispute over Grameen Bank from Washington, and I can only hope that nothing is done that in any way undermines the success of what Grameen Bank has accomplished on behalf of many millions of poor women and their families.

   And I know some of you – I met a young woman who is the daughter of a Grameen borrower, who’s now at university. That is how change happens. You help somebody get a better income that they then invest in their children and their family. Then the next generation goes further. That’s the story of America. I want it to be the story of Bangladesh. And the Grameen Bank has played an instrumental role.

   So I highly respect Muhammad Yunus, and I highly respect the work that he has done, and I am hoping to see it continue without being in any way undermined or affected by any government action. That would be unfortunate, because I come from – (applause) – I come from this perspective. If you look at societies that are successful, there are three stools – there are three legs to a stool, if you think about it. You have to have a responsible, accountable government that delivers services to its people; you need a private business sector that produces jobs and economic growth that is broadly spread, which is beginning to happen here in this country; and you need civil society, because neither government nor business can or should do everything for people. What you are doing as a youth leader and all of you who are involved is building that third leg of the stool here in Bangladesh. That’s where so much of what makes life important and – (applause) – meaningful happens.

   So I had an excellent meeting with both of those gentlemen this morning and just have the highest regard. And every Bangladeshi should be so proud of what they’ve accomplished for your country.

   MS. SAHA: Madam Secretary, we know what happened with Dr. Yunus. All of us, we know, and we feel very sorry for that. But I’d like to know what does – U.S. Administration’s stand on the matter of Grameen Bank.

   SECRETARY CLINTON: We do not want to see any action taken that would in any way undermine or interfere with the operations of Grameen Bank or its unique organizational structure where the poor women themselves are the owners. That has never happened anywhere in the world. It is now being duplicated. Other countries are looking to see what worked here in Bangladesh. So other countries are saying, “What can we do to try to create something like that?” So I don’t want anything that would in any way undermine what has been this tremendous model that has stood the test of time over the last decades as a very important tool for lifting people out of poverty.

   MS. SAHA: Well, you have just visited China, and you will visit India in between – now, you are here in Bangladesh. So how do you consider us, like, Bangladesh, as an emerging soft power?

   SECRETARY CLINTON: I think you have extraordinary soft power.

   MS. SAHA: Thank you.

   SECRETARY CLINTON: And let me just – (applause) – explain why. First of all, you are strategically located between east and west of Asia. You have the opportunity to be a crossroads, as you historically have been; the Grand Trunk Road, the old Silk Road, all came to Bangladesh. And now you have an opportunity to serve the same role in the 21st century.

   I think the success that you’ve seen in lifting people out of poverty over the last years, dropping the poverty rate, I was told, from 40 percent to about 31 percent – it has to keep being driven down, but that’s a very good sign. The fact that you’ve maintained democracy through a really difficult set of challenges is important; the fact that civil society is developing, as evidenced by all of you. The education system is being more responsive; you’re getting, I think, close to 100 percent primary school enrollment. I think that those are all very strong signals to yourselves as well as the rest of the world.

   You’re the largest contributor to United Nations peacekeeping operations. You have seen an increase in agricultural productivity. You’re now self-sufficient in rice. The United States is working with you on that. You’ve dropped child and maternal mortality so that it appears that you will meet the Millennium Development Goal for maternal and child mortality. I mean, you go through the list of what you have accomplished in the last 17 years since I was last here, and it’s been a remarkable commitment of the Bangladeshi people, and I think the people deserve most of the credit. In a democracy, the people have to be given the credit because the government, remember, as Abraham Lincoln said, is of, by, and for the people. And so the people have demonstrated great resilience and determination.

   But you’ve got some challenges, and you know you have some challenges. I mean, you still have too many unemployed and underemployed young people who are not seeing a good future for themselves. You are starting to see some worrisome labor problems in the garment industry, which have to be solved, because you don’t want to get a reputation as a place where labor leaders and activists are murdered or where people are taken advantage of or abused in poor working conditions, because in today’s world, that will cause big manufacturers of clothing to be afraid to stay or come to Bangladesh. So the government and the garment factory businesses and the labor organizations have to work together so that you stay a very important destination to bring and create more jobs and have more exports. We talked with your government about how we can facilitate all of that.

   There needs to be total rule of law, no impunity. The recent killing of the labor activist, Mr. Islam, has to be investigated, and the perpetrators, if they can be found, need to be brought to justice, because you have to constantly be demonstrating no one is above the law no matter how powerful or positioned in society.

   So you have continuing challenges, but I think the glass is more than half full. It’s just a question of how you tackle some of these issues that are really found in every developing country. They’re not in any way unique to your country. But the world is beginning to expect more from you, because you have shown you can produce. You can get things done, you can make progress, and I think that’s a good problem to have.

   MR. AHMED: Right.

   SECRETARY CLINTON: And of course, we really believe that it is rooted in this new energy that we’re seeing coming out of your country to really make a difference and to show the world that your soft power is to be reckoned with.

   MR. AHMED: Wow. Sure. (Applause.)

   MS. SAHA: Thank you, thank you, thank you.

   MR. AHMED: Talking about energy, I also want to give you a sense of who is in the audience. We have civil society leaders. We also have students from different universities, educational systems, and behind me you will see the eight-member youth advisory council of the ambassador, and this is a think tank the ambassador has put together to consult on issues relating to youth. And we also have representatives from many youth organizations such as the (inaudible) for Bangladesh, (inaudible) Initiative and Community Action. I also want to give an opportunity to young people to raise their voice and share their concerns with you. So perhaps we could start with Momita, a student at the Asian University for Women.

   Momita.

   QUESTION: Honorable Secretary of State, this question actually came from Tushar Bhutto from the Facebook page of U.S. Embassy. And the question is: What is the main obstacle for building peace in this region?

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that there have been longstanding historical conflicts in this region. I mean, your country was born out of a conflict, as you know. There has been problems with and among your neighbors, both your immediate near neighbors and your further neighbors. And we know that some of those feelings and grievances still are present.

   But what I’ve been encouraged by is the outreach I see going on in this region between countries, because if you look at the region as a whole, if you take from Bangladesh through India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, up into Central Asia, this region has been held back in development because of the closed borders, because of the historical enmities that have dominated the minds of people in the various nations. And the result is that you don’t trade with each other, you don’t exchange with each other to the extent that most other regions of the world do, even with former enemies.

   You think about Europe, where a – two terrible world wars were fought in the last century, and now they’re part of the European Union. And they are rich and they are – they may have economic problems, but given the high level of their standard of living, they will be dealing with those over time. But what’s fundamentally important is that they put aside centuries of warfare and terrible violence between them in order to learn how to cooperate. You look at ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, that is working toward developing greater trade ties, or you can see it happening in Africa, you see it happening in Latin America. And it’s very important that this region of South Asia be part of that.

   So yes, it is a problem. There are lots of difficulties and mistrust that exists. There are all kinds of political and ideological differences, but it’s important to keep making progress, to find specific ways to work together. We’re beginning to see increasing business between Pakistan and India, for example. They’re starting to open up as to trade and business visas. Now, that doesn’t mean they’ve solved their problems. That doesn’t mean that they have decided they’re going to trust each other, but it means that they’re being practical and realistic.

   And I think the same goes for Bangladesh and India or with Burma, Myanmar as they develop, goes with Nepal and Bhutan, and even the entire regional outlook will be enhanced by being very practical about how to do more in cooperation, in trade, business, investment, exchanges. And maybe in 25, 50 years, the region will be flourishing in a way that we couldn’t imagine today. (Applause.)

   MS. SAHA: Well, Madam Secretary, I have a question. Whenever we talk about our internal politics, we seek U.S. advice. Why is that?

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that for people who believe in democracy, the United States is now the longest-lasting democracy in the world, and we’re very proud of that. But there’s also a recognition that we didn’t get there overnight, that we didn’t just wake up in 1789 and say everything is solved. We had a lot of problems. I mean, we had slavery still. We didn’t empower women until the 20th century. We had to fight a civil war to end slavery, and we had to keep working on our civil rights movement to recognize the human dignity of every person. We had to work on religious tolerance.

   The United States is a very religious country, but it’s also a very pluralistic country. You can go and see churches, mosques, synagogues, Hindu temples, you name it, where people are free to worship as they choose, and that all took time, and it took a lot of work by succeeding generations of Americans. And it wasn’t just our government and political leaders. It was the – what we call habits of the mind of our American citizens that Alexis de Tocqueville talked about when he came to the United States in the 1820s, and he said this is a new kind of people, where they think for themselves and where they work with each other and where they’re overcoming these divisions that had kept them apart if they had lived back in the place where they came from.

   And many of you have studied in the United States. How many have you have studied in the United States? We’ve got a couple of hands here. We want more of you to study in the United States. (Applause.) We want you to come on student exchanges. And we are doing a big push through our Embassy to create more study opportunities for young people from Bangladesh.

   So I think people look to us. And it’s – we do not claim to be a perfect nation. We are very conscious of our own shortcomings, maybe not as publicly as sometimes we should be – (laughter) – but we know that we have works to do, and we take that seriously. But we also want to be helpful to people who strive for freedom and democracy, who want to respect human rights and human dignity, who want to be build a market economy, who want to have a responsive government. So I think people ask for our help. We offer our help. We don’t want to be interfering in the internal affairs of countries, but we do have a lot of experience about what works, and what sustains democracy and what undermines it. So we will continue to offer whatever support we can to what you’re doing —

   MS. SAHA: So it’s totally a friendly advice, not any pressure or —

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we know that all we can do is offer —

   MS. SAHA: Okay.

   SECRETARY CLINTON: — advice. It’s ultimately up to any country whether to take it or not. But I want to stress something I said in my press conference. The United States is investing significant sums of money in Bangladesh. And one of the reporters said, well, why are you doing that? We’re investing in helping in helping you improve agricultural production through our Feed the Future program. We’re investing in helping you build health systems through our Global Health Initiative. We’re investing in technology and other approaches to mitigating climate change. We’re working with various groups within Bangladesh on economic projects and other things.

   So why do we do that? Well, we do believe that spreading democracy is good for the world. We believe that. Now sometimes the decisions democracies make are not ones that you or I would make, but we think, over the long run, having people empowered, given their rights, is the best form of government that has been invented. It certainly beats all the others. And so we think a strong democracy here that is able to realize the aspirations of your people is not only good for you, but it’s good for the kind of world we would like to see. And that’s our hope.

   MS. SAHA: Thank you. Thank you. Can you take questions from the floor?

   MR. AHMED: Sure. I will – I have two of my friends, Savir and Jonathan. If you raise your hands, then we will take your questions.

   Savir.

   PARTICIPANT: We have so many hands up in the air.

   SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)

   PARTICIPANT: And it’s hard to pick one – so many eager young faces. I would go with you, please. Please tell your name.

   QUESTION: Hello. Welcome to Bangladesh. My name is Lashin Khan, and I’m a recent graduate of Mount Holyoke College, and I’m working at a development organization called Khan Foundation. So we know that Bangladesh is one of the lowest contributors to carbon emissions, but it’s the worst affected by climate change. So I would like to know, Madam Secretary, what initiatives or what commitment is the U.S. planning to make at the upcoming Rio+20 conference that would help Bangladesh or other developing nations to tackle this challenge, either financially or in other means? Thank you. (Applause.)

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you. And congratulations on your graduation. I also graduated from a women’s college – (laughter) – in the United States, called Wellesley. And so Mount Holyoke and Wellesley are what we call seven sisters; we’re two of the sisters.

   You’re right. Climate change is one of the biggest threats to low-lying countries like yours, to island nations across the oceans. So we are particularly focused on seeing what we can do to help, and here are a couple of things. I also announced yesterday a grant to work between our research institutions and yours, $17 million over the next few years, to think of ways that we can help mitigate the effects of climate change here in Bangladesh – how we use technology, what kind of agricultural practices, what kinds of other responses to rising waters, or the effects of increasing and intense – intensity of storms, and all of the issues that we are studying together.

   We are looking to figure out ways to actually put into practice the fund that has been agreed to with the large economies, making contributions to try to help countries that are at risk. But among the challenges we face is to make sure we all know what works best, because as we try to reduce emissions, we still have to deal with the dangers that you are facing at the same time. So we – that’s why this grant to work with you is so important.

   The other thing I have just started – and Bangladesh was a charter original member – is something called the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to prevent short-lived polluters – pollution like methane or black carbon or soot. And we are working with a small but growing group of countries – Bangladesh, Sweden, Canada, Mexico, the United States, and others – to take action on these pollutants while we still work on carbon dioxide, because they’re about 30- to 40 percent of the problem with greenhouse gas emissions.

   And there are ways of attacking those right now. For example, Bangladesh has joined something that we are sponsoring called the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, because the way that women in the developing world cook the food for their families kills 2 million women and children a year because of respiratory distress and diseases, and pollutes the atmosphere. So we are working to try to develop clean cookstoves that will then be made available through organizations like Grameen Bank or BRAC so that we can help cut the pollution and improve the health.

   So there are numerous ways we are working directly with your country, and then more generally, in preparation for Rio+20, looking for how we’re going to build on the commitments of Copenhagen, Cancun, and Durban, where for the first time, developed and developing countries together said we all have to work to limit climate change. So we’re working at it. It’s a very difficult, long-term challenge. In the United States, we’re increasing gas mileage for cars; we’re cleaning up coal-fired power plants; we’re working on a number of areas, even though we don’t have an overarching, comprehensive legal framework. That was not possible with our Congress, but President Obama is continuing to make progress despite that. (Applause.)

   MS. SAHA: We learned that you’ve become the champion for using social media. So how do you manage? (Laughter.) You have a Face.

   SECRETARY CLINTON: I have to say that I think social media is used much, much more by young people than people my age. I’m well aware of that. But we in the State Department have tried to empower our diplomats to use social media, particularly to reach out to young people around the world. And in fact, I was over at the Embassy thanking our employees who work at our Embassy in Dhaka, and thank them because the Facebook page for the Embassy in Dhaka is the third-most used in the world – (applause) – for all of our State Department.

   MS. SAHA: Now Madam Secretary, you have bunch of questions through social media, through Facebook and our ATN News email. So I’d like to – (inaudible), you wanted to ask something on behalf of ATN News.

   QUESTION: Thank you (inaudible). This question came from a public poll conducted by ATN News. The question is from Piel Alem from (inaudible). What you say about the common perception held by many young people that the U.S. is anti-Muslim?

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, that hurts me. (Laughter.) That hurts me so much, honestly. I mean, it’s a painful perception to hear about, and I deeply regret that anyone believes that or propagates it. So let me say first that certainly I think the way the United States demonstrates respect for religions of all kinds, and particularly gives people from every religious faith the opportunity to participate in our society, is an important statement of our beliefs and our values.

   And are there – is there discrimination or prejudice in the United States, like in every society and country in the world? Unfortunately, yes. I mean, human nature has not changed dramatically. There is discrimination against people of different religions, of different races, of different ethnic groups all over the world. We see the results of that. But I don’t think that it is at all fair to hold up the United States, separate and apart from the challenges that we all are confronting to make sure that we respect the rights of every human being. And I believe that the United States, through our laws and through our constant political dialogue, has gone probably farther than anywhere else in the world in trying to guarantee legal protections for people. I would like to see more countries do more to protect the rights of minorities because I think that’s an important part of democracy and of recognizing that no matter what our religion or whatever our background might be, we share this planet with people from many different vantage points, and we should be respectful.

   So I think that part of it is the fact that we have been engaged in self defense and in protecting ourselves for more than 10 years. And we have gone after the terrorists who, personally, I do not believe is in any way reflective of Islam. I think that people who use religion, who pervert religion, for their own power or their own personal needs or their own desires are doing a great disservice to religion. And you find people who, over history, have used every religion for that purpose. And it’s unfortunate that terrorists today, at this point in history, are too often using a religion that is one of the great reflections of man’s faith and one of the three monotheistic religions that I came out of, as a Christian.

   So we know that there are those who, for their own reasons, try to politicize what the United States has done in a way that I think is unfortunate and unfair. And I certainly think President Obama has sent a very clear message of respect and appreciation of all religions, and in particular of Islam. So it is something we’re aware of and something we will continue to speak out against, but I think, looking at how the United States practices religions tolerance is something that speaks louder than any person’s political statement would.

   PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible.) Can I please jump in?

   PARTICIPANT: Yeah.

   PARTICIPANT: I’m sure that we have many eager audience – in fact, I have a question, but – (laughter) – I’ll leave it to audience.

   So, let’s see. We have this young fellow here. So, sir, what’s your name?

   QUESTION: I’m (inaudible) from University of Dhaka. I have (inaudible) and now I am involved in (inaudible) University of Dhaka, and I am also (inaudible) at the American (inaudible) Association. In fact, I am (inaudible) common people because the students have the opportunity to go to USA, but you provided earlier a visa lottery that was open for common people. And with this lottery program, our people – almost 5,000 people very year went to USA, they contributed to your country, and they also contributed to the country because the (inaudible). But this opportunity is now closed for Bangladesh, so it is (inaudible) for us. So do you have any plan for resuming the DV program for our people or any other (inaudible) exchange program so that the common people can go to the U.S. and contribute to USA and (inaudible)?

   PARTICIPANT: Sir, thank you for your question. (Applause.)

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Let me ask one of our people here at the Embassy because – maybe let the ambassador directly respond to that.

   AMBASSADOR MOZENA: Thank you very much for that question. I know – (applause) – it’s one that might be on the mind of many of you. The Diversity Visa Program was formulated to assist those countries whose emigration flows to America were not at a high enough level, given the population of that country. And now so many Bangladeshis have, in fact, emigrated to America that Bangladesh has surpassed that level and therefore no longer qualifies for having the Diversity Visa Program. So that has now ended, as the questioner rightly pointed out.

   SECRETARY CLINTON: So why don’t you, Ambassador, talk about the efforts we are making to increase student exchanges and other study opportunities?

   AMBASSADOR MOZENA: Well, Madam Secretary, you may regret having asked me to do that. (Laughter.) It’s very hard to give up this microphone with that question in the air.

   On the stage is my youth council. We are focused on youth, on the leaders of today and the leaders or tomorrow. And we have a wide range of programs that – to facilitate youth going to America, to facilitate youth here in Bangladesh, working among themselves to help build this wonderful nation.

   The place to find out more about all of that is to come to our American Center here in Dhaka, also the American Corners in Jessore and Sylhet and Chittagong. And soon, in mid-July, we’ll be opening the Edward M. Kennedy Center in the Dhanmondi area among – close to Dhaka University and all of those private universities, reaching out to you, to the young people, to create a platform for you to build, work together to make the Golden Bangladesh.

   I’d better stop there because I’m sure I’m getting dagger looks from my boss. (Laughter and applause.)

   MR. AHMED: Madam Secretary, we’re going to take one more questions, definitely from this side. So.

   PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible.)

   MR. AHMED: Okay. Sure. Please.

   QUESTION: Thank you. Well, first of all, I’d like to say you have got a very beautiful smile. (Laughter.) Anyway, I’m (inaudible). I’m a (inaudible). I’m also working as a lecturer in (inaudible) University of Bangladesh, and I’m also vice president of Bangladesh Youth Empowerment Society.

   So my question is: You’re, like, one of the most – even the most, maybe the most – influential woman in this world and are a very influential character or figure for all the women in this world. So from – in your journey from a very – from a young leader to today’s position, the Secretary of the United States of America, what were the advantages or disadvantages you got being a woman, a (inaudible) even? Thank you. (Applause.)

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Well, I think that it is exciting to see the opportunities for women opening up in many places around the world, not just in my country, and here in your country. As I see more and more women taking positions of responsibility, not only in politics and government but in academia, in the professions, in civil society and business, that’s been one of the changes that I think has helped Bangladesh, to go back to Mooni’s question about soft power. The empowerment of women, half the population, makes a huge difference. And certainly, I have lived through that kind of experience in my own country, where more and more women were able to pursue their own dreams, to study in colleges and universities that were opening doors to them, to pursue careers, professions, and make a contribution.

   In my own case, I have always believed that you have to get a good education, which all of you are doing, to equip you to make the best decisions for yourself. You cannot expect to be able to advance in your own chosen path if you are not prepared. So the first advantage I had is I had an excellent education. I had a very good secondary education, higher education, went to law school, got a law degree from Yale University. So I felt that I had gotten the education that I needed to be able to start making decisions.

   I think second – the second advantage, which really has stayed with me my entire life, is that I had a family and I had parents, both a mother and a father, who encouraged me and who made no difference in their encouragement and expectations for me, their daughter, as they did for their sons. And I just lost my mother in November, but she was somebody who understood that you have to make your own way in life because ultimately that is how you will determine the purpose and meaning of your life. And she was a wonderful mother and gave me so much, and that, of course, made a huge difference.

   I think the other advantage is that I was determined, I was healthy, I had a lot of stamina, I had a thick skin – (laughter) – and therefore, as I went through various phases of my life and had people tell me from a relatively young age that girls didn’t do that or girls shouldn’t do that or you can’t have that scholarship because that’s only for men or you can’t go to that program, I just kept going. And luckily, a lot of those obstacles have been eliminated in my country. So the kinds of legal obstacles, institutional obstacles, that used to exist no longer do, for the great part. And so young women have more choices than even I had when I was younger.

   So I mostly see advantages, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t problems and that there aren’t challenges and that there doesn’t remain a double standard, because – I will be – just – I don’t want to mislead you; there is a double standard. There’s a double standard in every society, including advanced societies that I live in or that exist in Europe and elsewhere. But you can’t give in to that. You can’t be embittered or angered by it. You just have to keep working to overcome it.

   And the final thing I would say is I was advantaged because I always believed that women had every right to go as far as their hard work and their talent would take them, but they would have to prove themselves, that there was no given, there was no presumption that couldn’t be rebutted. You had to demonstrate that you were capable and ready and willing to do whatever the job was.

   So I think that it’s been mostly advantages, but it’s also because I just kept moving forward and did not allow other people’s expectations or other people’s opposition to determine the choices in my life. And I would think that’s true for both women and men, because they’re trying to chart new ground and some of these young youth leaders – and have on my bracelet the Volunteer for Bangladesh sign here – (applause) – you’re trying to create something for your country that is kind of new. Young people historically have had to wait their turn. That’s the way it’s been in the past, but that’s no longer the way it is. You now are able to demonstrate your own ability, make your own mark, make your contribution. But I am sure there will be people who tell you to wait – wait your turn, don’t go too fast, don’t try to do too much. So you have to be smart about it because you want to be successful, but you also have to be strong enough not to get discouraged and deterred for doing what you believe is right to do. So I think that’s the best I can say to answer your question. (Applause.)

   MS. SAHA: Madam Secretary, you are an inspiration and leader to us, and you are a loving mother, and you are a great soul, I must say. And my question is: You use your (inaudible). What is the magic?

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you for that, because some days it feels harder than other days – (laughter) – to try to bring people together. I mean, I see a very important need in the world to overcome our differences and bring people together because we have so much to gain by working together. And I spend a lot of my time trying to convince people to figure out ways to work together. I mean, it was in the newspapers what I said last night. In both my meetings with Sheik Hasina and Begum Zia, I said I wish you could figure out ways to work together. You need to work together to get an election mechanism in place so that your democracy has predictability and can keep moving forward.

   In every place I go representing my country, I try to think of what is the best argument to make, what is the best way to present the potential of greater positive results for people if we can just figure out how to overcome and bridge our differences, because in the modern world in which we’re living, we’re all interdependent, we’re all interconnected. You just can’t say that you’re going to only deal with your own kind of person or you’re only going to meet your own kind of person or you’re only going to listen to your own kind of person. That’s not the way the world is going to work. And we’ll either figure out how to be more integrated or we will disintegrate. And we will have more conflict and we will have more problems that we won’t figure out ways to solve because we won’t work together.

   You have big problems with water, right? You’ve got to figure out ways to work with India and Nepal and other neighbors, and you have to make the case that it’s in their interest to work with you. So you don’t make agreements with people you agree with before you start. You have to figure out what are the areas of agreement that you can possibly meet together on.

   So I spend most of my time trying to think of smart ways to help people overcome what is keeping them apart, keeping their people poor, keeping conflict going, giving room for violence, and all of the problems that we have when I think the world has such an enormously positive potential for all of you. Because finally, I would say, Mooni, that the work I do is about my daughter and about the next generation and about the kind of future you deserve to have. And I said last night it’s like when Ted Kennedy came here as a young man and planted that banyan tree. That was an act of symbolic faith in your future. And the tree has flourished. Well, that’s like a metaphor. You have to be planting trees in soil that has been uprooted, sometimes polluted by all of the problems, but you have to keep doing it. And each of you who is a young leader has so much at stake in making your country what it can be in your lifetime.

   PARTICIPANT: Absolutely. Thank you.

   MS. SAHA: Madam Secretary, you are just pressing on the young leader. Of course, we are in an excellent gathering of young leaders, but I mean in terms of smart politics, so what about the experienced leader? So who they are now – well, I’m not saying that they are creating problem. They are on the (inaudible), so then —

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I mostly deal with the experienced leaders, the leaders who’ve been around for a long time, because those are the people I sit across the table from – presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers, other national leaders. But most of them are beginning to see that the world around them is changing. You cannot escape social media. Social media can get information to people that governments used to try to control and prevent you from having. Politics is utterly changed because it’s not just authorized sources of information that the government approves about what is happening politically. It’s bloggers, it’s tweeters, it’s people with an opinion. And everybody who has a cell phone can take a picture of a corrupt official demanding a bribe, and post it, and say this should be a corruption-free country, and we’re going to do everything we can to stop it. And they can also call out leaders who are abusing power and abusing human rights.

   So even experienced leaders now have to recognize that you can’t keep doing politics the same old way. And there has to be an openness to new ideas, an acceptance of accountability. I mean, one of the biggest problems in developing countries – and look, it’s a problem here – one of the reasons that you’ve not been eligible for a Millennium Challenge compact is because of corruption and the failure to take more steps to stamp it out. So every leader has to be asked, “Are you in this – are you in politics and government for yourself, or are you in politics and government for the people of your country to leave them a better a future?” That’s the question. So now it can be asked not just by journalists but by millions of people who are connected on social media.

   And I think that’s a promising development. A lot of governments are trying to figure out how to prevent that. We do a lot of work in the State Department to break down the firewalls that authoritarian governments try to put in place to prevent their own people from getting information. We’re seeing it now in Syria, a brutal, violent crackdown on what started as peaceful protests by students and young people, which is now morphing into a very widespread conflict that is very dangerous. Inside Iran, constant efforts by the Iranian Government to keep information out so that people don’t have a chance to think for themselves. And so we do what we do, spend a lot of time trying to help those people inside such countries have access to information that they can then convey. And I think every leader is going to have to deal with that.

   MR. AHMED: Can we take a few more questions from the audience, please?

   PARTICIPANT: There are a lot of young entrepreneurs in this audience, so we want to also give them an opportunity –

   MR. AHMED: Yes. And we can also take questions in Bangla. (In Bangla.) Okay. Let’s go to our friend over there.

   QUESTION: Well, thank you. This is Razound ah-Mazoud, a student of international relations from University of Dhaka. Well, we have seen that there was a signing of a partnership agreement last night between United States of America and Bangladesh. And now much hopeful can we be of seeing a long-term strategic and stable U.S.-Bangla relations for a future generation? And what role do you expect of the Bangladesh to play in the region where we have Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, and India not far from us, in fact and (inaudible) issues? Thank you.

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the question is a very good one because part of the reason that I wanted to develop and then sign the partnership agreement last night is to do exactly as your question implied, to put our relationship on a stable basis, regardless of who our president is, who our secretary of state is, who your prime minister is, who your foreign minister is. It should not be dependent upon the personal – the persons holding the positions; it should be between our two nations, between our governments and our people year after year after year so that we develop institutional cooperation between us.

   And that’s the purpose of that partnership agreement, and I’m very pleased about it because we do a lot of government-to-government talking, we do a lot of government-to-NGO talking, we do a lot of government-to-business talking. But I wanted to bring it all together under one umbrella so that we could count on it lasting year after year after year, because that’s the kind of partnership we want to have.

   With regard to your second question, I think that Bangladesh has the opportunity to play a constructive role in trying to resolve regional problems, and I would like to see you do that going into the future, reaching out to your neighbors. Now, it’s not a short-term proposition. It can take time, but make it clear that Bangladesh wants to have a pivotal role in resolving cross-border problems. I mentioned one, water; climate change, which is obviously another; opening up economic markets. I heard last night that Bangladesh now has maybe either limited or no-tariff access into the India market. I mean, that’s the —

   MS. SAHA: Yes. No tariff. Yeah.

   SECRETARY CLINTON: — kind of cooperative agreements that I think are very good, not only for Bangladesh but for the region. So I would urge that.

   MR. AHMED: Can we also expect duty-free access to the U.S. market? Because that is a major concern for the R&D sector. And you mentioned R&D, and so many women are employed in this sector. So is this something that is —

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’re certainly looking to see what we can do. I heard quite a bit about that last night, and we want to finish a trade and investment agreement. But I’ll give you an example of the kind of agreements that we want to enter into on trade and investment, because we’re very close, we hope, to negotiating this – do have requirements for labor standards, because we think if you’re going to become a middle-income country, you have to have a strong base on which to build that kind of labor force, and so you want to build in labor protections. And that, to us, is a key part, and it’s also part of the International Labor Organization Declaration.

   Because after a certain point of development – and you’re seeing it in China. China’s having more worker unrest, more labor problems. They’re finding all kinds of outside attention as to how they put together electronics or garments or whatever. So as you evolve economically, you have to begin to have a legal framework to protect labor rights. So in our agreements, we do have requirements, and sometimes those are difficult, not only for the government but for the business sector. But we think it’s the best way to set out how you’re going to have the kind of economic progress that will not just exploit people but will build a better future.

   MR. AHMED: Absolutely. Thank you. Samir, do we — (applause).

   MS. SAHA: Lots of questions.

   PARTICIPANT: It’s very hard to pick one, seriously.

   MR. AHMED: (Inaudible.)

   PARTICIPANT: Like her. I hear you. This side, this side. (Laughter.) Please.

   QUESTION: (Via interpreter.) My name is Alia Atta. I am the general secretary for BGIF. We work with workers’ rights. And there we face all kinds of obstructions with the police, goons, thugs, and false allegations in court. And, in fact, one of our leaders, Aminul Islam, was very brutally murdered. With such conditions, how can we work with the cause of workers’ rights? Thanks.

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. (Applause.) And – well, first let me say that I spoke out strongly to point that there needed to be an independent investigation into the murder of Mr. Islam, because certainly his family and his colleagues deserve answers about what happened to him. So on that particular case, this is a real test for the government and for the society to make sure you don’t say that anyone can have impunity. That’s a key issue for the rule of law.

   Secondly, on your larger question, the history of labor rights and labor unions in any developing society is always difficult. There are strong forces that oppose workers being organized. We have this in my own country. You go back to the 19th and the early 20th century when labor unions were just getting started, there were goons, there were thugs, there were killings, there were riots, there were terrible conditions. We passed laws at the beginning of the 20th century against child labor, against too many hours for people to work, but that took time. It took time to develop a sense of political will to address those issues. So you are beginning that, and it’s a very important struggle. I think in today’s world, everything is accelerated because everything is known. There are no secret issues that can’t be exposed. There are exposes about factories from China to Latin America. So you are doing very important work. Do not be discouraged or intimidated. But you deserve to have the support of your government and your society.

   The third point I would make is that we have worked from Colombia to Cambodia with the owners of factories and other enterprises to help them understand how they can continue to make a very good profit while treating their workers right. And in fact, we have spent a lot of time trying to help owners of businesses understand how to do that. And it’s worked. And we have people who are quite experts in that.

   For many years, Colombia, the country in South America that has one of the fastest-growing economies in the world right now, had hundreds of labor organizers killed. And they were killed by economic forces and political forces that didn’t want to share power, didn’t want to share profits, who didn’t see that that was part of the obligation of democracy and society. So we have seen this happen all over the world, and we stand ready to work with factory owners and labor organizers to have a better dialogue, to understand what can work, and then to help you implement it.

   So I thank you for raising it because it’s a part of becoming a middle class country. Workers deserve to have their labor respected and fairly paid for. Factory owners deserve to have what they pay for, which is an honest day’s work for the wages that they pay. So there is a way to accommodate those interests, and we’ve seen it, and we can continue to work with you to try to achieve it. (Applause.)

   MS. SAHA: Madam Secretary, I have a question regarding cooperation between our two country, like America and Bangladesh, on power and energy sector in a changing reality of Myanmar and after resolving our controversy with the maritime boundary with Myanmar, so —

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, I want to recognize that the way that you handled your maritime boundary with Burma and the way you’re handling it with India is exactly the way it should be resolved. You went to the international authorities, you submitted your information, you’ve had a favorable ruling. But you did it by a peaceful rule of law approach, so I really compliment you on doing that. And – (applause).

   MS. SAHA: That’s smart power, they use. Must be. It must be use for smart power.

   SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s very smart, because it’s now resolved. And it comes at a very good time because, as Burma is reforming economically and politically, I think that Bangladesh can be a big help to the people there. And there’s also economic opportunities for your businesses in working across the border. So I think it’s a win-win for your country. And I would hope that as the democratic reform effort there continues, civil society here will also get involved because they’ve been under a military regime for 40 years, right? So they don’t have yet the institutional experiences that you have been developing. So I hope that there’ll be some outreach to try to assist them as they make progress.

   MS. SAHA: I specifically like to know about the investment in energy and power sector.

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, energy and power is critical, we know, to Bangladesh because you still don’t have reliable, affordable electricity across the country. And we talked last night, and as part of the partnership agreement, the government asked if we would provide technical advice about potential development of your hydropower, exploring whether you have natural gas, unconventional gas resources, including shale gas, other kinds of advice that we would be willing to offer. So we’re going to send a technical team to work with you on that, what kind of renewable energy in addition to hydropower, whether there’s an opportunity for geothermal, for wind, for solar, greater than has been anticipated. So we stand ready to help you meet your energy needs.

   QUESTION: Thank you so much. (Inaudible.)

   MR. AHMED: We will have to wrap it up, so I think —

   MS. SAHA: I would like to ask our honorable, respected Madam Secretary, what are you taking back with this trip? You have visited China and you are going to India and —

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Right. Right.

   MS. SAHA: — so this evening, you are leaving for India. So —

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

   MS. SAHA: — from – exactly what you are taking back.

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m, first of all, taking back just the overall impression of the dynamism and the progress that is being made here and in the region. You’re right; I was in China. China obviously is continuing to grow and develop. They would be the first to tell you they still have hundreds of millions of people that they need to lift out of poverty, that they need to educate, that they need to provide health care for. So they are the most developed developing country, that is for sure, but they still are facing issues they have to address. I’ll be going on to India. India, too, is making progress, has hundreds of millions of people still in poverty that they have to find ways of providing income to, education, health care.

   So I think that the region itself, with you right strategically situated between China and India, has developed incredibly fast, but people’s aspirations probably have developed faster. So there’s now a greater expectation that people’s economic and political needs will be met. And I personally believe that you are on the right track. Over the long run, people’s freedoms cannot be denied. And what you’ve done by taking a democratic route – it may be messy, because democracy is messy; it may not have top-down control over everything, but that way you also don’t prevent good ideas from bubbling up – you are on the right path.

   But you know the problems you face. You understand that far better than I do. And what you need is national unity and a consensus toward continuing that progress. And I know that’s hard. You have two very powerful political parties that alternate between one and the other, and you have a lot of challenges to the sustainment of a peaceful political path forward, but the people have to demand that. Regardless of who you vote for or what party you support, the people have to demand that everybody is trying to accomplish the same thing, which is continuing the economic development of the country, providing democratic institutionalization for the country, respecting the human rights and human dignity of every person in the country, bringing people together, developing a volunteer mentality so that people go out and help each other, because the government cannot and should not be expected to deliver everything everybody needs. That is a recipe for failure in today’s world.

   So you are on the right track. Build up civil society and continue to support democracy and economic opportunity and market development. And I feel very positive about what I’ve seen and heard, and I’m particularly impressed by the young people who I have met.

   PARTICIPANT: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you. I would like to request (inaudible) to thank Madam Secretary on behalf of the audience, and please (inaudible).

   SECRETARY CLINTON: And let us thank you. You did an excellent job with too many hands. (Applause.)

   MR. AHMED: Madam Secretary, thank you so much. We are so grateful to you for your time. And this is your second visit. And the youth of Bangladesh are really hopeful. We pray for you. We wish you all the best. And hopefully, the next time you’re in Bangladesh, in five years’ time, you’ll be here on Air Force One. Our prayers and good wishes. (Applause.)

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, my God – (applause). Thank you.

   MS. SAHA: Bangladesh is (inaudible).

   MR. AHMED: A round of applause for Madam Secretary. (Applause.)

   MS. SAHA: Thank you very much. Thank you. Goodspeed. (Inaudible.)

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Same to you, my friend. Thank you so much. Good luck to you. Thank you.

   PARTICIPANT: Yes. No, we wish you all the best. You’re such an inspirational role model, and I’ve read your book so many times. (Applause.)

   SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you all.

   লিন্ক : Interview With Ms. Mooni Saha, and Mr. Ejaj Ahmed At a Townterview with Bangladeshi Youth।

   • 

     মাসুদ করিম - ১৩ মে ২০১২ (২:৪৭ অপরাহ্ণ)

     ০৭ মে ২০১২তে কলকাতায় হিলারি ক্লিন্টনের টাউন্টারভিউ “We The People”

     MS. DUTT: Good morning, everybody. Good morning ladies and gentlemen of Kolkata, but especially good morning to all the young students and the young voices of Kolkata who are here this morning to listen to a very, very exciting and important guest. Our guest this morning seems to, when she is not in Washington, D.C., be living in an airplane. And I’m not joking. Do you know how many miles she’s clocked up since she took over as Secretary of State in 2009? Any guesses, guys? I bet you can’t guess. More than 700,000 miles. Actually, I think somebody there got it almost right. That worked out – oh, that’s somebody on the staff. That’s cheating right? (Laughter.) That’s cheating, guys.

     Alright. More than 700,000 miles and 95 countries works out to about 25 trips around the globe. And yet not once does she show signs of any flagging energy. In fact, as she arrives in India making Kolkata her first stop, she has just completed two very important visits to two other countries: China first, then Bangladesh; and now, of course, here in India as an old friend.

     She is one of the most influential women anywhere in the world, and in fact a Gallup poll in the United States of America has consistently called her the most admired woman in the United States of America for more than decade. And I know how excited we are as Indians to welcome her to our country today, and of course the people of Kolkata to welcome her to her first stop in India, which is Kolkata. We are going to be having a very exciting conversation this morning, and it is my privilege and honor to welcome to India and to the stage Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Let’s have a huge round of applause. (Applause.)

     Welcome. It is so good to see you.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. It is so wonderful to be here with all of you, and I want to thank Barkha Dutt for agreeing to moderate our discussion and everyone at NDTV and at La Martiniere. This is very exciting for me to have this chance to be back in this vibrant city after a number of years. I was last here in 1997 honoring the life and work of Mother Teresa. And I am thrilled to see all of the dynamism and how much both Kolkata and West Bengal have thrived.

     So here we are in the economic and innovation hub of Eastern India, and I just want to make a few comments before we have a chance for a conversation. I wanted to do this, because certainly for me, the work that I do every single day, the miles that I fly, are about trying to see what all of us together can be doing to bring peace and prosperity to the world, because most of the world’s population are young people. That’s true in India, but it’s true in most places in the East, and particularly in Asia and South and East Asia.

     So it’s truly about what you want for your futures. And the relationship between our two great democracies is one that is going to help determine the kind of future that we have. As President Obama told the Indian parliament, the relationship between India and the United States will be one of those defining partnerships of the 21st century. Why? Because we are united by bedrock beliefs about freedom, democracy, pluralism, and opportunity.

     And also our economies are increasingly interdependent. When I first visited India in 1995, trade between our countries was about $9 billion. Well, today it’s more than $100 billion. And that makes a difference in the lives of people in both countries. I was talking with some friends here last night, and they were referencing the jobs and opportunities created by the Pepsi-Frito Lay plant here, and how it’s not only for the people who work in the plant but for all the farmers whose incomes are going up because they have guaranteed contracts for their products.

     So there’s a lot of progress, but we always think that more can be made to reduce barriers, open markets to greater trade and investment, economic reforms from manufacturing to retail, can spark growth, create jobs, and lower prices for consumers in both countries.

     Increasingly also, our strategic interests are aligned. India is a regional and increasingly global power, recognized with its economic, diplomatic, and military influence. And India is taking on more responsibilities, which is good news because the international community cannot solve our shared problems, such as nuclear proliferation or climate change, unless we are all working together and unless the leading countries are taking the steps necessary for solutions.

     I think here in Kolkata, you’ve always been at the forefront of India’s engagement with the world. I know the city is sometimes called the Gateway to the East. And increasingly, India’s look-east policy will be essential for the growth of India, but even more importantly for the entire integration of the Asia Pacific region.

     I’ve just come from Bangladesh, where there is a great hope and excitement about increasing trade and economic opportunities with India, with Burma, with the markets of Southeast Asia. I think because of India’s democracy, India stands in a strong position to help the people of Burma as they navigate their way forward both with economic and political reforms.

     Prior to that, I was in China, where we are building a constructive relationship not only bilaterally but among our three countries. In fact, the trilateral consultation between China, India, and the United States will be essential for us in the future as well.

     But really, the heart of our relationship is the people-to-people relationship, the thousands and thousands of visits every year, the incredible contributions of Indian Americans in my country in every walk of life, increasingly in the political realm. And I checked the statistics. In 2011, 35 percent of all the L1 work visas that the United States issued in the entire world were issued to Indians. And between 2010 and 2011, we saw an increase in 24 percent in H1B work visas. And more than 100,000 Indian students are currently studying in the United States. So there are so many links between us, and we want to promote even more between the young people of our two countries.

     I think it’s appropriate to quote from Tagore. People always quote from Tagore in not only West Bengal but in many other places as well. I discovered him when I was in college and have been a fan ever since. And one of the quotes that I liked when I was your age and I like now that I’m my age is, “Age considers, youth ventures.” So since India is home to more than 400 million young people, a remarkable generation – innovative, entrepreneurial, tolerant, connected to each other – we’re hoping you will venture, that you will venture on behalf of not only your own futures but the future of this great country, and that you’ll venture to make the partnership between the United States and India stronger. Under my direction, we are starting youth councils in all of our embassies and our consulates around the world. Here in Kolkata, we have a particularly active group and we would love to have even more people involved.

     So with that, I’m looking forward to the conversation, and I think it’s fair to say that I have probably been asked nearly everything in my long life and public life, so just please feel free with Barkha’s lead to have a real conversation for the time we’re together. Thank you all. (Applause.)

     MS. DUTT: All right. Just before we get the ball rolling, we’ll just get the podium off stage and we’ll get the Secretary all miked up. But it was interesting to hear her say that she’s probably been asked every question that’s possible. So are we going to surprise her today? We are, right? (Laughter.) She’s going to walk away with some question that she’s never been asked before.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: I should never have done that. (Laughter.) What a challenge. That’s a woman who loves a challenges. (Laughter.)

     MS. DUTT: Secretary Clinton, thank you so much for your remarks and welcome to India and to Kolkata once again. And before we set the ball rolling today, I’ve got to share with you something that somebody from the state actually characterized us Indians as – economist and Nobel Laureate, Amartya Sen, he said that there’s one definition that fits Indians, and that is: “Argumentative Indians.” (Laughter.) And Indians are argumentative, but my god, Bengalis – (laughter) – are very argumentative and very opinionated, right? (Applause.)

     So I hope you’re ready for the questions and the volleys that are coming your way. But before we start the conversation this morning, I want to draw your attention, the attention of our audience here, and the attention of our viewers to something that we forget: Even though you have had a long relationship with India – now 17 years, sometimes we forget that it was not in fact your husband, Bill Clinton, as President who came to India first, but you as first lady.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

     MS. DUTT: And I’m going to show you a picture, and the audience can see it on their screens. And that’s you in 1995 with Chelsea in front of the Taj Mahal, an extraordinary picture there. Chelsea was just 15 then, just a 15-year-old kid with her mom at the Taj Mahal. And you always reached out, not just to politicians but to civil society groups. There you are in ’95 with Ela Bhatt, the founder of SEWA. On that trip, you learned how to dye rags. I’m going to ask you how often you did that after you left.

     Dyeing rags and block printing – that was Secretary Clinton’s first trip in Kolkata, a long association with somebody we love, miss, and admire, Mother Teresa. Your first visit here in a little bit of tragic circumstances at the funeral and the tribute to Mother Teresa. That was 1997 when you were here first. On a happier occasion, today, of course, in 2012. A long relationship across political dispensations that’s Prime Minister Vajpayee at the White House; Sonia Gandhi whom you’ve known over the years – (inaudible) that great photograph, I love that photograph; Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj. You’ve made friends across different political parties. You like shaking a leg, don’t you? (Laughter.) You make the point to do that in every trip.

     But here’s the thing, as you (inaudible) and say goodbye to us, there’s one thing you always say: Every Indian meal that’s coming up leaves you on a diet of carrots and celery for the next many weeks.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s very true. (Laughter.)

     MS. DUTT: So that was a flashback. But I’ve got to ask you, because we’re hoping you managed to duck into a hearty Indian meal, how many carrots and celeries coming up in the next few weeks?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I leave here and I go to Delhi, so by the time I get home, I think it’ll probably be at least a week of celery and carrots, don’t you think? And we – my husband and I have just such a great personal affection for India – maybe because we’re a little argumentative ourselves from time to time, but also the extraordinary dynamism and just the thrill of being in the country.

     Now, it’s a little difficult actually getting out and around as a first lady or as a Secretary of State, but we’ve really tried to break through the official boundaries. So yesterday, for example, I met with these extraordinary young women who’ve been rescued from the sex trade and who are being worked with by a variety of organizations here in West Bengal. And just to have a chance to hear the stories and talk to them about their lives helps to put the work that I do on the official level into a broader perspective, because for me it’s really about whether or not at the end of the day those of us in these positions have made life better for people or not.

     Certainly, we can have a great experience personally traveling and visiting and meeting people, but that’s not why I do this work. And I think most people who care about their own country, or even more broadly global possibilities, knows that there’s a lot of anxiety and insecurity about what direction the world is going in in many places and uncertainty about what the economy is going to be like. And so I think we have an obligation to do as much as we can in the time we have to serve.

     MS. DUTT: Now, you’ve made it a point, and I think those pictures told their own story, to step out of the formality of protocol, to meet all sorts of different people, to go to all sorts of different parts of India. But I know a lot of people have been asking me: Why Kolkata? Why Kolkata before Delhi?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, because I was in Chennai the last time I was here. That’s where the dancing pictures were, just an amazing experience we had there. And coming from China to Bangladesh, it seemed very appropriate to stop right here in Kolkata. The economic potential of East India is so great, but also the geopolitical significance of this part of India is increasingly recognized.

     When you think about the potential for greater trade and economic integration going east, the markets that would be open for West Bengal by greater trade with not only Bangladesh but on to Burma, dealing with the issues of water and energy that affect the entire region – all of this, to me, is significant, and the United States wants to be a partner with the entire country. And therefore coming here, meeting people, having this opportunity, seeing the chief minister, is a way of demonstrating our commitment to that future.

     MS. DUTT: Now, it’s interesting, you of course being named by Gallup and poll after poll as the most admired woman in the United States of America. But as you meet with Mamata Banerjee, one can’t help but look at the symbolism of these two very different women, but two very formidable women coming together.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well —

     MS. DUTT: I’m a bit of a (inaudible), you know that. You’re not going to pretend that you’re not formidable.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t know. I mean, I don’t think of myself that way, but apparently there are some who do – (laughter) – which sometimes is an advantage, sometimes a disadvantage. I think it’s a great tribute to India that the entire political development of this country at the national and the local, and now increasingly even at the state level with all of the elections, is demonstrating the equality and empowerment that is at the core of the Indian dream.

     I mean, this is a country that has embraced democracy, which by definition is endowing individuals with their rights and which has made enormous progress. And women have been at the forefront of that progress. So I’m always happy to meet with another woman leader. And having been in politics myself for eight years as a senator from New York, I know how difficult it is for women to be elected anywhere. This is still a challenging experience and a double standard: You just are judged differently; you’re held to a different standard. We all know that.

     So when I meet a woman who’s broken through those barriers, whatever society she’s coming from, whatever her background, and even whatever her political beliefs – because some women in public office I agree with on their policies, other women I have disagreements with – but we share a common bond, if you will, of having gone through the fire of electoral politics in very contentious political systems, which both of our countries have.

     MS. DUTT: And isn’t it true, as you said, that there’s an entirely different kind of scrutiny on women in public life? And I remember once, you joked, but it wasn’t really a joke, that the fastest way for you to get a story on the front page was to change your hairstyle.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, that’s true, actually. Yeah. So what do you think? I mean, we’re – (laughter) – it’s – do we want (inaudible)? That’s okay. That’s okay. No, we —

     MS. DUTT: No. You don’t need to get any stories on the front page (inaudible).

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, the front page – the story on the front page. Well, it is the fact – I remember being in Finland once. And in Finland, they have taken gender equality to an incredibly sophisticated level. And I was meeting with the president, the finance minister, the head of the central bank, and about – the defense minister, and about four other women who, at that point in time, were the head of the government of that country.

     And I said, “Well, now that you’ve reached critical mass, are you feeling that a lot of the comments about your hair and your clothes and all of that are behind you?” And the defense minister looked at me and she said, “No, because still I will go to a defense ministers meeting and it’ll be – coverage in the media will read my name, comma, wearing a spring suit of pastel hues, comma, spoke about the need for — ” and so I think that we just have to keep persevering and not be deterred from and supporting women who have the gumption to get out into the political arena.

     MS. DUTT: Absolutely. And there is an institution-like misogyny that I think women like yourselves have shattered through many glass ceilings. But you are still dealing with so many more invisible ones every day, right?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it’s so true. And it’s true globally; it’s not limited to any one country. Violence against women, unfortunately, is still a problem everywhere. Women are the primary victims now of conflicts – women and children – in places where there are active violence going on. We see efforts by religious and other extremists to turn the clock back on women’s education, healthcare opportunities. We’re still fighting against child marriage. We’re fighting against the devaluation of girl children. We do have a big agenda ahead of us, and it’s very important that both men and women be invested in changing the underlying attitudes that lead to these discriminatory practices.

     MS. DUTT: I’m going to start opening the floor for questions with one question of my own to get the ball rolling: Many people expect that part of your focus in Kolkata is going to be about getting this part of the country to open up its markets to foreign direct investment in retail. You’re also coming from Bangladesh. There was to be a pact over sharing waters of the Teesta River. It did not come through at the last moment. How high are both these things on your agenda in Bengal?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, they’re certainly on the list of things that I will want to talk about, but I’m also primarily interested in hearing from the chief minister, her vision for the future of West Bengal. Because I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to, on a first meeting, come in and say, well, this, this, and this. I want to know, well, what are you trying to achieve, and what will work and have you thought about this? Because I have been around a very long time now, and I have been fortunate to see a lot of economic efforts tried and succeeded, and tried and failed. And I come with, certainly, a belief that India can compete with anybody, anywhere. And the more open India becomes over time, the greater the rise in standard of living and opportunity for the broader number of people will be.

     But I also understand politics, and I understand how lots of these decisions are difficult and have to be weighed. So I will certainly raise the United States’ desire to try to open the market to multi-brand retail. And part of the reason for that is there is an enormous amount of experience that can be brought to India on supply chains management, on developing relationships with small producers so that the production will be then made available in larger quantity and there can be all kinds of assistance, as we’re seeing with the Frito-Lay-PepsiCo factory with farmers on their agricultural production. So I think there are a lot of benefits that may not necessarily be immediately perceived.

     And on water, this is an issue around the world that will be increasingly contentious. And we have to do a better job of trying to find win-win solutions for everybody, because the alternative will be, perhaps at the worst end, conflict, but leading up to that, dislocation, destabilization, refugee flows, famine, other kinds of problems that we are seeing in places like North Africa. So we have to work together as the international community – and the United States doesn’t have any interest in how the water issues are resolved, but we know from looking at our own projections of what will be hot issues – literally, hot issues in the future, that unless water is put on the list to be dealt with, it can cause all kinds of dislocation that needs to try to be headed off.

     MS. DUTT: Okay. That was very candid and there are going to be lots of other questions coming up about the region and so on. But I think we’re ready to take our first questions from the audience. And let’s go here to the young man in the first row. I’d request you to stand and ask your questions, and just hold the mike close like that.

     QUESTION: Hi. I’m Samuel from Mumbai, actually Bombay, and are part of the Youth Advisory Council of the U.S. Government. I have a question, rather a suggestion, is that why doesn’t the U.S. Government make constructive efforts to reach out to grassroot-level Indian youth? Because in this room, we don’t even represent one percent of the demographics that India has. Because if you want to push FDI-level nuclear plans, it’s the new youth that opposes it for whatever reasons.

     And the second quick question I have, just from my learning as a socially change – because what is the role of youth or influence of youth in American policymaking?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Two great questions, and thank you for participating in our efforts at creating more interaction with Indian youth. It is, as you point rightly out, easier to do so in urban areas. You can have convening opportunities; there can be all kinds of connectivity that is what we are seeking. So we are certainly focusing on that, but we are looking for ways to reach out to world youth, not only in India but other places as well. And we really need the advice of our youth council advisors about how best to do that.

     The spread of social media gives us an opportunity to do that, but that’s not universally available, right? So we need other ideas about how we can reach out, because I think you’re right – in most places in the world, people in rural areas often have less opportunity, even with their own country’s leadership, let alone with people from outside the country. So please help us come up with ideas about how we can better do that.

     And certainly on the specific issues that you mention, we want to have a greater debate and dialogue about these issues. The – you mentioned FDI and the nuclear – civil nuclear issue, those are issues that we’ve been in conversation with the Indian Government about for a very long time. It’s not something that the United States – I had a one-sided discussion about. In fact, the Indian Government was very anxious to do the civil nuclear deal with the United States. When I was a senator from New York, I strongly supported it, because in the first instance, I wanted to demonstrate a growing relationship with India. And India Government officials and representatives of various aspects of Indian society made it very clear that India wanted this.

     So we need to have an open conversation, but we also want it to be based on evidence and facts, because we can disagree about the policy prescription. But increasingly in my own country – and I think this is starting to happen around the world – people are trying to avoid the facts underlying these discussions and substitute ideology or partisan political perspectives or even commercial advantage, and I have been calling for evidenced-based decision making. Again, we can disagree about the policies that will be derived from that. But in a democracy, well, it’s essential that you have an informed citizenry, and there needs to be as good a base of evidence on which decisions are made. And so we want to try to do more to create that foundation.

     MS. DUTT: So would you say briefly, Secretary Clinton, that you’re disappointed with where the liability bill stands, given how hard Washington pushed for this nuclear deal?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’ve made it clear to the government that under the legislation that was passed, it would be difficult for United States companies to participate, because we have private companies that are in the market place and other nuclear companies are backed up by their national government. So they are, in effect, subsidized so that the liability is not as big a problem for them, because they have their government standing behind them. So we’re still discussing this, and we’re hoping that there will be a way to work out the remaining kinks in this.

     MS. DUTT: All right. Question – I want to get some young people in, and let’s go to the girl here in the third row, if we can just reach her the mike please? Can we just run and get her a mike please? Yeah.

     QUESTION: I’m (inaudible). I’m a practicing gastroenterologist in Kolkata. My question to you is: I believe that in India we need to educate women to empower them. U.S. being one of the most advanced societies in the world, we see most women being educated, then why don’t we see them in top positions in the country? I mean, in the U.S., you do not see women in politics, in top positions in corporate world, in medicine. I’ve trained in U.S. myself, and I was the only female liver fellow out there. And for example, for yourself, I would have loved to see you create history by becoming the first women president of that country, and we haven’t seen you doing that. (Applause.) So what is the reason for that?

     MS. DUTT: 2016 may happen yet.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, dear. (Laughter.) She’s going to get me in so much trouble. (Laughter.) Not only in your country, but my country. (Laughter.)

     QUESTION: We have to make India and U.S. partner to empower women, especially in our country.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. No, I – well, I think there are two very interesting models here, because women have held the top positions politically in your country in a great display of women’s empowerment for decades now. But you still have a lot of women who need to be educated who don’t yet have the basic protections in their families, in their community in order to be able to fulfill their own human destiny. In our country, we have a broad base of education and ability for people to make decisions, but we still have a pretty hard glass ceiling that has not yet been broken at the presidential level, and certainly in our experience, we don’t yet have a commensurate percentage of women in our Congress or in our state offices. Increasingly women are in responsible positions in many fields, but we have our own work to do.

     So I think we have kind of the mirror images of each other about the challenges that we confront. And I’ve been impressed in reading about what India did with its law to require a certain number of women on village councils. And I have followed that because there’s a big debate always – do you have quotas or requirements for women? And in many places from Rwanda now to India, having a requirement at least gets women in the door. They get their chance to demonstrate their abilities. So I think for your country, that’s worked out very well. That’s not something that would work within our political system.

     MS. DUTT: I just got a question on Twitter from (inaudible) is the handle: Secretary Clinton, you broke more than a few glass ceilings in the Democratic Party primaries last time and since then. But do you think the United States is ready for a woman president, or is it still a long, long way to go?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, I hope it’s not a long, long way to go. (Laughter.) I really want to see that in my lifetime. I just – our political system is so difficult, because individual candidates have to raise all the money that they use in their campaigns. So you not only have to be facing all the challenges of running for office, you also have to be out there raising money, and I raised tens of millions, more than a hundred million dollars in my campaign. So when you run for president, you start off on the same level, and it’s really a money race and a vote race.

     And I was very excited to run for president, very pleased that I had a chance to do that, and obviously honored by the votes that I got. But I think that there will be an election that will elect a woman, but I think our political system is about the most difficult to navigate for men and women, but particularly for women. So we’re going to keep trying to encourage that final glass ceiling to be broken, but in the meantime, we’re running a lot of women for Congress, we’re running women for state offices, and we’ll just keep trying to fill the pipeline with a lot of women in the political environment.

     MS. DUTT: So why have you been saying no to 2016?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I feel like –

     MS. DUTT: You’re going to be that woman who’s going to break the final glass ceiling.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: I really – (laughter) – I mean, no. (Applause.) I’m very flattered, but I feel like it’s time for me to kind of step off the high wire. I’ve been involved at the highest levels of American politics for 20 years now, and I’d like to come back to India and just wander around without having – (laughter) – the streets be closed and a lot of security around. I just want to get back to taking some deep breaths, feeling like there’s other ways that I can continue to serve.

     MS. DUTT: Well, we hope you change your mind. One week is a long time in politics. Well, the young girl here in the pink shirt, let’s just stand up and reach you a mike, please? Can we reach you the mike?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Here comes a mike.

     MS. DUTT: Here comes a mike, yes, please.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Here it is.

     MS. DUTT: Yeah. Just hold it close.

     QUESTION: Yeah. This is Dr. (inaudible) from National Association for the Blind. I have one question. And that is: Whenever we talk about the youth council or women empowerment, one sector of the society is always missing. That is the person youth with disability or women with disability. How U.S.A. Government deals with this youth or women with disability? And what is the role of NGOs in the United States to deal with this problem? What the government (inaudible)?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, doctor. Thank you for the question. I’m very proud of the work that our country has done, starting in the 1970s, to pass legislation requiring that first children with disabilities could not be denied schooling. One of the first jobs I had as a young lawyer leaving Yale Law School was to work for the Children’s Defense Fund, and we were part of an NGO effort around the country to catalogue, to build the evidence for why this was a problem. And I and hundreds of other young people went knocking on doors and asking families: Do you have a child who is not in school? And we found a lot of children. We found blind children, we found children in wheelchairs, we found children with behavioral problems, we found children whose families couldn’t afford the medication or treatment that they needed to be able to attend school. So we passed legislation requiring that every child was entitled to an education and that they had to be, what we called, mainstreamed into our classrooms wherever possible.

     And then when my husband was president, we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act so that it affected all people with disabilities, not just children in school, so that we began to take a hard look at ourselves. If you run a store or an office building, how difficult is it for someone with a disability to get into your store, to get into your office, and we began to require people to build ramps or to have other physical renovations made so that people with disabilities could be mobile. And the NGO community has continued this work, and we have a lot of NGOs that provide education, skills training, employment to people with disabilities.

     So I’m very proud of the work we’ve done. We still always are taking a hard look at what more we need to do. It’s not perfect by any means. But we’ve laid a good foundation, and it’s an area that we stand ready to talk with any other country about our own experience.

     MS. DUTT: All right. I’m going to take a question from some school students in the last row. Now, these are students from the La Martiniere Boys School. We’re in the La Martiniere Girls School by the way – (laughter) – asserting our agenda (inaudible).

     SECRETARY CLINTON: There are some of the girls over there. (Inaudible.)

     MS. DUTT: We’ll come to them. We’ll come to them. And this school, by the way, guys, completed 175 years last year.

     Go ahead with your question.

     QUESTION: Morning, ma’am. (Inaudible) from across the road. And well, please pardon me if you think this question inappropriate as I come to know that you are a very formidable lady. But the question I would like to ask is: As you know that India is a non oil-producing nation and does not have many oil reserves, and the major part of these oil reserves has been a growing economic – come from the Middle Eastern nations and African nations, and Iran being a major exporter of oil within the nations.

     So the question I’d like to ask is: Why is USA pressurizing India to reduce its oil imports from Iran? Because you are – India is in a great deal to – needs a great deal of oil right now. Thank you.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Very good question, and let me give you a little context for that question. When President Obama took office in 2009, we knew that Iran’s continuing development of a nuclear weapons program would be very destabilizing in the region because there would be an arms race with the nations in the region who had pre-existing enmity between themselves and Iran, and that it would also cause a great threat to Israel.

     And our goal was to try to persuade Iran to change its policy, because it was already under international sanctions and violating international obligations to the United Nations Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Association, because it was a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and it had not complied with all of the obligations that it had assumed.

     So we began putting together an international coalition. We passed very strong sanctions in the Security Council. And the entire world understood that if we could pressure Iran to change its behavior, that would avoid perhaps a serious disruption of the oil production and supply coming out of the Gulf.

     So fast forward to today. We have international consensus. The pressure has brought Iran back to the negotiating table. The first meeting was in Istanbul. The second meeting will be in a few weeks in Baghdad. And there is unanimity among the permanent members of the Security Council and the European Union and Germany to negotiate a resolution to the Iranian nuclear weapons threat.

     We do not believe that Iran would have come to the table if there had not been sanctions and pressure. We do not believe that Iran will peacefully resolve this unless the pressure continues. So the reason why India, China, Japan, European countries who are the primary purchasers of Iran oil being asked to lower their supply is to keep the pressure on Iran. Japan, which went through a devastating earthquake, tsunami, shutdown of their nuclear programs, has worked very hard to do just that. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and other suppliers are putting more oil into the market, so there is oil available for India and others.

     So we think India, as a country that understands the importance of trying to use diplomacy to resolve these difficult threats, is certainly working toward lowering their purchase of Iranian oil. And we commend the steps that they have taken thus far. We hope that they will do even more, and we believe there is an adequate supply in the marketplace. So we think that this is part of India’s role in the international community. It’s not just what the United States is doing or asking; it’s what the international community is doing and asking.

     MS. DUTT: Secretary Clinton, are you disappointed with India’s response thus far? Many people believe that today, the biggest irritant in the relationship between Delhi and Washington is India’s position on Iran. There has been, as you said, a move to reduce the oil imports, but it’s obviously not gone as far as you’d like.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but it has moved and, I mean, we’re encouraged by what we’ve seen the Indian Government being able to do. I mean, if there were not adequate supply, if there were not the ability for India to go into the market and meet its needs, we would understand that. But we believe there is adequate supply and that there are ways for India to continue to meet their – the energy requirements. So we appreciate what has been done, and of course, we want to keep the pressure on Iran, so whatever India or other countries can do will help us achieve that.

     MS. DUTT: India is hoping for a sanctions waiver. Is that going to come through?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it’s too early to make any comment on that because that’s not for more than – it’s about two months from now before a decision would be made.

     MS. DUTT: Okay. A question there – all right, there in the last row, please. If we can just get a mike – yes.

     QUESTION: Good morning, ma’am.

     MS. DUTT: Just hold the mike a little closer.

     QUESTION: Good morning, ma’am. I’m (inaudible) I’m a student at La Martiniere for Girls. Seeing as we’re talking about foreign policy now, my question to you is that you’ve spoken about Iran, and you feel strongly about taking action against it. But what about Israel? Why hasn’t U.S. taken any active action against it despite the fact that it is in violation of 25 UN resolutions? And at the same time, why hasn’t it convinced Israel to sign the NPT, which Israel is yet to sign?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well – (applause) – I don’t think we’ve been able to convince India to sign the NPT. (Laughter.)

     QUESTION: Touche. But —

     MS. DUTT: I just saw in the response in this room, this is a serious question in this part of the world.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it is, and obviously, the United States believes that whatever differences one might have with the situation in the Middle East, Israel has been defending itself now for 60 years, and has made numerous overtures to try to bring about a peaceful resolution of the situation, and it has thus far been unsuccessful in doing so. We continue to try to press for a resolution, particularly on the Palestinian issues, which the United States also cares deeply about.

     So we think that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of the biggest problems facing the world, and it’s not only one country that we worry about. We worry about nuclear weapons proliferating in other countries, a nuclear arms race that would be very damaging. Even though we look at this on primarily what states are doing, our biggest fear is that nuclear material could fall into the hands of terrorist groups.

     So we believe that at this moment in time, the principal threat is a nuclear-armed Iran, because Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. There was a recent incident here in India with Iran-supported state terrorism. They work through proxies like Hezbollah. We broke up a plot where the Iranian Government was trying to murder the Saudi ambassador to the United States by hiring a drug trafficker hitman. So the problems with Iran go far beyond even this region. They recently were engaged in bomb building in Thailand. They bombed a facility in Argentina some years back.

     So I just want everybody in India to understand we have nothing against the Iranian people. President Obama reached out to the Iranian people from the moment he came into office. He said we want a different relationship. He has reached out to the Iranian leadership asking if there can’t be a different relationship. So far, we have had no reciprocity. And what we hear from the region around Iran is a great deal of anxiety because they’re not worried about the possibility of something happening in the future; they’re dealing in the here and now with what Iran does to destabilize them, to support terrorism, and they believe a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat to world peace.

     So we can point fingers at other countries, but that doesn’t in any way undermine the focus that needs to be put on the dangers posed by Iran. Look at the fact that we have unity. Russia and China are just as concerned as the United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. So this is – this may be, in India, a problem that you think of as being kind of far off, that you don’t think Iran would have any reason to cause you trouble, but then why did they send their terrorist agents to your country to try to kill Israeli diplomats and other civilians?

     This is a regime that has a history of aggressive behavior, and I don’t think you deal with aggressors by giving into them. So part of our goal is to resolve this peacefully and diplomatically, and that’s why we need India to be part of the international effort.

     MS. DUTT: Are you worried, Secretary, about a military – (applause) – you can clap. If you like the answer, you can. (Applause.) Are you apprehensive about a possible military conflict between Israel and Iran?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: I am apprehensive. We’re on public record. I’m not saying anything that has not been in our press. I mean, if you put yourself in Israel’s position and you have leaders of a country saying they want to wipe you off the map, they want to destroy you, they want to end the presence of the Jewish people, it would make you a little worried, I think. And certainly, India knows from your own experience that you have to pay attention to threats, and you have to be prepared for them in your own neighborhood.

     So I think that Israel is very worried that if Iran were to get a nuclear weapon, there might be a decision by some future leader to actually use it, and that would be devastating. So yes, of course they’re worried, and they are supporting our efforts to try to resolve this peacefully and convince Iran that they do not – they could – they have a right to civil nuclear power. They have that right, and they are a member of the NPT and that comes with being a member.

     So we would like to see them join the international consensus for the peaceful use of nuclear power, but give up irrevocably their right to weapons, and that’s what we’re hoping that they would eventually do.

     MS. DUTT: All right. Let’s move on. A question here in the front row – the second row, sorry. Yes, go ahead.

     QUESTION: So – good morning, ma’am.

     MS. DUTT: Hold the mike closer. Just hold the mike closer.

     QUESTION: Good morning, ma’am. I am also a part of the youth advisory council of the U.S. Government. So I have two simple questions for you. The first one is with the possible cut-down outsourcing, it leads to a lot of protectionism and (inaudible) about their jobs? And —

     MS. DUTT: Okay. Let’s take one question at a time so we can get other people to —

     SECRETARY CLINTON: So you’re talking about outsourcing —

     MS. DUTT: Outsourcing —

     SECRETARY CLINTON: — from the United States to India?

     QUESTION: (Off mike.)

     MS. DUTT: One minute, please. Excuse me, we’ll try and give everybody a chance.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Outsourcing from the United States to India. Well, it’s been going on for many years now, and it’s part of our economic relationship with India. And I think that there are advantages with it that have certainly benefitted many parts of our country, and there are disadvantages that go to the need to improve the job skills of our own people and create a better economic environment. So it – like anything, it’s about pluses and minuses.

     MS. DUTT: There’s a new advertisement in the election campaign of President Obama that’s causing a lot of heartburn here over outsourcing.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it’s an election campaign, and there is an obligation of any election campaign – (laughter) —

     MS. DUTT: To overstate a little bit?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, not overstating – I wouldn’t go that far – but to talk about what’s on people’s minds. And it’s more directed toward the fear that a lot of Americans who were in manufacturing, who don’t feel like they have any other job possibilities because they weren’t trained for any other job possibilities, so it’s a legitimate issue. It needs to be aired.

     But I think the President has been very clear that he wants to improve our own exports, when we’re on the way to doubling our exports. He wants to improve education, skills training so that people can have the jobs of the 21st century. So it’s fair to talk about, but you also have to have a solution that looks at what’s really going to work.

     MS. DUTT: Okay. I’m getting another question on Twitter, and this says: With the United States terminating Usama bin Ladin last year, what is the next big target for America in the war against terrorism? And as you answer that, I’m actually going to get up that very definitive image there. I’m going to ask you a few questions about what you were thinking in that moment.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

     MS. DUTT: What’s the next big target?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, look, we want to disable al-Qaida, and we’ve made a lot of progress in doing that. There are several significant leaders still on the run. Zawahiri, who inherited the leadership from bin Ladin, is somewhere, we believe, in Pakistan. So we are intent upon going after those who are trying to keep al-Qaida operational and inspirational. But the network of terrorism, which India knows all too well from your own experiences, is more broad-based than any one group.

     And I think you have to do three things. You have to have the very best possible intelligence, law enforcement, judicial, defense response so that you protect your people. I mean, the first obligation of any government is to protect your people, and you’ve got to do that. Secondly, you do have to go after those who are trying to kill you. You have to be focused on that. I recently authorized a $10 million award for one of the people we believe was the mastermind of the attack in Mumbai.

     MS. DUTT: Hafiz Saeed.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, killed 166 people, including six Americans, and we want everybody who was associated with that brought to justice. And it may take longer than any of us would like, but we’re going to be standing with you in trying to make that happen.

     And then thirdly, though – (applause) – you have to change the way people think. India and the United States are the greatest rebukes to religious extremism because we are pluralistic democracies, because you have people of every religion like we do. And that drives the extremists crazy. They hate tolerance. (Applause.) They hate respect for people’s religious beliefs. They want us all to believe what they believe. And we stand against that. So we have to be really working toward greater religious tolerance, greater interfaith understanding, ending any remnants of discrimination and prejudice or bias, and make the case broadly across the world that the extremists are a dead end, that the way for a better future is one where people are listening to each other, working with each other, and respecting each other.

     MS. DUTT: I’m so glad you brought up the example of Hafiz Saeed and the decision you authorized that was announced in the U.S. Justice Department, and you saw the response here. There’s been some confusion. Initially it was announced as a bounty on his head, then it turned out to be a reward for information that could lead to his arrest or conviction.

     Indians say we’ve handed over dossier after dossier, and all the information that is needed is there in those dossiers. Are you saying there isn’t enough information?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: No, but we’re saying that – this is the way our system works. I mean, that’s what these rewards are. They are rewards for information that can lead to bringing somebody to justice. We’re well aware that there has not yet been the steps taken by the Pakistani Government to do what both India and the United States have repeatedly requested that they do. And we’re going to keep pushing that point. So it’s a way of raising the visibility and pointing out to those who are associated with him that there is a cost for that, and it is a cost that they themselves will have to bear going forward.

     MS. DUTT: Now I’m just going to go back to the audience, but that picture – if we can just get that back again, because I wanted you to share with us two things: What were you thinking in that? And I will have it up in just a second. And also, President Bill Clinton recently said that he had no idea from you, you did not share with him that the OBL operation was going to happen. And there’s that picture back again. What were you thinking there?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, when I first saw it, I had no idea when it was taken or what was going on, and I didn’t even know if I was coughing or – I had no idea. But then we did the timeline, and we think that that was around the time that one of our helicopters had a problem. We send in our Navy SEALs on helicopters, and one of the helicopters had a problem going into the courtyard of the bin Ladin complex, and it got its tail caught on the wall, disabling it. And that was a very stressful moment because we had to get another helicopter in, in order to take out the men who were on that helicopter. We had to blow up the helicopter. Before we blew up the helicopter, we had to get the women and children out of the house so that they would not be endangered by that, something I’m very proud that the SEALs did. So there was a lot going, and I think you can see the intensity of expressions on everybody’s face.

     MS. DUTT: And could there be another OBL-type operation needed in Pakistan or anywhere else?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m not going to comment on that. I mean, we’ve made it clear that we would like very much to have the kind of counterterrorism partnership with Pakistan where we went after the targets that were killing Afghans, Americans, and others in Afghanistan, and after the targets that were killing Pakistanis in Pakistan. I mean, Pakistan has lost far more people in the last 10 years – more than 30,000 to terrorist attacks than either India or the United States have. And it is in their interest and it is in the interest of their sovereignty to go after terrorists who are operating on their territory, and you have to demonstrate that you’re not going to cede authority or territory to terrorists. So we’re going to continue to work to try to have a mutually beneficial framework for them.

     MS. DUTT: All right. Question here, the young lady in the first row.

     QUESTION: Welcome to Kolkata —

     MS. DUTT: Hold the mike closer.

     QUESTION: — the City of Joy. I’m (inaudible) and I’m a Bengali and I’m a designer. My question to you is that the (inaudible) and the fashion industry is still very much disconnected with reality, reality of global warming, and so many other important issues. So what my question to you is: How we can connect these two worlds? I’ve been working a lot with Jute, which is a very, very eco-friendly fabric from Eastern India, so my question is: How we can promote this fabric in U.S. and how these two countries can work better with other textiles?

     My second question is that how important —

     MS. DUTT: Wait. We’ll take one question at a time, there are other hands up.

     QUESTION: Yes.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I mean, I think that’s a very interesting idea and I believe the best way is to connect up our fashion designers with their counterparts here in India. And I – you all have like a fashion design council or something –

     MS. DUTT: Yes, we do.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: — and trade information about more environmentally sustainable materials and means of production, and I would be happy to encourage that.

     MS. DUTT: Question here. Yes?

     QUESTION: I’m the (inaudible) general secretary of the Indian National Congress. I just wanted to ask you a question because I was very encouraged when you set the northeast policy. I come from the northeast; I’m not from Kolkata. I come from the northeast of India. You’ve spoken about Iran and the foreign policy. There’s one country which your successes been able to, let’s say, soften, which is Burma, and the northeast of India and Burma and the northeast ASEAN country, can you tell us how you could match both the regions India with northeast, as well as Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia towards working for a better economic as well as cultural relationships? Thank you.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that’s one of the most important questions to answer for this century, because if you look at South Asia and Central Asia, if you go from Turkmenistan and the other countries in Central Asia through Afghanistan, Pakistan, into India, into Bangladesh, into Burma, this region does not trade or exchange on cultural or other bases as much as other regions of the world do. There are longstanding, historical differences. There are still simmering disagreements and even potential for conflict if not managed correctly.

     So one of the things we’re doing, and I spoke about this in my speech in Chennai last year, is promoting the idea of a new Silk Road, that India is on the old Silk Road, Burma was on the old Silk Road, (inaudible) Bangladesh was on the old Silk Road. And think about – to go back to the gentleman’s question about oil – think about a pipeline that came from Turkmenistan, which has a lot of oil and gas, through Afghanistan, Pakistan, into India, through – into the southeast and to Bangladesh and the like. Think about the port here in Kolkata being repaired and restored and turned into one of the great ports looking east. Think about the way of enhancing transportation connectivity from East India to the northeast down into the countries you mentioned. I mean, this is the kind of vision that I believe should occupy the minds of the leaders of the region right now because we all have to lift our heads up. We cannot just keep being preoccupied with our own internal political problems because a lot of the solutions lie outside with having greater peace, stability, and prosperity that we are a part of, and I would hope that would be on the agenda for India to lead.

     MS. DUTT: And not time yet, though, to lift sanctions against Burma? Not time yet?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are lifting sanctions against Burma; not all at once because we want to watch what happens and encourage the continuing reform.

     MS. DUTT: All right, a question there, the gentleman with the spectacles and the check shirt. Just get a mike for yourself, yes.

     QUESTION: My name is (inaudible). I’m a musician and I have a question from the world of music. I’ve been involved in international collaborations with many countries – with musicians of many countries across the world. Now I’ve seen – I’ve been to the United States many times performing all across the country. Now what I see is that the music of India is probably less served in the mainstream than music from other parts of the world.

     I would like to ask you generally how much of a cultural ally is India considered, and what sort of forums are available for artists to reach out to directly with the United States Government, apart from ICCR – because we don’t really get a lot of help from the ICCR – so that we can collaborate better with musicians from your country and perform for the mainstream?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I am a very strong believer in cultural exchanges, cultural and artistic exchanges. And I would like to connect you up with our consul general, who is over here, so – afterwards. Because we are trying to enhance the number of such exchanges, and we know that those kind of connections between people are really what makes your relationship enduring over time. So we will follow up with you.

     MS. DUTT: All right. There’s a question here, the young girl in the front row. Yes.

     QUESTION: Welcome to India, Madam Secretary. The question that I have is a little different from what everyone has said. I work with young people, and part of your youth council as well. I work on youth and active citizenship, and I’ve been following you for a very long time since I was in school, and I’ve seen you transform in terms of how young people have been able to associate with you, especially the Texts to Hillary, the whole Tumblr, memes that went viral. And even you sent in a meme, and that even finally sort of – so what I want to ask you is there’s something that I face in India all the time – is how do the young people to sort of engage with politicians? Because if we are 60 percent young, that means that we are going to be occupying power but no one wants to occupy power. So how do you get young people to engage, and how do you get politicians to engage with young people? (Applause.)

     SECRETARY CLINTON: I think about this question a lot, and I don’t know that I have any conclusive answers at all, but let me just make a couple of general points, and thank you for raising it. I mean, first of all, historically, certainly in my country but around the world in democracies, young people are the least likely to participate, the least likely to vote, the least likely to run for office, the least likely to be involved in the political process. Usually in our country, the voting rate is pretty low of young people, and President Obama raised it a little bit but not as much as all of us had even hoped for.

     So I think the first thing is we got to keep trying to convince young people who are preoccupied in their own lives – finishing their studies, getting their first jobs, having relationships, getting married, having children – I mean, there’s a lot going on in the lives of young people during that period. So we have to convince young people that it is worth participating in politics.

     Now, secondly, young people often have very strong feelings about issues, but they don’t necessarily connect those issues to the political process, and that’s something we have to do a better job of – trying to make – and I’ll give you a quick story from Egypt. There’s no doubt young people and social media lit the fuse for the Egyptian revolution. They’re the ones who were first into the Tahrir Square; they’re the ones who kept the revolution going. It was clear that this was a young person’s cry for freedom, democracy, opportunity.

     But when we began talking with the young people who were in the revolution about participating in politics, they all said the same: We don’t want to participate in politics. That’s not for us. And we made the case, but if you don’t participate in politics, people you may not agree with will participate in politics. And it was very hard to convince them to transfer their revolutionary energy into that. The Occupy Wall Street movement – very much against politics, but in a democracy, like it or not, politics is the means by which we make the decisions that determine what direction our country is going. So we have to do a better, smarter job, and maybe we can use social media more effectively.

     MS. DUTT: Now, she spoke, Secretary Clinton, about your transformation, and I’ve got a bunch of images I want to take you all through. Now that’s you on a secret —

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

     MS. DUTT: — mission to Tripoli, and that set off the meme that was being spoken about, Texts From Hillary. Those were the two guys —

     SECRETARY CLINTON: They did.

     MS. DUTT: — that were kind of spoofing you ‘til you joined in on the joke prompting Maureen Dowd to write a whole column on your cool quotient.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

     MS. DUTT: Just things like that. Do you think that’s a good idea for people who don’t actually know what’s happening? There’s the bionic woman sort of image there —

     SECRETARY CLINTON: right.

     MS. DUTT: — secret mission to Tripoli, and that’s you joining in on the joke on you.

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Right, right.

     MS. DUTT: Have you changed?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t think so. I just – obviously, that was very funny. (Laughter.) And I don’t – I didn’t know the two young men. They made it up one day, and all of a sudden, it started appearing, and I thought it was pretty funny. So I wanted to meet them because it was so clever, and it was funny without being mean or hurtful to the people that it made fun of, myself included. So I liked how they did it, and so they came in and we spoofed it.

     But it – that’s – I mean, the internet and obviously social media has so much potential for communicating messages that can be impactful. And we can do funny things, but I think the young woman’s question was serious. How do we do more serious communication that will – that people will actually follow up on? So now we’ll – so maybe we’ll ask those two young men to do it, because they clearly – (laughter) – understood it.

     MS. DUTT: But interestingly, I think the point also being that there – if we can queue up the next set of images, we’ve got a little less time now – that’s of you literally letting your hair down, and it got a lot of traction in the American press, a lot of commentary on how it’s so refreshing to see a politician who can have a little bit of fun. (Laughter.) You’re all right with that? I mean, that spoke to young people.

     Let’s just get a mike. You —

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, yes.

     MS. DUTT: Did those – once again, did those images change that for you?

     QUESTION: I mean, I think the thing was that with a lot of the times when you cannot associate with your politicians, right, and the fact that you went out and you did something like that, or the fact that the President of the United States is on Instagram and on Twitter, and I’m on – and we have politicians on Twitter and on Instagram and on all of those things as well.

     But I think it’s just about how you can engage more coherently and how – what do you do to get you or the politicians to engage with —

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

     QUESTION: — the young people, and with lesser walls, I guess? So I think that is what it was about.

     MS. DUTT: And those pictures President – prompted President Obama to say you were drunk-texting him. (Laughter.) A joke of course, a joke of course.

     But as we end, Secretary Clinton, has it got easier in your many decades in politics to laugh at yourself? In your book, Living History, you quoted Eleanor Roosevelt and you said, “A woman in politics has to have a skin as thick as a rhinoceros.”

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

     MS. DUTT: Has that got easier to deal with the tough things, the bad things, the mean things?

     SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it has, because when you’ve had as much experience as I have, you either figure out how to deal with it or you don’t get out of bed in the morning. And I think for me criticism, which kind of comes with the territory of being in politics in either of our countries, you have to take it seriously, but not personally. And by that I mean sometimes your critics actually have a lesson for you. Maybe what you were trying to do was not being communicated effectively and they are pointing that out, so you want to take it seriously. But you can’t take it personally and that’s why I quote Eleanor Roosevelt, one of our great American leaders, about growing skin as thick as a rhinoceros if you’re a woman in politics.

     লিন্ক : Townterview with NDTV’s Barkha Dutt on “We The People”।

9. 

   মাসুদ করিম - ৭ মে ২০১২ (৭:২৫ অপরাহ্ণ)

   গ্রিসের সাধারণ নির্বাচনে জিতেছে রক্ষণশীল প্রো-বেইল আউট নিউ ডেমোক্রেসি, কিন্তু সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠতা লাভে তারা ব্যর্থ হয়েছে। নিউ ডেমোক্রেসি পেয়েছে ১৮.৮৫% ভোট এবং ১০৮টি আসন,র‌্যাডিকেল বাম SYRIZA পেয়েছে ১৬.৭৮% ভোট এবং ৫২ আসন, সমাজবাদী PASOK পেয়েছে ১৩.১৮% ভোট এবং ৪১ আসন, জাতীয়তাবাদী ইন্ডপেন্ডন্টে গ্রিক পেয়েছে ১০.৬০% ভোট এবং ৩৩ আসন, কমিউনিস্ট KKE পেয়েছে ৮.৪৮% ভোট এবং ২৬ আসন, নব্য-নাৎসি Chryssi Avgi (Golden Dawn) পেয়েছে ৬.৯৭% ভোট এবং ২১ আসন, ডেমোক্রেটিক লেফ্ট পেয়েছে ৬.১০% ভোট এবং ১৯ আসন।

   The Greek conservative New Democracy (ND) party won Sunday’s critical general elections that could decide the debt-laden country’s economic fate, but fell far short of a parliamentary majority, according to the final official results released Monday.

   Pro-bailout ND was placed first with 18.85 percent of the vote and 108 seats in the 300-member strong new legislature, outgoing Parliament Speaker Philippos Petsalnikos announced.

   On Monday, ND leader Antonis Samaras is due to receive a three-day exploratory mandate by Greek President Karolos Papoulias to form a coalition government.

   Petsalnikos made the announcement upon his exit from the Presidential Mansion in Athens, where he formally informed the President of the final outcome that showed the Radical Left SYRIZA coalition finishing second with 16.78 percent and 52 seats.

   It was a major setback for the socialist PASOK party that dropped to a record low 13.18 percent, garnering 41 seats. ND had won 33.5 percent at the 2009 general polls, PASOK 44 percent and SYRIZA 5.4 percent.

   Outgoing Prime Minister Lucas Papademos, the technocrat who headed the ND-PASOK interim coalition administration since November, will hand the Greek president his resignation. But according to Greek national broadcaster NET, he is expected to be asked to carry on with his duties as a transitional premier until the new administration is formed.

   According to the final results of the Interior Ministry, a record high abstention of 35 percent was the top “winner” of the polls that sent a total of seven parties to the next parliament.

   The abstention has been attributed to the disillusionment of many Greeks with parties over their handling of the debt crisis that since late 2009 has threatened to throw Greece into a disorderly default that could put an end to its euro zone membership and perhaps the euro itself, some analysts fear.

   With the exception of traditionally strong parties such as ND and PASOK that support harsh austerity measures imposed by international creditors, most new parties that made it into the new chamber denounce it.

   The nationalist Independent Greeks garnered 10.6 percent and 33 seats, the Communist Party (KKE) 8.48 percent and 26 seats, the neo-Nazi Chryssi Avgi (Golden Dawn) made its debut at the assembly with 6.97 percent and 21 seats, and the Democratic Left 6.1 percent and 19 seats.

   Voters frustrated with record high unemployment, recession and salary cuts have voted into parliament a strong anti-austerity bloc of parties. This makes it difficult for Samaras to find partners for the pro-European national unity coalition he targets, according to local analysts.

   He is expected to hold a first round of talks with SYRIZA coalition leader Alexis Tsipras and PASOK chief Evangelos Venizelos by Monday evening, starting the ten-day search for a coalition government. He has indicated he will hold talks with all parliamentary parties except Golden Dawn.

   According to the Greek Constitution, if Samaras fails, the exploratory mandate is handed to the second and then the third party. If all efforts fail, the president summons all party leaders in a final attempt, before calling a second round of elections that could be held mid-June, according to Greek media reports.

   খবরের লিন্ক : Greek conservatives win general elections, no parliamentary majority।

10. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ৮ মে ২০১২ (২:০৫ পূর্বাহ্ণ)

    না জুতোর বাক্স নয়, এর ভেতর একশ বছর আগের ব্রিটিশ রাজের সময়ের ভারতের ছবি, অসাধারণ সব ছবি : Days of the Raj remembered: Amazing collection of photographs depicting life in India a century ago are found in an old shoebox।

    • 

      মাসুদ করিম - ৯ মে ২০১২ (১১:০৫ অপরাহ্ণ)

      এই ছবিগুলোর উৎস Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS)।

      RCAHMS architectural historian Clare Sorensen said, “We don’t know for sure how the negatives came to be in our collection. We receive archive material from countless different sources, from architectural practices to generous donations from the public, and sometimes take large amounts of material in at once, and often documentation for historical deposits does not exist.

      “Over time all this new material will be inspected and catalogued as part of our collection and then made available to the public. It’s fantastic that a small shoe-box contained such a treasure-trove of photographic imagery, but in some ways it’s not unsual. Our experience as an archive has shown us that some of the most interesting discoveries can be made in the most unlikely of places.”

      ফটোগ্যালারি : Indian Glass Plate Negatives।

11. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ৮ মে ২০১২ (৭:১৬ অপরাহ্ণ)

    চায়নার আসলে দরকার পৃথিবীতে সে কী কী চায় না তার একটা চূড়ান্ত তালিকা করে ফেলা। এবার চীন বন্ধ করল আল-জাজিরা (যদিও আল-জাজিরা আমারও তেমন পছন্দ নয়, তাই বলে এভাবে বন্ধ করে দিতে হবে।)

    Al Jazeera, the satellite broadcasting network, was forced by the Chinese authorities to close its China news operations of its English-language channel on Monday, the first such action in almost 14 years and the strongest sign yet of fraying relations between the ruling Communist Party and the overseas journalists who cover it.

    The network’s correspondent Melissa Chan was scheduled to leave Beijing by jet Monday night after the government refused normally routine requests to renew her press credentials or to allow another correspondent to replace her.

    She declined to be quoted about her departure, and the government’s motive was not explicitly stated. But among other broadcasts, officials were said by some to have been angered by an English-language documentary on Chinese re-education through labor camps that Al Jazeera produced outside China and broadcast on its network in November.

    The labor camps are often used to punish dissidents and other troublemakers. The documentary called the camps a form of slavery in which millions of prisoners produce goods sold worldwide by major companies. China denies using slave labor in its prisons.

    In a statement released on Tuesday, the Beijing-based Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China noted that Ms. Chan played no role in the documentary that appeared to anger the Chinese, and that the government had offered no specific reason for denying the renewal of her visa beyond violations of unnamed rules.

    “This is the most extreme example of a recent pattern of using journalist visas in an attempt to censor and intimidate foreign correspondents in China,” the group stated. “The F.C.C.C. believes that foreign news organizations, not the Chinese government, have the right to choose who works for them in China, in line with international standards.”

    Jazeera English officials expressed regret at the closing of their China operations, and said in a statement they had sought additional visas for journalists to expand their coverage here without success.

    The closure, if not reversed, is a potentially significant loss for Al Jazeera Network, which began more than 15 years ago as the first independent news channel in the Arab world. It has expanded to more than 20 channels with more than 60 bureaus on six continents, according to the Web site of the parent company, based in Doha, Qatar. Ms. Chan, an American, was recently accepted as a Knight Journalism Fellow at Stanford for the 2012-13 academic year.

    বিস্তারিত পড়ুন : China Expels Al Jazeera Channel।

12. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ৮ মে ২০১২ (৭:৩৭ অপরাহ্ণ)

    চব্বিশ বছর পর হাতে পাসপোর্ট সুকির।

    Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi received her first passport in 24 years on Tuesday ahead of a planned trip to Norway and Britain.

    An official from her National League for Democracy party said the passport was received Tuesday from the Home Ministry. The official asked not to be named because the matter was considered personal rather than party business.

    Suu Kyi applied for the passport following recent political reforms that culminated in her election to parliament last month. Last year, a long-ruling military junta handed over power to an elected, nominally civilian government.

    The passport is valid for three years. She has not had a passport since she returned to Myanmar in 1988 to take care of her ailing mother, and was required by law then to hand it in.

    বিস্তারিত পড়ুন : Myanmar’s Suu Kyi given first passport in 24 years।

13. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ১৩ মে ২০১২ (১:০১ অপরাহ্ণ)

    ১৯৪৭এর কাশ্মিরের কিছু ছবি, দেখুন ও পড়ুন Andrew Whiteheadএর ব্লগে।

14. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ১৩ মে ২০১২ (৬:৫৯ অপরাহ্ণ)

    চট্টগ্রামে বিএনপির প্রধান কার্যালয় নাসিমন ভবন ঘিরে আজকে বিকেলে কাজীর দেউরি থেকে এনায়েত বাজার রণক্ষেত্রে পরিণত হয়। পুলিশের সাথে ১৮ দলীয় বিরোধী জোটের সংঘর্ষ বলা হলেও প্রত্যক্ষদর্শী অনেকে একে, মানবতাবিরোধী অপরাধের পরিকল্পনা, ষড়যন্ত্র, উস্কানি, পাকিস্তানি সেনাদের সাহায্য করা এবং হত্যা-নির্যাতনে বাধা না দেওয়ার ৫ ধরনের অভিযোগে জামায়াতে ইসলামীর সাবেক আমীর গোলাম আযম অভিযুক্ত, আন্তর্জাতিক অপরাধ ট্রাইব্যুনালের এই আদেশের জের ধরে চট্টগ্রামে জামায়াতের পরিকল্পিত আক্রমণই বলছেন। এঘটনায় পুলিশ ও সাংবাদিকসহ ৫০এর বেশি মানুষ আহত হয়েছে। জামায়াতে ইসলামির মিছিল বিএনপি কার্যালযে দিকে যাওয়ার সময় মিছিল থেকে উস্কানি সৃষ্টি করে পুলিশের সাথে সংঘর্ষের সূত্রপাত হয় এবং মুহূর্তের মধ্যে আশপাশ থেকে প্রচুর জামায়াত কর্মী এলাকায় গাড়ি জ্বালিয়ে পুলিশকে অতর্কিতে আক্রমণ করে সাংবাদিকদের উপর চড়াও হয়ে ত্রাসের রাজত্ব সৃষ্টি করে।

    চট্টগ্রামে পুলিশের সঙ্গে বিএনপি-জামায়াত কর্মীদের সংঘর্ষে অর্ধশতাধিক আহত হয়েছে। সংঘর্ষের সময় এনায়েতবাজার থেকে কাজীর দেউরি পর্যন্ত এলাকা রণক্ষেত্রে রূপ নেয়।

    রোববার বিকাল ৪টার দিকে নগরীর লাভ লেইন লংলগ্ন নাসিমন ভবন থেকে এই সংঘর্ষের সূত্রপাত হয়, তা চলে বিকাল সাড়ে ৫টা পর্যন্ত। এতে আহত হয়েছে পুলিশসহ অর্ধশতাধিক।

    বিকালে বিএনপি নেতৃত্বাধীন ১৮দলীয় জোটের গণমিছিল শুরুর কথা ছিল। তবে সংঘর্ষের কারণে ওই কর্মসূচি আর পালিত হয়নি।

    বিকাল সাড়ে ৫টার দিকে বিএনপি নেতা আমীর খসরু মাহমুদ চৌধুরী, আবদুল্লাহ আল নোমান, আবু সুফিয়ান, জামায়াতে ইসলামী নেতা শামসুল ইসলাম নাসিমন ভবন ত্যাগ করেন।

    গণমিছিলে কর্মসূচিতে অংশ নিতে বিএনপিসহ অন্য দলগুলোর নেতা-কর্মীরা মিছিল নিয়ে বিএনপি কার্যালয়ে জড়ো হচ্ছিল।

    বিকাল ৪টার দিকে জামায়াতে ইসলামীর একটি মিছিল বিএনপি কার্যালয়ের যাওয়ার পথে সংঘর্ষ শুরু হয় বলে প্রত্যক্ষদর্শীরা জানায়।

    জামায়াতের ওই মিছিলে পুলিশ বাধা দিলে দলের কর্মীরা পুলিশের দিকে ইট ছুড়তে শুরু করে। তখন পুলিশ লাঠিপেটা শুরু করলে বিএনপিকর্মীরাও সংঘর্ষে জড়িয়ে পড়ে।

    এক পর্যায়ে নাসিম ভবনের সামনে বিরোধীদলীয় সমর্থকরা একটি গাড়িতে আগুন দিলে ওই সড়কে যান চলাচল বন্ধ হয়ে যায়। বন্ধ হয়ে যায় ওই এলাকায় সব দোকানপাটও।

    সংঘর্ষে আহতদের মধ্যে রয়েছেন বিএনপির সাবেক সংসদ সদস্য রোজী কবীর, চট্টগ্রাম উত্তর জেলা বিএনপির সাধারণ সম্পাদক আসলাম চৌধুরী, যুগ্ম সম্পাদক জসীম উদ্দিন, মহানগর ছাত্রদলের সভাপতি মোশাররফ হোসেন দীপ্তি প্রমুখ।

    কোতোয়ালি থানার ওসি রফিকুল ইসলামসহ কয়েকজন পুলিশ সদস্যও আহত হন।

    সংঘর্ষের সময় ছবি তুলতে গেল জামায়াতের কর্মীদের ছোড়া ইটের আঘাতে বিডিনিউজ টোয়েন্টিফোর ডটকমের আলোকচিত্র সাংবাদিক সুমন বাবু, বাংলানিউজ টোয়েন্টিফোর ডটকমের আলোকচিত্র সাংবাদিক উজ্জ্বল ধরসহ কয়েকজন সাংবাদিক আহত হন।

    লিন্ক : পুলিশের সঙ্গে জামায়াত-বিএনপির সংঘর্ষ চট্টগ্রামে।

15. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ১৪ মে ২০১২ (১০:০৭ পূর্বাহ্ণ)

    দালাই লামার আশঙ্কা চীন তাকে বিষ প্রয়োগে হত্যার পরিকল্পনা করছে। প্রশিক্ষিত নারীরা তাদের চুলে ও ওড়নায় বিষ মেখে দর্শনার্থী হিসাবে দালাই লামার কাছে আসবে এবং তিনি তাদের আর্শীবাদ করতে চুলে ও ওড়নায় হাত লাগালে সেখান থেকে লাগা বিষ তার মৃত্যু ঘটাবে। বিস্তারিত পড়ুন এখানে।

16. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ১৪ মে ২০১২ (১২:৩৮ অপরাহ্ণ)

    প্রখ্যাত কবি ও উপন্যাস লেখকেরা ছিলেন সামনে, রোববার মস্কোতে পুতিন বিরোধী সমাবেশ করেছেন হাজার হাজার রাশিয়ান।

    Prominent Russian novelists and poets led a street protest by more than 10,000 people in Moscow on Sunday without obtaining the required permit, and police did not intervene.

    The demonstrators skirted the law by remaining silent and carrying no posters, even though the demonstration had clearly been organized as an anti-President Vladimir Putin rally.

    The gathering was the latest of several impromptu protests that have taken place in Moscow since Putin’s inauguration Monday, held by people unhappy that he is the country’s formal leader once again.

    Lyudmila Ulitskaya, a best-selling author whose books have been translated internationally, lauded Moscow authorities for their restraint on Sunday.

    “Today’s a significant day for the city,” she said. “The Moscow government is being reasonable for the first time. It has realized that the protest movement is not about people who break shop windows and throw Molotov’s cocktails.”

    Police had detained hundreds of people who tried to get near Putin’s cortege during the inauguration, some of whom were merely wearing white ribbons – a symbol of the Russian protest. Since then, activists have staged “flash mobs” across Moscow, suddenly assembling in public places where they camp and remain for the night. Many of them have been detained for taking part in an unsanctioned gathering.

    বিস্তারিত পড়ুন ও দেখুন : Russia Opposition Protests: Anti-Putin Demonstrators March In Moscow।

17. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ১৪ মে ২০১২ (২:৩৩ অপরাহ্ণ)

    সাদাত হাসান মান্টোকে পুনর্পাঠ নিয়ে শিক্ষাবিদ নাভিদ শাহজাদ লিখছেন

    During his centennial year, one is struck by the force of his ironic prose, couched in a deceptive simplicity that remains as fresh as when it was first written. Manto’s wry, sardonic humour is aimed as much at himself as it is at the ‘establishment’ and much of what he writes takes on a special relevance in contemporary Pakistan.

    The move from Bombay to Lahore a few months after the partition of one of the great land masses of the world left Manto crippled by poverty, shadowed by notoriety and bitterly unhappy.

    Yet, these debilitating circumstances (including his own failing health) did not prevent him from writing. Apart from his better known plays and fiction, Manto offers a prolific store of lesser known but admirable prose in which the persona of the writer is unabashedly presented as the perpetually broke, struggling writer. It is a portrait that is the very antithesis of the romantic image so often pandered to in film and story by lesser writers.

    Manto lived, as he graphically describes it himself, in a state of constant flux. During his early Bombay days after he left Amritsar where he was briefly a student of Faiz, the filthy kholi that he calls home ‘rains’ bedbugs and has only two bathrooms for 40 families. His immediate challenge, as he explains in Meri Shaadi is to arrange for accomodation for his bride who is expected to join him after a year long engagement. His efforts range from unabashed begging for long overdue remuneration for his scripts to resorting to the kindness of friends to lend him a few pieces of furniture. The writings offer a riveting contrast to our own taken-for-granted easy access to creature comforts which, in large measure ostensibly contribute to the ‘civilised man’s’ sense of civility and sanity.

    Much of Manto’s life reads like a roller coaster running off track. From periods of debilitating poverty to periods of excess, where in his own words he spent ‘hundreds of thousands of rupees’ during his successful stint as editor of Mussawir and scriptwriter at Bombay Talkies, where he befriended the likes of Ashok Kumar, through to the bitter years of want in Lahore, where he died penniless. Manto was dogged by a sense of his own destiny.

    Chronicling his years in Bombay lurching from one unpaid job to the next in the city that presently sells dreams to millions, Manto records the story of an embryonic film industry starting to find its feet. The wry details he surrenders about the travails of the Bombay film industry and his sorrow at the death of the Lahore film studios as well-known artists and directors left for India make excellent historical reading. In this respect, the writer’s value as a social historian has been largely overlooked and merits some research into the film history of the subcontinent.

    It is unfortunate that Manto’s stature as a literary figure, or a social historian by default, has been sadly overshadowed by an overriding sense of moral outrage at the overtly sexual content of his work. Censured and forced to leave the Progressive Writers Movement, Manto’s choice of content was defended only by Faiz — on the basis of the right to freedom of speech and Sibt-e-Hasan who labelled the move an act of ‘literary terrorism’! Neither India, nor Pakistan at a later stage were prepared to put up with a literary maverick’s efforts to expose the naked savagery that lies hidden under the thin veneer of our skins. Scratching the surface lets the beast loose as he proves with his highly shocking (at the time) work such as Khol do, Kaali Shalwar and Thanda Gosht — narratives, which highlighted the insanity unleashed during the Muslim/Hindu exodus to their respective promised lands. Though sexual violence against women returns as a common theme in his writing, the piece de resistance remains the heartbreakingly masterful Toba Tek Singh, written after a particularly harrowing incarceration as an inmate of a lunatic asylum for purposes of ‘drying out’.

    Historically speaking, society at large is fiercely territorial in its attempts to safeguard what it believes to be the norm. The artist as deviant, chronicler or prophet is always a threat. Be it Gaugain, Picasso, Lawrence, Wilde, Ismat or Fehmida, challenges to our sense of propriety and attempts to fracture gender confines are punishable offences. Outraged sensibilities tried Manto half a dozen times for obscenity, both before and after 1947, but the writer, unlike Wilde and Lawrence, was never convicted.
    
    As with many great creative geniuses, recognition proved elusive during Manto’s lifetime. Ironically, even the film Ghalib for which he had written the script bécame a blockbuster in India when it was released only after he had migrated to Pakistan. Always convinced of his own stature as a writer of import and writing for the most part as a dispassionate onlooker in a tone as bland as boiled rice, Manto could also be deliberately provocative, soliciting responses ranging from outrage to grudging admiration.

    The college dropout, voracious reader and prolific writer, Manto produced a vast body of work. During his year-long stint with the Urdu service of All India Radio, Delhi (1941-42), he produced four collections of radio plays. Plays, short stories, fiction, translations, Manto tried his hand at all genres, including the elusive form of the essay. The majority view of Manto as a genius wasted by his own intemperance is at odds with what Manto produced. It takes enormous courage to live in abject poverty constantly tormented by one’s personal demons on a daily basis. In fact, one may well posit that it was this very intemperance that helped Manto dispassionately strip the thin skin of probity that society envelops itself in. Ghalib ‘s own words evidence such an approach when he writes, Bey-mai kise hai, taaqat-e aashob-e aagahi (Without wine, who has the strength to counter the terror of awareness?).
    
    It is this very strength which allows Manto to describe the brutality he sees around him in such graphic detail. The leitmotif that runs through much of his work is an extreme sensitivity to the cicatrice left by the partition of the subcontinent. In his literary and real life, responding to the maelstorm of violence unleashed by partition Manto writes, “Don’t say that a hundred thousand Muslims and a hundred thousand Hindus died….say that two hundred thousand human beings died…Muslims thought that by killing Hindus they had killed the Hindu religion but it lives on. Hindus celebrated that they had destroyed Islam by killing a hundred thousand Muslims but Islam did not receive a scratch…religion, faith, belief, conviction, creed, all this resides not in the body but in the spirit. How can it be annihilated with knives and guns?”

    The measure of great art is always tested by time. The greater the work the more meaningful it becomes over the ages. While Manto’s literary stature is constantly debated, it is perhaps his humanism that is his legacy. “Literature is either literature or not,” he writes. “Man is either man or not, he cannot be a donkey or a house or a table…Saadat Hasan Manto is a human being and every human should be progressive.”

    লিন্ক : Re-reading Manto।

18. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ১৫ মে ২০১২ (১২:৪৯ অপরাহ্ণ)

    শেখ হাসিনা বার্মার প্রদেশ রাখাইন চিন এর গুরুত্ব নিয়ে গতকাল বলেছেন বার্মার বিদায়ী রাষ্ট্রদূতকে

    Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said her country wants to forge stronger ties with neighboring Burma as reforms in the former pariah state continue, the Dhaka-based Daily Star reported on Tuesday. Speaking to outgoing Burmese ambassador Min Lwin, Hasina expressed satisfaction at the recent settlement of a longstanding maritime boundary dispute and said Bangladesh was keen to import surplus hydro-electric power from Rakhine and Chin states. She also welcomed assurances from President Thein Sein that Burma would resume repatriation of Rohingya refugees.

    এবছরের শুরুতেই ত্রিপুরা ভ্রমণ প্রসঙ্গেই এই সুপারিশকৃত লিন্কেই বার্মার রাখইন চিন প্রদেশের উল্লেখ করেছিলাম এভাবে

    শেখ হাসিনার ত্রিপুরা সফরকে এত গুরুত্ব দিচ্ছি দেখে আমার খুব কাছের কয়েকজন মানুষ বিস্মিত হয়েছেন। তারা জানতে চেয়েছেন, এটা কি কোনো খেয়ালের বশে আমি করছি — নাকি কোনো সুনির্দিষ্ট কারণ আছে? আমি বলেছি, আমি জানি না আমাদের পররাষ্ট্র মন্ত্রণালয় কী ভাবছে, কিন্তু আমার একটা স্ট্র্যাটেজির দিক থেকেই আমি এই গুরুত্ব দিচ্ছি। সবাই জানেন বাংলাদেশের সীমান্ত শুধুমাত্র দুটি রাষ্ট্রের সাথে আছে — ভারত ও বার্মা। কিন্তু আমি যখন থেকে মানচিত্র দেখতে শিখেছি আমি দেখেছি বাংলাদেশের সীমান্ত আছে ৭টি ভূখণ্ডের সাথে : পশ্চিমবঙ্গ, মেঘালয়, আসাম, মিজোরাম, ত্রিপুরা,(ভারত) রাখাইন, চিন (বার্মা)। এই ৭টি ভূখণ্ডই নিজ নিজ রাষ্ট্রের প্রশাসনিক রাজ্য, এবং রাজ্য হিসেবে ভূখণ্ডগুলোর নিজের একটা প্রশাসনিক বিশিষ্টতা আছে। কাজেই বাংলাদেশের উচিত এই ৭টি ভূখণ্ডকে অত্যন্ত নিবিড় পর্যালোচনায় নিয়ে আসা। এর ফলে বাংলাদেশ অনেক সহজে তার আঞ্চলিক সম্পর্কের ক্ষেত্রকে দৃঢ় ভিত্তি দিতে পারবে। সে উদ্দেশ্যে শেখ হাসিনার শুধু ত্রিপুরা নয়, একে একে দুই রাষ্ট্রের এই প্রত্যেকটি রাজ্যে সফর করা প্রয়োজন। এজন্যই আমি ত্রিপুরা সফরকে গুরুত্ব দিচ্ছি — এখন পশ্চিমবঙ্গ, মেঘালয়, আসাম, মিজোরাম,(ভারত) রাখাইন, চিন (বার্মা) এই বাকি সফরগুলো হলেই আমার ভাবনার সার্থকতা।

19. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ১৬ মে ২০১২ (১:১৪ পূর্বাহ্ণ)

    এইমাত্র পাওয়া খবর মেক্সিকোর প্রখ্যাত লেখক কার্লোস ফুয়েন্তেস ৮৩ বছর বয়সে মারা গেছেন।

    Author Carlos Fuentes, who played a dominant role in Latin America’s novel-writing boom by delving into the failed ideals of the Mexican revolution, died Tuesday in a Mexico City hospital. He was 83.

    Mexico’s National Council for Culture for the Arts confirmed the death of Mexico’s most celebrated novelist.

    He wrote his first novel, “Where the Air is Clear,” at age 29, laying the foundation for a boom in Spanish contemporary literature during the 1960s and 1970s. He published an essay on the change of power in France in the newspaper Reforma the day he died.

    His generation of writers, including Colombia’s Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Peru’s Mario Vargas Llosa, drew global readership and attention to Latin American culture during a period when strongmen ruled much of the region.

    “The Death of Artemio Cruz,” a novel about a post-revolutionary Mexico that failed to keep its promise of narrowing social gaps, brought Fuentes international notoriety.

    The elegant, mustachioed author’s other contemporary classics included “Aura,” “Terra Nostra,” and “The Good Conscience.” Many American readers know him for “The Old Gringo,” a novel about San Francisco journalist Ambrose Bierce, who disappeared at the height of the 1910-1920 Mexican Revolution. That book was later made into a film starring Gregory Peck and Jane Fonda.

    Fuentes was often mentioned as a candidate for the Nobel prize but never won one. A busy man, Fuentes wrote plays and short stories and co-founded a literary magazine. He was also a columnist, political analyst, essayist and critic.

    And he was outspoken. Once considered a Communist and sympathizer of Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Fuentes was denied entry into the U.S. under the McCarren-Walter Act.

    More recently, as a moderate leftist, Fuentes strongly opposed harsh policies against immigration and the war on terrorism in the U.S. He warned about Mexico’s religious right but also blasted Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez as a “Tropical Mussolini.”

    বিস্তারিত পড়ুন : Mexican novelist, essayist Carlos Fuentes dies।

20. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ১৭ মে ২০১২ (১:১৭ অপরাহ্ণ)

    শেখ হাসিনার স্বদেশ প্রত্যাবর্তনের একত্রিশ বছর পূর্ণ হল আজ। ১৯৮১ সালের ১৭ মে তিনি তার নির্বাসিত জীবনের অবসান ঘটিয়ে দেশে ফেরেন। তার আগে ওই বছরের ফেব্রুয়ারি মাসে অনুষ্ঠিত আওয়ামী লীগের জাতীয় কাউন্সিলে শেখ হাসিনাকে দলের সভানেত্রী নির্বাচিত করা হয়। তাই আজ শুধু শেখ হাসিনার স্বদেশ প্রত্যাবর্তনের একত্রিশ বছরই নয়, বাংলাদেশে শেখ হাসিনার রাজনীতিরও একত্রিশ বছর।

    ১৯৮১ সালের ১৮ মে দৈনিক ইত্তেফাকে লেখা হয়েছিল, ‘… দীর্ঘ ছ’বছর বিদেশে অবস্থানের পর জাতির জনক বঙ্গবন্ধু শেখ মুজিবুর রহমানের জ্যেষ্ঠ কন্যা, বাংলাদেশ আওয়ামী লীগের সভানেত্রী শেখ হাসিনা গতকাল সতরই মে বাংলাদেশে ফিরে এসেছেন। লাখো জনতা অকৃপণ প্রাণঢালা অভ্যর্থনার মধ্য দিয়ে বরণ করে নেন তাদের নেত্রীকে। মধ্যাহ্ন থেকে লক্ষাধিক মানুষ কুর্মিটোলা বিমানবন্দর এলাকায় অধীর আগ্রহে অপেক্ষা করছিলেন কখন শেখ হাসিনাকে বহনকারী বিমানটি অবতরণ করবে। বিকেল সাড়ে ৩টা থেকে বিমানবন্দরে কোন নিয়ম-শৃঙ্খলা রক্ষা করা সম্ভব হয়নি…।’ ওই সময়কার সরকারি দৈনিক ‘দৈনিক বাংলা’ ১৮ মে (১৯৮১) শেখ হাসিনার বিমানবন্দর সংবর্ধনা সংবাদে উল্লেখ করেছিল, ‘ঐ দিন কালবোশেখি ঝড়ো হাওয়ার বেগ ছিল ৬৫ মাইল। এবং এই দুর্যোগপূর্ণ আবহাওয়ার মধ্যে লাখো মানুষ শেখ হাসিনাকে এক নজর দেখার জন্য রাস্তায় ছিল।’ এসেই তিনি গণতন্ত্রের জন্য আজীবন সংগ্রামের প্রত্যয় ব্যক্ত করেছিলেন। তিনি প্রথম থেকেই হোঁচট খেয়েছেন কিন্তু মুখ থুবড়ে পড়েননি। কোনো কোনো ক্ষেত্রে হয়তো আগের সিদ্ধান্ত পরে নিয়েছেন; আবার অনেক পরের সিদ্ধান্ত আগে নিয়ে ফেলেছেন। বিকল্প পথের চিন্তা তিনি সবসময় করে রাখেন এবং কোনো কোনো ক্ষেত্রে অতিরিক্ত ঝুঁকিও নিয়েছেন। দায়িত্বের আন্তঃনির্ভরতায় অগাধ বিশ্বাস এবং এই চিন্তাধারা শক্তি সত্যিই গুরুত্বপূর্ণ।
    কোনো বাঁধাধরা তত্ত্বে নিজেকে তিনি আটকে রাখেননি। খোলা মনে, খোলা চোখে শক্ত মাটিতে দাঁড়িয়ে সবকিছু তিনি যাচাই করে দেখেছেন আর সে সঙ্গে পুরনোকে ছাড়িয়ে নতুনের দিকে বাড়িয়েছেন তার হাত। বিশেষত, বিশ্বায়নের যুগে বাংলাদেশের কিসের সঙ্গে সম্পর্ক, কিসের অগ্রগতি বা পশ্চাদগতি তা শেখ হাসিনা বুঝেছেন। তার পারদর্শিতায় দেশের সাধারণ মানুষের অগ্রগতি হয়েছে এবং সাধারণ মানুষের ভালোবাসাও পেয়েছেন। কিন্তু সমাজের বিজ্ঞজনরা সবসময় স্বীকৃতি দেননি। এখানেই একটি কৌতূহলোদ্দীপক দ্বান্দ্বিকতা দৃশ্যমান হয়। উদারনৈতিকতার যে ধারা শেখ হাসিনা বাংলাদেশের রাজনীতিতে সূচনা করতে প্রতিজ্ঞা করেছিলেন, তার মূল্যায়ন আমরা ক’জন করেছি? ১৯৮৩ সালের ২৪ মার্চের সামরিক শাসনের দু’দিন পর স্বাধীনতা দিবসে শীর্ষ নেতাদের মধ্যে একমাত্র শেখ হাসিনাই সাভার স্মৃতিসৌধে গিয়েছিলেন। খুবই দৃঢ়তার সঙ্গে বলেছিলেন_ ‘বাংলাদেশে সংসদীয় ধারার গণতন্ত্র প্রতিষ্ঠিত করবই করব।’

    বিস্তারিত পড়ুন : যে অপশক্তি এখনও সক্রিয়।

21. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ১৮ মে ২০১২ (২:৩২ পূর্বাহ্ণ)

    আরবের আনন্দময়ী গায়িকা ওয়ার্দা, তার ৬০ বছরের বর্ণাঢ্য সঙ্গীত জীবনের অবসানে, ৭২ বছর বয়সে পরলোকে পাড়ি জমালেন ১৭ মে ২০১২ মিশরের রাজধানী কায়রোর এক হাসপাতালে।

    Veteran Algerian singer Warda passed away at the age of 72 at a hospital in the Egyptian capital Cairo, after a long singing career that spanned to more than 60 years.

    Her son Riyad Qasry confirmed the news to Al Arabiya and said that she will be buried in Algeria, upon the instructions of Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika.

    Warda was born in France in 1940 to a Lebanese Mother and an Algerian father. She started her singing career at the age of eleven. She quickly became well known for her singing of patriotic Algerian songs.

    In 1972, Algerian president Houari Boumédienne asked her to sing to commemorate Algeria’s independence, and she performed with an Egyptian orchestra.

    She then moved to Egypt, where she married the late talented composer Baligh Hamdi. They teamed up in many songs that added more to the fame of Warda.

    In addition to singing many songs to other Arab composers, Warda starred in a bunch of successful movies.

    Her last work was a video-clipped song marking the 50th anniversary of Algeria’s independence.

    খবরের লিন্ক : Veteran Algerian singer Warda passes away in Cairo at the age of 72।

    এখানে দেখুন ও শুনুন Haramt Ababek এর ভিডিও।

22. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ২০ মে ২০১২ (১২:৫২ অপরাহ্ণ)

    এক সুদীর্ঘ ও সফল শিল্প জীবনের অবসান হল, নব্বই বছর বয়সে গতকাল মধ্যরাতের পর অর্থাৎ আজ ভোর ১২ টা ২০ মিনিটে পরলোকে চলে গেলেন শিল্পী সফিউদ্দিন আহমেদ। তিনি অনেক দিন ধরে বার্ধক্যজনিত বিভিন্ন রোগে ভুগছিলেন, শেষবার গত মঙ্গলবার স্কয়ার হাসপাতালে ভর্তি হয়েছিলেন।

    কলকাতা ভবানীপুরের ১৯২২ সালের ২৩ জুন শিল্পীর জন্ম। ১৯৪২ সালে কলকাতা সরকারি আর্ট স্কুল থেকে স্নাতক এবং ১৯৫৮ সালে যুক্তরাজ্যের সেন্ট্রাল স্কুল অব আর্টস অ্যান্ড ক্র্যাফটস থেকে এচিং ও এনগ্রেভিংয়ে ডিপ্লোমা করেন।

    শিল্পী হিসাবে সফিউদ্দীন আহমেদের সুনাম ছড়িয়ে পড়তে শুরু করে ঊনিশশ চল্লিশের দশক থেকেই। শিল্পাচার্য জয়নুল আবেদিনের সহযাত্রী হিসাবে ঢাকা আর্ট কলেজ প্রতিষ্ঠাতেও পালন করেন অগ্রণী ভূমিকা। বাংলাদেশে ছাপচিত্রকলাকে এগিয়ে নিতে তিনিই পথ দেখিয়েছেন।

    সফিউদ্দীন আহমেদ ১৯৪৮ থেকে ১৯৭৯ পর্যন্ত তিনি ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের চারুকলা ইনস্টিটিউটের ছাপচিত্র বিভাগের প্রধান হিসেবে দায়িত্ব পালন করেন।

    চারুকলায় অবদানের জন্য একুশে পদক ও স্বাধীনতা দিবস পুরস্কার ছাড়াও কলকাতা একাডেমি অব ফাইন আর্টের একাডেমি প্রেসিডেন্ট পদক, ভারতের পাটনা শিল্পকলা পরিষদের দ্বারভাঙ্গা মহারাজার স্বর্ণপদক, পাকিস্তান সরকারের প্রেসিডেন্ট পদকসহ বিভিন্ন পুরস্কার পেয়েছেন এই শিল্পী।

    খবরের লিন্ক : চলে গেলেন শিল্পগুরু সফিউদ্দীন আহমেদ।

23. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ২০ মে ২০১২ (৭:৪০ অপরাহ্ণ)

    হিলারি ক্লিনটন ঢাকায় তার টাউন্টারভিউতে ‘শেইল গ্যাস’এর কথা উল্লেখ করেছেন।

    energy and power is critical, we know, to Bangladesh because you still don’t have reliable, affordable electricity across the country. And we talked last night, and as part of the partnership agreement, the government asked if we would provide technical advice about potential development of your hydropower, exploring whether you have natural gas, unconventional gas resources, including shale gas, other kinds of advice that we would be willing to offer. So we’re going to send a technical team to work with you on that, what kind of renewable energy in addition to hydropower, whether there’s an opportunity for geothermal, for wind, for solar, greater than has been anticipated. So we stand ready to help you meet your energy needs.

    এবছর এপ্রিলের সুপারিশকৃত লিন্কে এই শেইল গ্যাস নিয়ে আলোচনায় এক মানচিত্রের সূত্রে বলেছিলাম বাংলাদেশে ‘শেইল গ্যাস’ থাকার সম্ভাবনা নেই। হিলারি ক্নিনটন ঠিকঠাক বলেছেন তো? নাকি কথার টানে বলে ফেলেছেন।

    রাশিয়ায় ইউরোপে আছে এই গ্যাস, আছে ভারতে ও চীনে, ৩৮টি দেশে ৪৮টি বেসিনের নিশ্চিত অবস্থান জানা গেছে, এই মানচিত্রে দেখুন ‘হলুদ’ অংশে কত রিজার্ভ এখনো নিশ্চিত হওয়া যায়নি, ‘সাদা’ এই গ্যাস পাওয়ার সম্ভাবনা আছে আর ‘ধূসর’ অংশে পাওয়ার সম্ভাবনা নেই, আমরা পড়েছি ধুসর অংশে।

    এখন অপেক্ষা ছাড়া গতি নেই। কারণ আমি এখনো বাংলাদেশের অন্য কোথাও এবিষয়ে কোনো লেখা পড়িনি। কেউ পড়ে থাকলে জানাবেন?

24. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ২০ মে ২০১২ (৮:১৫ অপরাহ্ণ)

    বাংলাদেশের রপ্তানি বাণিজ্য প্রধানত গার্মেন্টস নির্ভর। এরকম একক পণ্যের উপর নির্ভরতা কমানো খুবই প্রয়োজন। রপ্তানি পণ্যে বৈচিত্র সৃষ্টিতে সরকারের দৃষ্টি আকর্ষিত হয়েছে এটা ভাল দিক। কিন্তু এর জন্য পলিসি নির্ধারণই সবচেয়ে বড় চ্যালেঞ্জ। জায়দি সাত্তার লিখছেন

    After a record export performance last fiscal year, export pessimism is in the air once again. And for good reason. When the Eurozone is in the grip of a crisis, Bangladesh exports cannot be immune to that event. Because countries of the European Union (EU) together buy 51% of our exports. Moreover, in an integrated world, a Eurozone crisis can become a global economic crisis in no time.

    Yet, these events are beyond our control. For Bangladesh, integrating with the world market is good for the long-term – even along with the ups and downs of the world economy. Access to the wider global economy presents a much larger market for Bangladeshi goods with the potential for job creation and economies of scale that might not be possible from even a growing domestic economy. Recall that we are adding about two million people to our labor force every year, and we have a persistent problem of under-employment. So reliance on exports and efforts at ensuring and strengthening export competitiveness should continue to be the long-term policy strategy to absorb the additional labor force.

    That strategy has yielded rich dividends so far. Bangladesh experienced double digit export growth over the past two decades. And 90% of Bangladesh’s exports were manufactured goods, making it the only least developed country (LDC) with such a high share of manufactured exports in its export basket. This illustrates its strength in mass manufacturing and cost competitiveness. Yet this superior performance masks the fact that the export surge was limited to one product group — readymade garments (RMG) — aided not least by the Multi-Fibre Arrangement (MFA) regime, a fortuitous global arrangement that was phased out in 2005. With over three million jobs and 76% of export earnings from the RMG sector, too much of the nation’s fortune is riding on this one sector. Export concentration in readymade garments makes the economy, jobs and income, extremely vulnerable to external shocks arising from changes in global demand for RMG.

    Export diversification is one way the economy can come out of this bind. Indeed, it is now a national imperative. The government has correctly set export diversification as the cornerstone of its export policy for several years now. But progress has not been encouraging so far. Therefore, the problem deserves to be re-examined in light of recent analytical research and cross-country experience.

    …

    To come out of export concentration phenomenon, Bangladesh could pursue the following diversification options. The most common approach is to go for greater diversity of products. This appears to be the widely recognized albeit limited mode of export diversification. It describes a process whereby a range of new products is introduced in the export basket – described by trade economists as “discovery” — which gradually assumes significant proportions thereby diluting any export concentration that might have existed.

    Second, export destinations can be diversified. This involves widening the range of destination markets for exports of existing products, also referred to as horizontal diversification or diversification at the extensive margin. Research has shown that developing countries tend to do better at this sort of export diversification.

    Third, quality diversification is another option but much more challenging. This describes the process of upgrading the quality and value of existing products, i.e. moving up market from low end to high end products (described as moving up the value chain). Moving to higher productivity (or higher value added) items in the same product group is also referred to as diversification in the intensive margin. Increasing export growth at the intensive margin requires some combination of productivity improvements to lower costs and quality improvements to differentiate products from those of competitors.

    One more option could be to go from goods to services exports. Services, with the right skills and training, could be a job creator of the future if, for instance, tourism could become a significant attraction for non-resident Bangladeshis (NRBs) and global tourists alike. Given its strategic geographic location striding South and East Asia, what is preventing Bangladesh from becoming a trading hub of the vast hinterland across several political borders? What is preventing Bangladesh from becoming a Singapore of the future? It is time to look forward and well beyond the present.

    The focus of current policies seem to be more on product diversification, and the approach taken is to pick winners, i.e. select “thrust” sectors and promote them with all sorts of incentives in the hope that they will be the RMGs of the future. If we recall, this is not how RMG emerged as the leading export item of Bangladesh; nor, for that matter, was ship-building – a recent success. With the advent of MFA, the right policies were formulated to give RMG production a free trade channel, i.e. by providing duty-free inputs through bonded warehouse and back-to-back LC system. With success, ship-building received duty-free bonded import facility almost instantaneously. International experience suggests that, in a high tariff regime, export success cannot come through subsidies provided to “thrust” sectors. It could, however, come through providing RMG-like free trade channel to existing and potential exports. That is the big policy challenge.
    

    বিস্তারিত পড়ুন : Challenge and promise of export diversification।

25. 

    রেজাউল করিম সুমন - ২৩ মে ২০১২ (১:৪২ পূর্বাহ্ণ)

    অর্থনীতিবিদ অধ্যাপক মোজাফফর আহমদ প্রয়াত।

    অধ্যাপক মোজাফফর আহমদ আর নেই
    
    ঢাকা, মে ২২ (বিডিনিউজ টোয়েন্টিফোর ডটকম)- অর্থনীতিবিদ ও নাগরিক আন্দোলনের সংগঠক অধ্যাপক ড. মোজাফফর আহমদ আর নেই।

    মঙ্গলবার রাতে ধানমণ্ডির বাসায় অসুস্থ হয়ে পড়লে অধ্যাপক মোজাফফরকে ল্যাব এইড হাসপাতালে নেওয়া হয়। সেখানে চিকিৎসকরা জানান, তিনি মারা গেছেন।

    একুশে পদকপ্রাপ্ত অধ্যাপক মোজাফফরের বয়স হয়েছিল ৭৯ বছর। তিনি বার্ধক্যজনিত নানা জটিলতায় ভুগছিলেন।

    ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের অধ্যাপক এমিরেটাস মোজাফফর নাগরিক সংগঠন সুজন (সুশাসনের জন্য নাগরিক)-এর সভাপতি ছিলেন।

    তিনি দীর্ঘদিন ট্রান্সপারেন্সি ইন্টারন্যাশনাল বাংলাদেশের (টিআইবি) চেয়ারম্যানের দায়িত্ব পালন করেন। সর্বশেষ টিআইবির ট্রাস্টি বোর্ডের সদস্য ছিলেন তিনি।

    ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের ব্যবসায় প্রশাসন ইনস্টিটিউটের সাবেক পরিচালক অধ্যাপক মোজাফফর ২০০৮ সালে একুশে পদক পান। তিনি শিকাগো বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় থেকে ডক্টরেট ডিগ্রি নিয়েছিলেন।

    সুজন সম্পাদক অধ্যাপক বদিউল আলম মজুমদার বিডিনিউজ টোয়েন্টিফোর ডটকমকে বলেন, অধ্যাপক মোজাফফর বেশ কিছুদিন ধরে অসুস্থ ছিলেন।

    মরদেহ রাতে বারডেম হাসপাতালের হিমঘরে রাখা হবে বলে জানান তিনি। প্রয়াতের বয়স ৭৯ বছর বলে জানিয়েছেন টিআইবির নির্বাহী পরিচালক ইফতেখারুজ্জামান।

    রাতে ধানমণ্ডির শঙ্করের বাসায় অসুস্থ হয়ে পড়লে অধ্যাপক মোজাফফরকে ল্যাব এইড হাসপাতালে নেওয়া হয়।

    সেখানে থাকা চিকিৎসক মো. ইমরান বিডিনিউজ টোয়েন্টিফোর ডটকমকে বলেন, রাত ১১টা ২২ মিনিটে অধ্যাপক মোজাফফরকে মৃত ঘোষণা করা হয়।

    তিনি বলেন, “১০টা ৫০ মিনিটে উনাকে জরুরি বিভাগে আনা হয়। সঙ্গে সঙ্গে আমরা তাকে সিসিইউতে নিয়ে যাই।”

    মৃত্যুসনদ তৈরিতে যুক্ত ডা. ইমরানের ধারণা, জরুরি বিভাগে আনার আগেই এই অধ্যাপকের মৃত্যু হয়।

    মোজাফফর আহমদ বার্ধক্যজনিত নানা রোগে ভুগছিলেন বলে জানান চিকিৎসক।

    ডা. ইমরান বলেন, “তিনি আমাদের এখানে চেকআপের জন্য আসতেন। রক্তশূন্যতায় ভোগার জন্য তাকে সময়ে সময়ে রক্তও দিতে হত।”

    এছাড়া অধ্যাপক মোজাফফরের হাইপারটেনশন এবং ডায়াবেটিস ছিল বলে জানান ওই চিকিৎসক।

    খবরের লিংক এখানে।

26. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ২৬ মে ২০১২ (৬:২৩ অপরাহ্ণ)

    খুব ছোট খবর, সোনা রূপা ও দামি পাথরসহ এক ভারতীয় নাগরিক ধরা পড়েছে বেনাপোলে কাস্টমসের হাতে। কিন্তু ভারত-বাংলাদেশ সীমান্তে সোনা পাচারের মাত্রা ভয়ঙ্কর হয়ে উঠেছে বলে অনেকের ধারণা। এখনই সতর্ক না হলে সরকারকে বড় ধরনের সমস্যায় ফেলবে এই সোনা পাচার।

    Customs officials arrested an Indian notional along with gold and silver ornaments and some white stones worth Tk 20.84 lakh from International Customs check post here on Friday night.

    The arrestee was identified as Kamalesh Kumar Barman, 33, of 18 Rabindrapalli Krishnapur of Rajarhat in Kolkata. His passport no. is 6743483.

    Sources at Benapole Check Post said Kamalesh was arrested along with his passport while moving suspiciously in the area at night.

    Later, customs official Abdul Majid recovered 46.12 tolas of gold, 2 tolas of silver ornaments and 1.5 kg white stones from his bag.

    Kamalesh was handed over to Benapole port thana along with his passport.

    খবরের লিন্ক এখানে।

27. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ২৬ মে ২০১২ (৬:৫১ অপরাহ্ণ)

    কৃচ্ছতার কথা ওঠা মানেই জনগণের ব্যযহ্রাসের কথাই ওঠা। কৃচ্ছতার কথা উঠেছে স্পেনে, গ্রিসে এবং আমাদের প্রতিবেশী দেশ ভারতে। কিন্তু কৃচ্ছতা একটি ভুল পন্থা সব সময়েরই জন্য। কারণ এক দিকে এই কৃচ্ছতা জনগণের ব্যযহ্রাসের কথা বললেও অন্যদিকে চলতে থাকে প্লুটোক্র্যাটদের ব্যয় উৎসব। ভারতের প্রখ্যাত সাংবাদিক পি.সাইনাথ লিখছেন

    That Dr. Ahluwalia practises austerity himself is evident from two RTI queries. Both fine examples of RTI-based journalism, but failing to get the attention they deserved. Both exploring the anatomy of his austerity. One was a story in India Today (covering Dr. Ahluwalia’s foreign trips between June 2004 and January 2011) by Shyamlal Yadav. This journalist (now with The Indian Express), has done outstanding RTI-based stories in the past as well.

    The other, in February this year, came from The Statesman News Service (reporter unnamed). This one took out details on Dr. Ahluwalia’s global forays between May and October 2011. In that period, he undertook “four trips covering 18 nights [which] cost the exchequer a sum of Rs. 36,40,140, an average cost of Rs 2.02 lakh a day,” says the SNS report.

    At the time this happened, that Rs. 2.02 lakh would have been worth $4,000 a day. (Gee! Lucky for us Montek was into austerity. Imagine what his expenditure might have been otherwise). That is a daily spend almost 9,000 times greater than the 45 cents cut-off point at which rural Indians would be doing okay, in his view. Or over 7,000 times greater than the 55 cents cut-off point for urban Indians that Dr. Ahluwalia would find “normatively adequate.”

    Now his spend of Rs. 3.6 million (or $72,000) in 18 days might well have been his personal stimulus to global tourism in that year. After all, the industry in 2010 was still recovering from the ravages of 2008-09, as the United Nations World Tourism Organisation points out. The U.N. agency found, on the other hand, that 2011 saw global travel revenues cross $1 trillion. The largest revenue increases were seen in the U.S. and Europe (where most of those 18 days were spent). The Indian public can rejoice over its money playing a humble part in that recovery even while scorched by austerity at home.

    The stats from the Shyamlal Yadav’s RTI are fascinating. To begin with, his findings show Dr. Ahluwalia made 42 official foreign trips and spent 274 days overseas during a seven-year tenure. That is “one in every nine days” abroad. And that’s excluding travel days. The India Today story found that his excursions cost the exchequer Rs.2.34 crore. However, it points out that they received three different estimates of the costs of his trips and charitably went with the lowest. Also, said the India Today story, “it is not clear whether the figures include the expenses incurred by Indian embassies abroad on frills such as hiring limousines. The actual costs could be a lot higher.”

    Since the post he holds does not require so much foreign travel — all of it done, though, with “the permission of the Prime Minister” — this is puzzling. That 23 of the 42 trips were to the U.S., which does not believe in planning (but then, perhaps, neither does Dr. Ahluwalia), is even more puzzling. What were these trips about? Spreading global awareness on austerity? If so, we’ll have to spend more on his travel: look at those revolting Greeks killing the Cause on the streets of Athens. And even more on his trips to the U.S. where the austerity of the affluent is striking. CEOs in that country took home billions in bonuses even in 2008, the year Wall Street tanked the global economy. This year, even the media journals of the super-rich in the U.S. write about CEOs destroying their companies, jobs and more — and gaining personally from it. Millions of Americans, including many who suffered home mortgage foreclosures, saw a different kind of austerity. The kind the French increasingly fear and have voted against.

    When Dr. Singh pleaded for austerity in 2009, his Cabinet rose handsomely to the call. Each member added a modest million rupees a month thereafter, on average, to his or her assets over the next 27 months. All the while, hard at work as Ministers. (“The Union Cabinet gets healthier,” The Hindu, September 21, 2011). Praful Patel excelled, adding on average, half-a-million rupees to his assets every 24 hours in that period. Workers in Air India, under a Ministry he headed much of that time, struggled to get their salaries for weeks on end. Now with Pranab cracking the whip, there’ll be even more austerity going around.

    Note the bipartisan spirit of this austerity: in the past few years, Praful Patel (UPA-NCP) and Nitin Gadkari (NDA-BJP) have hosted two of the costliest weddings ever, with far more guests than seen at any IPL final. Gender-balanced Spartanism, too. That was for Mr. Patel’s daughter and Mr. Gadkari’s son.

    Their corporate counterparts take it further. Mukesh Ambani with his 27-floor (but higher than 50 storeys) costliest residence in living memory. And Vijay Mallya — whose employees in Kingfisher struggle for their salaries — who tweeted on May 5: “Having dinner at Atmosphere on the 123rd floor of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. Never been so high up in my life. Awesome view.” That’s probably higher than Kingfisher is flying right now. Both own teams in the IPL. Which body has received public subsidies (by way of entertainment tax waivers, for example). That is, until the matter went to the Bombay High Court. There are other public-funded austerities linked to the IPL — watch this space.

    বিস্তারিত পড়ুন : The austerity of the affluent।

    আর যারা ইংরেজিতে স্বচ্ছন্দ নয়, তারা পড়ুন বাংলা অনুবাদে এখানে।

28. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ২৭ মে ২০১২ (১০:৩৬ পূর্বাহ্ণ)

    যেনেপাল রাজতন্ত্র থেকে গণপ্রজাতন্ত্রে নিজেকে উন্নীত করেছে, যেনেপাল হিন্দু রাজতান্ত্রিক রাষ্ট্র থেকে নিজেকে গণতান্ত্রিক ধর্মনিরপেক্ষ রাষ্ট্রে রূপান্তরিত করেছে, আজ ২৭ মে ২০১২, সেনেপাল কি পাবে তার বহু আকাঙ্ক্ষিত যুক্তরাষ্ট্রীয় গণপ্রজাতন্ত্রী সংবিধান?

    For over six decades, Nepal’s democratic, left and ethnic movements have waited for this day — when a popularly elected and representative Constituent Assembly would usher in a new social contract for its diverse peoples. But the country’s date with history on Sunday, when the term of the CA expires with the possibility of extension ruled out, could swing either way. At midnight, true to Nepal’s political tradition, major forces could strike a last minute deal and promulgate a federal democratic republican statute. Equally, the country could be staring at a political and constitutional crisis with the CA dissolved, without a constitution having been written. Not only would this be a betrayal of the long political struggles where thousands have lost their lives, it could well push the country into years of instability and multiple ethnic conflicts.

    The uncertainty comes from a fundamental political divide about the nature of federalism, and what should be incorporated in the final constitutional text. While the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Madhesi parties, and Janjati (ethnic) MPs across party lines stand on one end of the spectrum, the Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist) represent the other pole.

    The latter two forces are in favour of promulgating the constitution, while postponing the issue of state restructuring. The federal model, they argue, can be determined by the transformed legislative-parliament which will continue to exist if the constitution is done. The Maoist-Madhesi-Janjati combine has rejected this. Instead, they seek a constitution with specific agreements on the names, numbers and territorial boundaries of the new federal structure. They have demanded a firm commitment that the 14 state model, prepared by the CA committee on state restructuring, or the 10 state model, recommended by the State Restructuring Commission, should be clearly mentioned as the basis for federal demarcation. Both these models have two provinces in the Tarai plains, and demarcate boundaries in a way where ethnic communities will have a demographic advantage in several hill provinces. NC and UML have termed it ‘ethnic federalism’, and said it would be unacceptable.

    Many argue, logically, that it would make sense to preserve the achievements and work of the CA by framing a constitution and leave contentious issues for later. But the trust deficit is so deep that marginalised communities do not have faith in assurances. A Madhesi Minister told The Hindu, “There is already an in-principle commitment to federalism in the interim constitution. The entire rationale of the CA was to restructure the state. Both the 10 and 14 state models are products of constitutional mechanisms. If we can’t get federalism now, the elites will conspire and stall it forever.”

    …

    If Nepal is to have a constitution by Sunday night, the real challenge is in bridging this trust deficit and balancing these multiple constituencies. Madhesi and ethnic politicians will have to understand that in the remaining one day, they cannot possibly get a full-fledged federal structure. They could instead negotiate hard on principles and guarantees that the transformed parliament will indeed deliver federalism within a specified time-frame, and the next elections would be held both for the national and provincial legislatures. At the same time, Nepal’s two older parties must wake up to the new political dynamic and movements. The aspirations of excluded communities cannot be brushed aside; identity has to be recognised as a key element of federal restructuring and the recommendations of legitimate constitutional bodies on federalism cannot be discarded. If they do not relent, and the CA collapses without a constitution, it will lead to the irreversible radicalisation of Madhesi and ethnic politics.

    বিস্তারিত পড়ুন : News Analysis: Amid uncertainty, Nepal awaits tryst with history

    • 

      মাসুদ করিম - ২৮ মে ২০১২ (১২:৪৪ পূর্বাহ্ণ)

      একটি মৃত্যু সংবাদ। ২৮ মে সোমবার ২০১২ ০০:০০ টায় নেপালের সংবিধান সংসদ মৃত্যবরণ করেছে। এবছর ২২ নভেম্বর নতুন সংবিধান সংসদ গঠনের লক্ষ্যে নেপালে সাধারণ নির্বাচন অনুষ্ঠিত হবে। সময়ের অসাধারণ অপচয়ের দৃষ্টান্ত হয়ে থাকবে এই মৃত সংবিধান সংসদ। সত্যিই দুঃখজনক একটি খবর নেপালের জন্য।

      In a televised address to the nation after the clock struck 00:00 am on Monday, May 28, Prime Minister Dr. Baburam Bhattarai announced that the Constituent Assembly, elected in 2008, exists no more and that fresh elections will be held on November 19[22] to elect a new Constituent Assembly.

      Also one of the vice chairmen of UCPN-Maoist, Dr. Bhattarai addressed the nation from his official residence in Baluwatar soon after briefing President Dr. Ram Baran Yadav about the Cabinet’s decision to hold fresh polls for the CA.

      খবরের লিন্ক এখানে।

      • 

        মাসুদ করিম - ২৮ মে ২০১২ (৬:৫৫ অপরাহ্ণ)

        ২০০৮ সালের এপ্রিল থেকে নিয়মিত আমি নেপালের সংবিধান সংসদের খবরাখবর রেখেছি। গতকাল (ঠিকভাবে বলতে গেলে ২৮ মে সোমবার ২০১২ ০০:০০) সেই সংসদের যখন মৃত্যু হল, তখন থুবই দুঃখ পেয়েছি। এখন বলা হয়েছে এবছরের ২২ নভেম্বর (প্রথমে ১৯ নভেম্বর বলা হয়েছিল) আবার নতুন করে নির্বাচন হবে। আগামী দিনগুলোতে নেপালের রাজনীতি কীহবে সেই মধ্যরাত থেকে আমি চিন্তিত, এই যেমন এখন নেপালের সব রাজনৈতিক দল, নেপালের বর্তমান প্রধানমন্ত্রী পদত্যাগ দাবী করেছে,

        KATHMANDU: All party meeting held at the party office of the Nepali Congress in Sanepa has sought the Prime Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai’s resignation as quickly as possible.

        নেপালের এই রাজনৈতিক টানাপোড়েনে উপমহাদেশের সবার জন্যই গভীর আশঙ্কার কারণ আছে। আজ হিমালইয়ান টাইমসের সম্পাদকীয়তে লেখা হয়েছিল

        The Constituent Assembly (CA) comes to an end today after 4 years of political roller coaster ride, and a task-half finished. After a series of frustrating delays, the elections for the CA were held on April 10, 2008, ushering in a new era in Nepal’s turbulent history. The CA was the key element in Nepal’s peace process intended to transform the warring Maoists into a civilian political force and the country into a federal democratic republic. Although the Maoists have refused, until now, to let go of their communist ideology and tactics, they committed themselves to peaceful politics and promised to lay down their arms and armies. Unfortunately, although original agreements required the peace process, primarily the management of arms and armies, to be completed in six months, the Maoist leadership took 47 months to complete the process of rehabilitation and hand over the remaining combatants to the Nepal Army for integration. This forced the political parties to extend the CA’s term four times for a total of four years although the contract with the voters was that they would take no more than two years.

        Now, with the Supreme Court standing firmly against any further extension, the parties were forced to choose between letting the CA die without any concrete results or promulgating a constitution in time. The Supreme Court’s verdict was based on several logical principles, and violating the SC verdict would have meant overriding these foundational principles of democratic governance like popular consent, adherence to principal law, and accountability. In the last four years, we have seen many weaknesses among the political parties. First was the way in which the political parties sought to side-step the CA and turn it into a mere rubber stamp. The idea of CA emerged because it would allow the people to frame their own constitution, and it would constitute a democratic-decision making process in case there were differences in opinion among the different stakeholders. Unfortunately, political parties sought to sidestep the CA process altogether and depend on closed door meeting among top-leaders that were rarely transparent.

        সংবিধানটা হয়ে গেলে নেপালটা যেভাবে এগিয়ে যেত, এবং তার সাথে সাথে উপমহাদেশে গণতন্ত্রের উপর মানুষের আরো আস্থা তৈরি হত, সেই আপাত সুযোগটা নষ্ট হয়ে গেল। এখন সবচেয়ে আশঙ্কার হল নির্বাচনের আগে এই দিনগুলো কেমন যাবে, বা আদৌ সমযমত নির্বাচনটা হবে তো? সব মিলিয়ে একটা বিকট সময়ের আশঙ্কার ভেতরই ঢুকে গেলাম গত মধ্যরাত থেকে।

29. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ২৭ মে ২০১২ (৬:৫৮ অপরাহ্ণ)

    বাংলা মিডিয়ার কি ধারণা যেখানে সেখানে চন্দ্রবিন্দু যোগ করলেই সবকিছু ফরাসি হয়ে যায়? দেশের প্রধান সংবাদপত্রগুলো নবনির্বাচিত ফরাসি প্রেসিডেন্টের নামের চৌদ্দটা বাজিয়ে বসে আছেন খেয়াল করলাম। FRANCOIS HOLLANDE এর নামের শেষ অংশের বাংলা বানান কীকরে ওলাঁদ হয়? ফরাসি জানতেই হবে এমন কোনো কথা নেই। কিন্তু ফরাসি না জানলে আগে যেরকম নামটা পড়ে ইংরেজিতে কীরকম উচ্চারণ হবে সেভাবে নামটা লেখা হত সেটা তো অনেক বেশি গ্রহণযোগ্য ছিল, মানে ‘হোলান্ড’বা ‘হোলান্দ’। কিস্তু ওলাঁদ কিভাবে? ঠিক ফরাসি উচ্চারণটা হবে ‘ওলন্দ’ বা ‘ওলোন্দ’।

    প্রথম আলোতে : স্থানীয় কর্তৃপক্ষ ও ন্যাটো জোটের সঙ্গে বোঝাপড়ার ভিত্তিতেই আফগানিস্তান থেকে ফরাসি সেনা প্রত্যাহার করা হবে। আফগানিস্তান সফরকালে ফ্রান্সের প্রেসিডেন্ট ফ্রাঁসোয়া ওলাঁদ গতকাল শুক্রবার এ কথা বলেন।
    আফগানিস্তানের উত্তর-পূর্বাঞ্চলীয় কাপিসা প্রদেশের নিজরাব ঘাঁটিতে অবস্থানরত ফরাসি সেনাদের সঙ্গে ওলাঁদ গতকাল কথা বলেন। সেখানে মোতায়েন রয়েছে ফ্রান্সের সাড়ে তিন হাজারের বেশি সেনাসদস্য। আফগানিস্তান থেকে তাঁদের প্রত্যাহার শুরু হতে পারে কয়েক দিনের মধ্যে।

    সমকালে : ফ্রান্সের নবনির্বাচিত প্রেসিডেন্ট ফ্রাঁসোয়া ওলাঁদ গতকাল শুক্রবার আকস্মিকভাবে আফগানিস্তান সফরে যান। আফগানিস্তান থেকে আসন্ন সেনা প্রত্যাহারের বিষয়টি সুরাহা করতেই তিনি এ সফর করেন। খবর এএফপির।
    ন্যাটো নির্ধারিত সময়ের আগেই আফগানিস্তান থেকে সেনা প্রত্যাহার করার ঘোষণা দিয়েছেন তিনি। ঝটিকা আফগান সফরের বিষয়টি নিয়ে বিশদ আলোচনা করেন তিনি। আসন্ন সেনা প্রত্যাহার প্রসঙ্গে তিনি বলেন, সেনা প্রত্যাহার করে নিলেও ফ্রান্সের সেনাসদস্যরা আফগানিস্তান ও ন্যাটোর সঙ্গে ঘনিষ্ঠভাবে কাজ করবে।

    জনকণ্ঠে : মার্কিন প্রেসিডেন্ট বারাক ওবামা নবনির্বাচিত ফরাসী প্রেসিডেন্ট ফ্রাঁসোয়া ওলাঁদের ইউরোপে প্রবৃদ্ধিমূলক নীতির প্রতি সমর্থন ব্যক্ত করেছেন। অর্থনৈতিক সঙ্কট মোকাবেলায় ইউরোপজুড়ে সরকারগুলো যেখানে ব্যয় সঙ্কোচন নীতি অনুসরণের ওপর জোর দিচ্ছে সেখানে ওলাঁদ প্রবৃদ্ধিমূলক নীতি অনুসরণের কথা বলছেন। এছাড়া ওলাঁদ স্পষ্ট জানিয়ে দিয়েছেন তিনি ২০১৪ সালের সময়সীমার আগেই ফ্রান্স আফগানিস্তান থেকে সব সৈন্য ফিরিয়ে নেবেন। শনিবার ক্যাম্প ডেভিডে জি-৮ শীর্ষ সম্মেলন শুরুর আগে শুক্রবার দুই নেতার মধ্যে অনানুষ্ঠানিক কথা হয়। খবর এএফপির।
    এবারের জি-৮ সম্মেলন এমন এক সময় হচ্ছে, যখন অর্থনৈতিক সঙ্কট জর্জরিত গ্রীস একক মুদ্রা ব্যবহারকারী ইউরোজোন থেকে বেরিয়ে যাওয়ার মতো অবস্থা দেখা দিয়েছে। ইউরোপীয় ইউনিয়ন ও আইএমএফের ঋণ সহায়তা পাওয়ার শর্ত হিসেবে গ্রীসকে কৃচ্ছ্রতা নীতি অবলম্বনের শর্ত আরোপ করা হয়েছে। গ্রীসের জনগণ প্রবলভাবে এ নীতির বিরোধী। যে কারণে দেশটিতে অর্থনৈতিক সঙ্কটের পাশাপাশি দেখা দিয়েছে রাজনৈতিক সঙ্কট। সদ্য অনুষ্ঠিত নির্বাচনে কোন দল একক সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠতা না পাওয়ায় আগামী মাসের ১৭ তারিখ নতুন নির্বাচনের তারিখ ঘোষিত হয়েছে। ইউরোপের বিভিন্ন দেশে অনুষ্ঠিত নির্বাচনে কৃচ্ছ্রতাবিরোধী দলগুলো ভাল করেছে। যেমনটি হয়েছে ফ্রান্সে। যে নির্বাচনে বিজয়ী সোশ্যালিস্ট পার্টি নেতা ওলাঁদ এখন দেশটির নতুন প্রেসিডেন্ট। ওলাঁদের অর্থনৈতিক দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি জার্মান চ্যান্সেলর এ্যাঞ্জেলা মেরকেলের বিপরীত। মেরকেল কৃচ্ছ্রতা নীতির একজন জোরালো সমর্থক। এবারের জি-৮ সম্মেলনে ওবামাকে দুই বিপরীতধর্মী মতামতের মধ্যে সমন্বয় ঘটাতে হবে। শুক্রবার স্থানীয় সময় সন্ধ্যার পর পরই মেরকেল এসে পৌঁছলে ওবামা তাঁর কাঠের তৈরি লরেল লজে স্বাগত জানান। জি-৮ সম্মেলন শেষ হওয়ার পরপরই শিকাগোতে বসছে ন্যাটো সম্মেলন। এতে আফগানিস্তান থেকে ২০১৪ সালে সৈন্য প্রত্যাহারপরবর্তী পরিকল্পনা নিয়ে সদস্য দেশগুলোর শীর্ষ কর্মকর্তারা আলোচনা করবেন। ওলাঁদ অবশ্য সাফ জানিয়ে দিয়েছেন তিনি ২০১৪ সাল আসার আগেই আফগান মিশন গুটিয়ে আনবেন। ব্যাপারটি নিয়ে কারও সঙ্গে দর কষাকষি করবেন না বলেও তিনি পরিষ্কার জানিয়ে দেন।

30. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ২৯ মে ২০১২ (৩:২৬ অপরাহ্ণ)

    কিছুদিন আগের গ্রিসের নির্বাচনের ফলাফলের মতোই মিশরের প্রথম পর্বের রাষ্ট্রপতি নির্বাচনের ফলাফলও প্রকাশ করছে জনগণের বহুধাবিভক্ত ভোট প্রয়োগ। ইসলামবাদী মুসলিম ব্রাদারহুড প্রার্থী মোহাম্মদ মুরসি পেয়েছে ২৪.৭৭%, মুবারকপন্থী আহমেদ শফিক পেয়েছে ২৩.৬৬%, বামপন্থী হামেদিন সাব্বাহি পেয়েছে ২০.৭১%, মধ্যপন্থী ইসলামবাদী আবদুল মোনাইম আবুল ফুতুহ পেয়েছে ১৭.৪৭% এবং আরব লীগ প্রধান আমর মুসা পেয়েছে ১১.১২%।

    Announcing the results at an earlier press conference, election commission chief Farouq Sultan said no candidate had won a majority in the May 23-24 vote so the two with the highest votes, Mursi and Shafiq, would enter a run-off.

    The result has exposed a deep rift within the nation, which now will have to choose between a conservative Islamist and a symbol of the hated Mubarak regime.

    Sultan said Mursi had won with 24.77 percent of the votes, slightly ahead of Shafiq with 23.66 percent.

    Leftist candidate Hamdeen Sabbahi came third with 20.71 percent, ahead of moderate Islamist Abdul Moniem Abul Fotouh with 17.47 percent.

    Former foreign minister Amr Mussa was fifth, trailing with 11.12 percent.

    The commission put the official turnout in the vote — the first since the 2011 uprising that ousted Mubarak — at 46 percent of the 50 million Egyptians who were eligible to cast a ballot in the historic election.

    বিস্তারিত পড়ুন : Egyptians protest against election results; violence flares as Shafiq’s HQ torched।

    • 

      মাসুদ করিম - ২৯ মে ২০১২ (৬:৩৯ অপরাহ্ণ)

      এখন মধ্যজুনে দ্বিতীয় দফা রাষ্ট্রপতি নির্বাচনে ইসলামবাদী মুসলিম ব্রাদারহুড প্রার্থী মোহাম্মদ মুরসি এবং মুবারকপন্থী আহমেদ শফিকের মধ্যে ভোটের লড়াইয়ে তাহরির স্কয়ারের আন্দোলনকারীরা পড়বেন উভয় সঙ্কটে। তারা কাকে ভোট দেবেন, তারা তো ইসলামবাদী মুসলিম ব্রাদারহুডকে পছন্দ করেন না — তেমনি তারা তো মুবারককে উচ্ছেদের বিরুদ্ধেই আন্দোলন করেছিলেন। এই উভয় সঙ্কট থেকে বের হয়ে আসার একটাই পথ — এদের মধ্যে ‘মন্দের ভাল’টাকে খুঁজে বের করা।

      The night before the results of Egypt’s presidential election were announced last week I had dinner with a close friend. She had voted for the leftist Khaled Ali because she admired his message about the need for all Egyptians to make sacrifices in the name of economic and political renewal. Ali had never polled beyond the single digits and when I told my friend she was wasting her vote she replied that voting one’s conscience in an election was more important than the results.

      “Unless,” she added, “it turns out to be Morsi and Shafik.”

      Before the election it seemed anything was possible for New Egypt. Now, with the vindication of Old Egypt’s two most relentless warring tribes, it appears to be a good time to stock up on canned food and bottled water. Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party and Ahmed Shafik, a golem from the ancien regime, are twin reminders of Egyptians’ inability to once and for all scrape autocracy off the souls of their shoes. A contest like this requires only one name on the ballot: Least Bad.

      As the reality of the poll results sunk in I paid a call on Mohammed Habib, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood before he lost a power struggle for the top spot in late 2010. Habib had declared his support for Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh in the presidential race and he scorned the Ikhwan for fielding a candidate despite earlier assurances it would do no such thing. But he said it was vital that Morsi prevail over Shafik in the final round of voting next month. The Brotherhood had made many mistakes, he acknowledged, “but it has done nothing to compare with the crimes of the old regime.”

      Habib applauded the Ikhwan’s decision, announced that morning, that it would invite leftist Hamdeen Sabahi and Aboul Foutoh, who finished third and fourth respectively in the ballot, to serve as deputies in a coalition government. But the group should go a step further, he said, by assuring the nation that neither Brotherhood nor Freedom & Justice Party members would dominate the drafting later this summer of a new constitution. “Unless they do this,” Habib said, “Shafik will win and that would be a catastrophe for Egypt.”

      Habib was right, though I wonder if such a gesture will be enough to defuse the potential for violence between the two competing visions vying for Egypt’s future. Shafik owes his resurrection to the ham-fisted way in which the Brotherhood went about scaring one constituency after another with its habitual instinct for control – of the syndicates, of parliament and now the president’s office. Unless it can check its appetite, it will sustain an anti-Ikhwan alliance of secularists, Coptic Christians and pious Muslims uncomfortable with the prospect of single party rule. By making the election safe for a warmed-over cadre like Shafik, the Ikhwan dragged its thirty-year feud with Hosni Mubarak through the garden party of Egypt’s young democracy. It has a lot work to do before it can reclaim the public trust.

      বিস্তারিত পড়ুন : The polarized run-off between Ahmed Shafik and Mohammed Morsi leaves many Egyptians with grave concerns।

31. 

    মাসুদ করিম - ৩১ মে ২০১২ (৯:৪৭ পূর্বাহ্ণ)

    জনকণ্ঠে বোরহানউদ্দিন খান জাহাঙ্গীরের বুধবারের নিয়মিত কলাম মাঝেমাঝে হয়ে ওঠে অবশ্যপাঠ্য, কিন্তু গতকালেরটা ছিল তার চেয়েও বেশি, সমাজবিজ্ঞানীর সংকল্পের অতুলনীয় গদ্য।

    আমাদের দেশ এবং রাষ্ট্র আমাদের নির্বাসনে পাঠিয়েছে কি? নির্বাসনের অভিজ্ঞতা আমাদের ঘিরে ধরেছে। এই অভিজ্ঞতা যেমন আমাদের ইতিহাস ক্ষতবিক্ষত করেছে, তেমনি ক্ষতবিক্ষত ইতিহাস থেকে উধাও করে দিয়েছে মানবিকতাকে। মানবিকতা তো শূন্য শূন্য ধ্বনি নয়, শব্দ নয়, কিন্তু এখন মনে হয় আমাদের ইতিহাসে মানবিকতার কোন জায়গা নেই। আমরা ছুরি হাতে পরস্পরকে খুঁজছি। আমাদের রাজনীতি তাই। রাষ্ট্রের অভিজ্ঞতা কি সভ্যতার অন্বেষণ? আমরা সিরিয়া, প্যালেস্টাইন, বাংলাদেশ : এই ভাষাতেই কাঁদি। রাষ্ট্র হচ্ছে এক অন্বেষণ পানির দামে বিক্রি করার। কিন্তু পানিও আক্রা। পানি পাওয়া যায় না। আমরা অদ্ভুত দর্শক এই পৃথিবীর। এই শহরটি, এই গ্রামটি, এই নদীটি শীঘ্রই হারিয়ে যাবে।
    নির্বাসনের মধ্যে একটা গভীর বিষণœতা আছে। গ্রামের জমিজমা ছেড়ে শহরের বাসিন্দা হওয়া, জমিজমা বিকিয়ে দিয়ে শহরের বস্তির মধ্যে জীবনযাপন করার মধ্যে একটা বিষণœতা আছে, একই সঙ্গে আছে ক্রোধ, হেরে যাবার ক্রোধ। এই ক্রোধ থেকে, এই বিষণœতা থেকে তৈরি হয় রাজনীতির ক্রোধ। আমাদের ক্ষমতাহীন করে যারা ক্ষমতা দখল করেছে, সেই দখল অবৈধ। অবৈধ দখলের বিরুদ্ধে আমাদের লড়াই। আমরা ফিরে পেতে চাই আমাদের অধিকার। যারা অবৈধ ক্ষমতা দখলকারী, তারা অধিকার নিয়ে মাথা ঘামায় না। তাদের কাছে অধিকারের অর্থ স্বার্থরক্ষা করা। তারা সবকিছু ভেঙ্গে চুরমার করে দিলেও আইন ভঙ্গ করা হয় না, যেমন আদালতের মধ্যে কিংবা আদালত প্রাঙ্গণে মিছিল করলে, আদালতের নথিপত্র ছিঁড়ে ফেললে, অপরাধ হয় না। তারা এসব বর্বরতা করলে এসব মাপ করা হয়, তারা বিজয়ীর বেশে ফের অপরাধের কাছে ফিরে আসে। যারা ক্ষমতাহীন তাদের জন্য আছে নিয়মকানুন। যারা ক্ষমতাবান তাদের জন্য আছে কর্তৃত্ব, এই কর্তৃত্ব স্বীকৃত। এই স্বীকৃতি কি রাজনৈতিক নয়?
    আমাদের দেশে, রাজনীতিবিদ, ব্যবসায়ী, ব্যারিস্টার, বিচারক, পুলিশ সাহেব সবাই মিলে একটা পোস্টলিগ্যাল ব্যবস্থা তৈরি করতে সচেষ্ট, যে-ব্যবস্থায় তাদের জন্য আছে অর্থাৎ ক্ষমতাবানদের জন্য আছে জীবনযাপনের প্লুরাল ডেসটিনি, আর যারা ক্ষমতাহীন তাদের জন্য আছে অনিবার্য অপরাধের শাস্তি। এখানেই কার্যকর আইনের এবং আইন প্রয়োগের কলোনিয়াল এবং পোস্ট কলোনিয়াল অভিজ্ঞতা। আইন এভাবে ক্ষমতাবানদের ভিন্ন করে, সাধারণ মানুষ থেকে স্বতন্ত্র করে, আইন এভাবে সাম্রাজ্যবাদী ইতিহাসের অংশ হয়ে ওঠে। আইন প্রয়োগের মডেল, আইন ব্যাখ্যার মডেল, আমাদেরকে, আমরা যারা গ্রাম ছেড়ে, ভিটামাটি ছেড়ে, জমিজিরাত ছেড়ে, সামান্য বেতনে রুজি করতে বাধ্য হই, আমাদের কি আইন লিবারেট করছে? আমরা ক্ষমতাহীনতার মধ্যে ঘুরপাক খাচ্ছি। আমাদের চ্যালেঞ্জ আইনকে ডি-কলোনাইজড করতে পারছে না, আমাদের চ্যালেঞ্জ সত্ত্বেও আইনকে এখনও কলোনাইজড করে রেখেছে। ফস্টারের এ প্যাসেজ টু ইন্ডিয়া আশা করি রাজনীতিবিদরা, আইনজীবীরা, ব্যবসায়ীরা, বিচারকরা, পুলিশ সাহেবরা পড়েছেন। এই উপন্যাসের শেষ বাক্য হচ্ছে : না, এখনও না, এখানে না। এই উচ্চারণে বিদ্ধ আইনের অসহায়তা। আইন এখনও জাস্টিসের পক্ষে কাজ করছে না, আইন এ দেশে এখনও অসহায়। কতদিন পর্যন্ত আইনের অসহায়তা আমাদের দেখে যেতে হবে। আমাদের বলতে হবে, না সম্ভব না, এখনও সম্ভব না, অন্তত আমাদের দেশে না।
    আমরা বড়লোকের দেশে জমিহীন কৃষক হয়ে উঠেছি। আমাদের চারপাশের গ্রামীণ নিসর্গ আমাদের জীবনযাপনের নব্য-প্যাস্টোরাল পেইন্টিং এবং কবিতা আর জমিজিরাত ছাড়া কৃষকরা ভিড় জমাচ্ছেন নব্য-প্যাস্টোরাল পেইন্টিং এবং কবিতার নিসর্গ থেকে শহরে। ঢাকা থেকে ময়মনসিংহের রাস্তায়, ঢাকা থেকে আরিচার রাস্তায়, ঢাকা থেকে চট্টগ্রামের রাস্তায় চোখে ধরা দেয় এসব গ্রামীণ প্রাসাদ, বৃহৎ জানালাওয়ালা, টেরেসওয়ালা, লনওয়ালা নিখিলেশদের বাড়িঘর, জ্যামিতিক লাইনে সাজানো বৃক্ষরাজি, কন্ট্রোল ও কমান্ডের এক্সপ্রেসনা সুখ ছড়ানো চতুর্দিকে। এসব হচ্ছে ইতিহাসের অভিজ্ঞতা, যেভাবে ইতিহাস আমরা বাংলাদেশে তৈরি করে চলেছি, আমরা সবাই মিলে রাজনীতিবিদ ব্যারিস্টার ব্যবসায়ী বিচারক পুলিশ সাহেব মিলে। এই মেলবন্ধনই জাস্টিস, এই জাস্টিসের পক্ষে আমাদের সাফাই, সেজন্য আমাদের পক্ষে বলা সম্ভব : না, এখনও না, এখানে না। হায় ফস্টার, হায় লিবারেল ফস্টার।
    আমরা, যারা রাষ্ট্রে ও সমাজে হেরে চলেছি, আমরা আর কতদিন হারতে থাকব। ভ-ামি মানব। আর কতদিন ক্ষমতার কাছে নতজানু হয়ে থাকব। ক্ষমতার রাজনীতি আমাদেরকে ইতিহাস থেকে উচ্ছেদের যে ষড়যন্ত্র করেছে তার বিরুদ্ধে নাও ভাসাবার সময় এসেছে। হোসেন মিয়া, কুবের ভাই, কপিলা বোন : আমাদের নাও ভাসাবার সময় এসেছে।

    লিন্ক : বিপরীত স্রোতে নাও ভাসানো।