L’écrivain David Brunat rend hommage à Bernard Pivot, décédé le 6 mai. L’ancien animateur d’Apostrophes, explique-t-il, dégustait les mots comme on le fait des grands crus: avec science, respect et émotion.
Il y a quelques jours, sous la coupole de l’Institut de France, se tenait la finale de la Grande dictée du sport. Une dictée ? Bernard Pivot aurait pu en être. La dictée, c’est lui. Ou, à défaut, Mérimée. Mais non, pour l’occasion, c’était son ami Erik Orsenna qui tenait la baguette. À l’attention des jeunes athlètes de l’orthographe – écoliers, collégiens, lycéens – prenant part à cette belle compétition organisée dans le cadre de la «Grande cause nationale 2024» relative au sport et à l’activité physique, le facétieux Immortel donna lecture d’un texte de son cru qui mettait à l’honneur le marathon et la langue française.
Bernard Pivot, donc, aurait pu en être. Comme il aurait pu faire naguère son entrée sous la Coupole. Peu importe. L’Académie Goncourt lui avait rendu tous les honneurs. Surtout, le grand public adorait cet amoureux fou de la langue française, du bon goût comme du bon mot, du vocable juste, de l’idiome vivant, des idiosyncrasies réjouissantes, du «plaisir du texte», de l’harmonie des phrases, du rythme des pages, de l’âme d’un livre. Oui, tout cela.
On peut dire qu’avec lui le verbe prenait chair. D’autant plus qu’aux nourritures littéraires il en associait d’autres, terrestres et viticoles. La bonne chère n’était pas rendue à ses chères études. Le vin (surtout de Bourgogne), le sport (surtout le ballon rond) et la littérature: telles furent, sacrées à leur manière, incarnées, inséparables, les hypostases de sa Trinité personnelle. Le goût très vif qu’il avait pour la langue française épousait les joies du palais titillé par Bacchus et cette passion ardente – qu’il partageait, parmi d’autres, avec Albert Camus – pour le sport le plus populaire au monde: le football. Un mot qui n’est pas français, pour le coup. Messieurs les Anglais, marquez les premiers !
Il dégustait les mots comme on le fait des grands crus: avec science, respect et émotion. Il jouait avec la syntaxe comme d’autres dribblent avec un ballon. Tout en lui était dicté par le plaisir et une dévorante volonté de partage. Ses dictées, justement, font partie du patrimoine national. Ses émissions de télévision aussi, qu’il éleva au rang d’un art à destination du plus grand nombre, en faisant rimer à merveille qualité et popularité et en conjuguant virtuosement (Ce terme n’existe pas ? Eh bien il le devrait: employons-le donc pour l’occasion !) la liste longue comme une encyclopédie de ses invités illustres. Avec lui, le petit écran connut certaines de ses plus grandes et plus riches heures.
Bernard Pivot n’avait rien, on le sait, d’un maître componctueux, d’un professeur raide comme la justice toute relative des règles de grammaire. Pour lui comme pour son ami Erik Orsenna, cette dernière était une chanson douce. À ses yeux, toute bonne littérature était musique et art majuscule. Faite pour être écoutée, interprétée, partagée, croquée, bue, pétrie, et surtout commentée ad libitum. Elle était la source inépuisable d’une douce ivresse. Il savait nous faire sentir les parfums subtils ou capiteux de la langue française. Il savait honorer comme nul autre ses ouvriers, ses artisans, ses travailleurs obscurs ou glorieux: les écrivains.
Il savait, comme Jean Prévost, que «le sport aussi a ses humanités». Et que la culture de la vigne, à l’instar de la taille des mots, est une expression de la civilisation. Bernard Pivot a admirablement cultivé son jardin littéraire, en nous invitant avec enthousiasme à en fouler à ses côtés les innombrables allées, couverts, bosquets, futaies, taillis, clairières et autres avenues majestueuses. Merci à lui, merci à jamais. Nous pleurons son départ mais nous savons qu’il songe déjà à une nouvelle émission d’outre-tombe et qu’il affûte ses crayons pour composer de bonnes dictées au paradis des amoureux de la langue et des auteurs. Cette sorte d’amour n’est-elle pas éternelle ?
le lien : «Bernard Pivot, la douce ivresse des mots»
Mort de Bernard Pivot : l’hommage d’un linguiste (Figaro Live)
IMDb: Bernard Pivot(1935-2024)
Larousse : Bernard Pivot, Journaliste et critique français (Lyon 1935-Neuilly-sur-Seine 2024).
এবারের পহেলা বৈশাখের আহারে নিরামিষকে কম প্রধান্য দেয়া হয়েছে কারণ ভারতের রাজনীতিতে নমোপক্ষ বাংলার আমিষ খাবারকে কটাক্ষ করেছে। এবারের আহারে আমিষকে উচ্চকিত করা হয়েছে। আমিষ খাবার ভাল ভাবে নিতে পারলে এটা শুধু স্বাস্থ্যসম্মতই নয় এটা বিশেষ ভাবে স্বাস্থ্যপ্রদ। বাংলা আহার এক দিন অনন্য উচ্চতায় যাবে এবং সেদিন সত্যিই আমি ভাবব একটু হলেও আমার এই ব্লগপোস্টগুলো পাঠকের দৃষ্টিগ্রাহ্য হবে।
ভোরে
কুমড়ো ভাজি
রুই মাছ ভাজা
গরুর মাংসের তরকারি
পান্তা ভাত
কাঁচা পেঁয়াজ
কাঁচা মরিচ
সুগন্ধি লেবু
সকালে
পরোটা
বাঁধাকপি ভাজি
গরুর মাংসের তরকারি
চা
দুপুরে
গরুর মাংসের তরকারির ঝোল সহযোগে মুড়ি
ডাবের জল
বিকেলে
পাউরুটি মোজারেলা চিজ ও স্টেক (পুরোটাই বাঙালি ধরনে করা)
কোকাকোলা
সন্ধ্যায়
কাঁচা বাদাম সেদ্ধ
৩৩০ মিলি বিয়ার
বিবিধ বাদাম
When Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, Alexandra Prokopenko quit her job at the Russian Central Bank. In an interview, she explains why the Russian president’s economic policy is so successful. And what the West could do that would really harm the Kremlin.
DER SPIEGEL: Ms. Prokopenko, Russian President Vladimir Putin has radicalized his domestic and foreign policy in recent years, while his economic policy has remained surprisingly pragmatic and constant. Why is that?
Prokopenko: Putin has clearly understood that great empires such as the Czarist Empire and the Soviet Union perished due to poor economic management. That is why he makes sure that the management of the Russian economy is as non–ideological as possible and remains in the hands of experts. Putin trusts them completely and does not interfere in the operational business.
DER SPIEGEL: Russia’s good growth figures have long been doubted. What is the real situation?
Prokopenko: The official figures largely correspond to reality. The economic situation is not great, not terrible. The economy grew significantly last year. On the other hand, however, we are seeing clear signs that the Russian economy is overheating.
DER SPIEGEL: What does that mean?
Prokopenko: The economy has grown faster than its potential actually allows. The labor market is at its limit, as good as empty. Unemployment is at a record low. This shortage of skilled labor is already having a negative impact on production. In short, it is an unhealthy situation and the Russian economy does not have the necessary resources to expand so rapidly in the long term. Exports are also unlikely to expand any further. If we look at the statistics, we can also see that a large part of last year’s growth was attributable to defense-related industries. This ranges from the metal industry to textile processing, which produces uniforms on a massive scale.
DER SPIEGEL: Could this affect the Russian economy and Russia’s ability to wage war?
Prokopenko: We keep seeing local problems. The egg crisis last year was one example. There are always acute staff shortages or local bottlenecks in the supply of certain foods to the population. This is caused by logistics chains that are disrupted by the sanctions. However, they are usually re-established. But today they have to be longer and more complex than in the past. This also means: more expensive. At the moment, this does not look particularly threatening. In the medium- to long term, however, this development is not sustainable.
DER SPIEGEL: Is that a problem for Putin’s warfare?
Prokopenko: The time horizon of 12 to 18 months is decisive for developments on the battlefield, and I don’t see any significant economic problems for Russia.
DER SPIEGEL: Nevertheless, you speak of “Putin’s trilemma.” What do you mean by that?
Prokopenko: He has three main tasks: Putin must continue to finance the war. At the same time, the standard of living of the general population must not deteriorate drastically. Thirdly, it must ensure that the economy does not lose its macroeconomic balance. It will be difficult to fulfill all three tasks at the same time. They contradict each other. Stability requires low inflation. In order to keep the inflation rate in check, government spending would have to be cut. But that is not possible because of the cost of the war.
DER SPIEGEL: Citizens don’t seem to notice a dramatic fall in living standards.
Prokopenko: It’s a gradual process. Take a look at the car market: You can buy cars in Russia again, but they now generally come from Chinese rather than Western brands. Most of these vehicles are also imported from China and are no longer built by VW or Toyota in Russian factories. In order to maintain the standard of living in the country, sooner or later certain decisions will have to be made, including investments. Then the Kremlin will have to say which task is more important to it.
DER SPIEGEL: You used to work at Russia’s central bank until the start of Russia’s large-scale attack in 2022. Many of your former colleagues are continuing – and thus keeping Russia’s war machine running. Yet some representatives of the Central Bank and the Economics Ministry were once considered liberals. Why is this “economic bloc” so reliable in its support of the regime?
Prokopenko: The “economic bloc” doesn’t just support the Putin regime. It is an integral part of the system, just like its other pillars, such as the security services. Of course, its fundamental nature is interesting. The “economic bloc” is made of different material than the security bloc. In fact, the economists have proven to be more capable and reliable than the generals on the battlefield.
DER SPIEGEL: What do you mean by that?
Prokopenko: Let’s look on the Russian actions after the Ukrainian counteroffensive. It took the Russian army a few months and thousands of dead and wounded to conquer the village of Avdiivka in eastern Ukraine. Apart from that, there were hardly any successes on the battlefield. In the area of economic policy, on the other hand, the defense measures were extremely successful, everything that has been described as the “Fortress Russia” strategy.
DER SPIEGEL: You are referring to the idea of making Russia’s economy as invulnerable as possible to external pressure. How has that been achieved?
Prokopenko: Of course, it has only been partially successful, the sanctions are definitely affecting the Russian economy. However, fundamental stability has been maintained. And that has a lot to do with the earlier design of Russian economic policy, as it had already developed many years before the war. It allowed the Kremlin to rapidly reorganize the country for war. I observe all of this with a certain pang in my heart: the war and the sanctions have devalued many of the economic policy institutions and principles that an entire generation of economic policymakers helped to build.
DER SPIEGEL: Which ones?
Prokopenko: A vivid example is the Moscow financial center, which had actually developed extremely well. In the years before the war began, it had become increasingly interesting for many investors from other emerging countries. Today, there is nothing left of it. There are no more foreign investors, hardly any normal trade. Sure, formally this market still exists. But it has as much to do with a real trading center as a children’s shop game has to do with a supermarket. Another example is the so–called “budget rule” …
DER SPIEGEL: … a kind of Russian spending brake to limit government spending.
Prokopenko: It has allowed Russia to save up a large financial safety buffer. This was made possible by transfers from the oil and gas business to the National Welfare Fund, but also by prescribed restrictions on government spending. Since 2018, the budget rule has prevented Moscow from inflating the state budget. Russia therefore entered the war with extremely solid state finances. This allowed the Kremlin to quickly divert a lot of money into armaments.
DER SPIEGEL: But that was not the original goal. The idea was to pursue a clever economic policy and save money for a rainy day. Shouldn’t more economic policy decision–makers therefore have thrown in the towel?
Prokopenko: I don’t think it’s particularly surprising that many stay. In the United States, we didn’t experience a mass exodus from government agencies during the Vietnam War and the growing criticism of it.
DER SPIEGEL: Are you still in contact with your former colleagues? How strong is the support for the war there?
Prokopenko: If people continue their work, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they support the war. In any case, I haven’t met anyone among my former colleagues who would be in favor of this war and say: Yes, we’re doing everything right! We just need to kill more Ukrainians and really devastate the Ukrainian economy. There is no such thing there.
DER SPIEGEL: Are you talking about the Central Bank now?
Prokopenko: I have not heard any such statements from the Central Bank or the Finance Ministry, or even from the Russian government as a whole.
DER SPIEGEL: But these people are not against the war either.
Prokopenko: I don’t perceive any enthusiasm for war in the bureaucracy or within the Russian business world. There is just this enthusiasm for war that we read about in the Russian official media. I don’t think it is authentic at its core. This broad coalition among the Russian population, which allegedly actively wants the war, does not exist. It’s an invention.
DER SPIEGEL: Let me ask you again: Wouldn’t many more civil servants have to resign?
Prokopenko: Like me, some have left. But please bear in mind that people are in different life situations. For some, it is easier to burn all bridges. After the war began, the secret services started holding preventive talks at the Central Bank and the ministries. They went along the following lines: “If you resign, we will have your deputies thrown in prison or there will be other unpleasantness.” What’s more: In such large apparatuses, a resignation, even if it is demonstrative, changes little. For many, it is also difficult to find another position: Senior employees have been banned from leaving the country because they had access to classified documents. There are reports that some officials had to hand in their passports.
DER SPIEGEL: How many people are we talking about? Probably only a few top civil servants.
Prokopenko: No, it affects very broad groups of employees. We also see something similar in large Russian companies: There are employees who may not even formally come into contact with classified information. Nevertheless, they are given instructions that they must provide information about planned trips abroad in good time. For many, this is received exactly as it is intended: as half a threat, half a ban. So, the mood among many civil servants and managers is bad, they don’t feel safe. Even in this situation, it is an enormous risk to demonstratively oppose the system. Not everyone is capable of doing this. And let’s be honest: Where are these people supposed to go today? Anyone who has worked for the Russian state will not find a job anywhere except within the Russian Federation. Even if a person demonstratively declares their resignation, they can’t expect to be able to pursue a career abroad again.
DER SPIEGEL: Are you talking about people against whom personal sanctions have been imposed?
Prokopenko: No, not at all. I also mean normal civil servants. Some of them are excellently trained and capable people with expertise that is internationally recognized. The few who have decided to resign have major problems. They find it extremely difficult to find a job in academia. They’re not wanted in the consulting business, not even in international organizations. And I’ll say it quite openly: Perhaps more people in Russia would make a different choice if they saw a way out. But the West doesn’t offer them one.
DER SPIEGEL: What is your general assessment of the West’s sanctions policy?
Prokopenko: There is no exit option. Why are no conditions being set? Distance yourself from the regime, pay in money for Ukraine here – and then the sanctions will be weakened or lifted. But there is no such offer. This also applies to many Russian businesspeople: Their assets are frozen, they can no longer travel. They have become pariahs of the international system. There is only Putin left, and he says: You stay with me. It may be that Putin is the devil – but for many, he is a devil that they know how to deal with. Added to this is the increasing repression and growing fear within Russia. All of this is fueling fatalism.
DER SPIEGEL: You once spoke of “moral sanctions” against all Russians. What do you mean by that?
Prokopenko: These are sanctions that have not been formalized at all, but which affect all Russians, regardless of whether they are civil servants or have left the country in protest. Every holder of a Russian passport in Berlin can tell you a thing or two about it: It is enormously difficult even for ordinary Russians to open an account in Germany, almost impossible. This is not only annoying for those affected: It also cements the narrative of Russian propaganda that Russians are being persecuted abroad across the board and that the West is pursuing anti-Russian propaganda.
DER SPIEGEL: Should the West change its sanctions policy?
Prokopenko: I think we have now reached a point where we can clearly see that the measures taken so far are not working as intended. I think it wouldn’t hurt to experiment a little. Unfortunately, the EU has so far done the opposite: It is simply expanding its register of banned goods and sanctioned persons. Will this throw the Russian economy off course? Of course not.
DER SPIEGEL: What do you suggest?
Prokopenko: A more intelligent approach: Instead of sealing off the West from Russian money, we could, on the contrary, try to stimulate the outflow of capital from Russia. Every billion less in Russia means less support for the war machine. Even at a time when the Russian Central Bank had already introduced capital controls, tens of billions of dollars were still flowing abroad. Why shouldn’t the West encourage such movements instead of fighting them as it does now? I believe it is time for the West to do everything it can to encourage both the brain drain and capital flight from Russia. That would undermine Putin’s regime. It would be time to slowly bleed Russia’s economy dry.
DER SPIEGEL: Hasn’t the wave of emigration of critically minded Russians actually stabilized the political system in Russia?
Prokopenko: The Kremlin talks about traitors and always pretends that it doesn’t mind the mass exodus. But that’s not true. That’s why the regime is doing everything it can to prevent even more people from going abroad.
Alexandra Prokopenko works in Berlin at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center and the Center for East European and International Studies (ZOiS). She previously served as an advisor to the Russian Central Bank in Moscow. In March 2022, Prokopenko handed in her notice in protest against the war.
তো ততদিনে পাঁচ সহস্রাধিক দাগ লেখা হয়ে যাবে, যদি নিয়মিত আমি ২০৩০ সাল পর্যন্ত দাগ লিখে যেতে পারি। এবং তখন মানে ২০৩১ সাল থেকে আমি আর দাগ লিখব না। এটা এখনকার সিদ্ধান্ত হয়ে গেছে, পরবর্তীতে কী হবে না হবে, তার সাথে আজকের এই সিদ্ধান্তের আর কোনো সম্পর্ক থাকবে না।
তবে ‘দশ সহস্রাধিক দাগ সম্পন্নের খবর‘ আর হবে না, এটা এখন এই সিদ্ধান্তের পর নিশ্চিত।
ও, হ্যাঁ, ২৭০০+ দাগ লেখা হয়ে যাওয়ার পর এই সিদ্ধান্ত কেন নিলাম, জানি না।
Protests led by farmers have been roiling Europe for months. In Belgium, Germany, Romania, the Netherlands, Poland, and France, farmers—armed with grievances ranging from subsidized Ukrainian grain imports to the EU-Mercosur trade deal and falling prices—have been taking to the streets, blocking traffic, and pelting the European parliament with eggs.
In the European halls of power, right-wing parties are taking note. In the Netherlands, populist and conservative parties have protested the ammonia tax imposed on the nation’s livestock. In Italy, figures in the ruling hard-right League and Brothers of Italy coalition have denounced EU decarbonization policies as hurting both consumers and industries. In France, Marine Le Pen, who ran for president as the National Rally candidate in the last election, is fighting against diesel taxes and for greater energy subsidies. The crystallization of a robust anti-climate coalition in the European Parliament is a real possibility after elections in June.
The farmers’ protests are a powerful reminder that the challenge to achieve “net zero” isn’t simply a technical one, but a political one. Unable to form or mobilize coalitions with working and middle classes, parties of the left have been locked out of power in much of the continent. Meanwhile, fossil-fuel interests have mobilized cross-class coalitions for militarized adaptation.
The socioeconomic risks of rebellion are not lost on incumbent governments in the global North and South. In the energy crisis of 2022–2023, European governments chose to cut fuel taxes and subsidize citizens’ energy bills on an enormous scale. Southern governments, for their part, continue to resist IMF’s consistent policy advice that they should stop supporting their populations with fossil-fuel, food, and agricultural subsidies.
Why is it so hard to stitch together a cross-class coalition for climate policy? One part of the answer may be that, for generations, electorates have been sold a political vision of modernity that is centered on the carbon economy. Legitimizing decarbonization with powerful electoral mandates to move sclerotic parliaments will require political leaders to persuade voters not just of its necessity, but also its desirability. It can’t just be a recipe for pain and sacrifice. The investment-based programs will have to differ from country to country. Worryingly, this is a task in which leaders in Europe and beyond are coming up drastically short.
In this interview, climate researcher Chris Shaw, author of The Two Degrees Dangerous Limit for Climate Change and most recently Liberalism and the Challenge of Climate Change, analyzes how our understanding of climate change has been shaped by liberalism’s limits, and why our dominant politics lacks answers for decarbonization.
Tim Sahay: What is it about liberalism that makes it particularly unsuited to dealing with the climate challenge?
Chris Shaw: “There is no society,” as Margaret Thatcher put it. Hence the focus on individual change and market solutions in liberalism that guards against any systemic change.
Fossil energy provides individuals with a great deal of independence from other people. Fossil fuels give individuals the ability to make choices and buy items without relying on others. One doesn’t have to work as part of a group to hunt for food each day. Instead I can go on my own in my car down to the supermarket and buy what I want. That is a lot easier than having to work with my neighbors to build a different world. And one’s consumption can be used as proof of one’s status. So fossil fuel-enabled individualism in the West is seen as sacrosanct, as it enables freedom from constraints of social obligations.
It is very difficult to bring about climate action in a world that prioritizes individuals and in which we are so alienated from each other. Technology is intimately related to markets; one can define it as the practical application of science in the service of markets. I argue, much like the sociologist and philosopher Jacques Ellul, that technology changes culture, and the introduction of new technologies hinders the emergence of other ways of thinking and acting on climate change.
TS: A lot of the language around climate policy is about “win-win” growth: everyone will be better off in the green transition, we’re told. It’s a universalizing discourse. But by now it is well understood that the impacts of climate change and the core responsibility of emissions are highly unequal. Why has this realization taken so long to emerge?
CS: Our scientific understanding of climate change emerged in the late-twentieth century, primarily in the institutions of the global North, which in turn promoted a globalized picture of climate change and denied the differentiated dimensions of the crisis. At its core was the idea that there is a single dangerous limit and that climate change is the same whoever and wherever you are. This is a conception that does not acknowledge climate change as a historical phenomenon. Instead, it’s one that is depoliticized, viewed purely on the basis of the science and targets.
TS: In what ways have working-class perspectives been ignored in discussions about climate change? What does a positive vision of climate led by the working class look like?
CS: What is the most that a working-class person could hope for from a net-zero future? At present, in the vision being broadly promoted, it’s the same hard work, the same exploitation, but with a heat pump instead of a gas boiler. What do people fight and die for? They don’t fight and die for a fluorescent-lit strip mall. They don’t go and die to have central heating. Much of the discourse around net zero seeks to replicate all the comforts of middle-class life—for the middle class. That it needs the working class to come on board and do their bit to achieve it is one of many hypocrisies.
Four years ago, I went to a meeting in Brussels about climate justice. People there were shitting themselves because of the Yellow Vest protests in France. Their conclusion from the uprisings was that they needed to at least talk about climate in a way that met some of working-class concerns—but that’s all. Middle-class protests are fine—Fridays for Future, that’s great, because it’s aligned with the net-zero agenda. The “just transition” idea may have its roots in the labor movement, but here in Europe it’s become more of a liberal shibboleth, and I don’t hear working-class people talk about a just transition.
The vision presented is basically: “this world, but without the emissions.” But there is just no understanding of working class experience. It’s all, “Come on, care! Be concerned about this heat pump, get behind dropping meat from your diet one day a week, be part of this transformation.” And for what? The same as now. Nothing changed about the status quo, the structures, the norms, what it’s possible to hope for and aspire to.
This creates a space for the fascists and the right to jump in and say, “the liberals have got nothing for you, and we have; they’ve ruined it for you.”
TS: One big socio-economic trend of the last fifty years has been the divide between those with college degrees and those with a high school education. Thanks to various management techniques and algorithms, those in the latter group are seeing a massive decline in their control and autonomy at work. Think of the example of an Amazon delivery worker who, rather than being given the freedom to deliver their packages according to their own know-how, is controlled by an algorithm that demands that these packages are delivered in the most efficient way possible. How does this question of working-class control and autonomy relate to climate and the broader threat of disempowering and deskilling people?
CS: Absolutely correct. Surveys we’ve done have asked, what is an attractive benefit of green jobs? Working-class respondents don’t rate “green jobs” as such very highly. If a green job is the same Amazon gig but with more electric vehicles, that’s of limited appeal. Nothing of any real import is changed. The deskilling, the decreasing control over one’s work—that sense of a lack of freedom provides leverage for the right to attack net-zero policies.
The left and center left have very little to say about freedom, which is a big problem. If acting on climate change means sacrificing what little freedom I have left, then what value is that to me? I hear this a lot among the working class; this idea that the few remaining freedoms are going to be taken away from them by the same credentialled class.
This is connected to the question of place. About half the American adult population still lives within fifteen miles of their parents. I know plenty of people here in the UK for whom that’s the norm. For the middle class, in contrast, it’s normal to uproot oneself and go where the work is; place doesn’t matter. But it does matter to the working class. They understand climate change very much in terms of what’s happening to the trees in my street, what’s happening to the river down the road. This doesn’t help progress on climate change, but it reveals that it’s those immediate experiences of the environment rather than global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that affect people’s ideas about climate. There’s a big divide between this strong, long standing connection with place and those working at the UN, IPCC, World Bank, concerned with the global.
Ts: What kind of shift has taken place in climate politics over the last three or four years? Lately, every election seems to be a climate election, with governments throwing enormous amounts of money and even coercive tools of economic statecraft at the problem. How should we make sense of these developments?
CS: States have taken, in relative terms, dramatic action in the name of climate (and competition). But the politics are still fragile. I think a big part of this is that the language of climate change remains an elite, technical language. It is opaque and impenetrable to most people, and it excludes the working class. The imperative political question is: how do we make that discussion about our future accessible to, and inclusive of, a broader range of voices?
My belief is that societies cannot organize effectively to cope with the impacts of climate change without a shared understanding of the future that awaits. Currently, representations of the net-zero future don’t do that. They are a denial of the best of human nature. They shut down the possibility of imagining something different in favor of a fantasy of more of the same, minus catastrophic climate change. With a better, shared understanding of the world we’re moving toward, we can better organize ourselves to live in that world, whatever that might mean, whatever that might look like.
TS: Your book, Liberalism and the Challenge of Climate Change, came out last year. Could you tell us how you came to write this book?
CS: People with my background don’t really belong in the world that I find myself in—a middle class, privileged world of climate campaigning. My working-class background—broken family, no history of university education, lots of manual labor jobs—has given me an outsider’s perspective. I wasn’t brought up to expect that the world would respond to my desires. I wasn’t brought up to have much sense of agency; the world does stuff to me, I don’t do stuff to the world.
My book argues that the language and ideas used to address climate change are shaped by power relations—and that this language inadvertently accelerates the problem.
I must also own up to the anger that motivated my book. I believe Cormac McCarthy said that people write instead of blowing up the world. The anger is in part a product of working-class resentment against the middle class who is complacent about the status quo, and vicious when its privilege is threatened. The anger is also about being lied to. The lie being that the liberal middle classes of the global North are the carriers of the light, the masters of our future, the saviors of humanity. But liberalism is now destroying the foundations of life.
from
Till the mid-1970s, cinema was the only popular visual medium in India and the only strong visual connect we had was with film stars who sang in borrowed voices. So, with exceptions like Kishore Kumar, who was also an actor, how would we put faces to the voices that guided our lives? Fortunately, we had radio. And announcers—the word ‘radio jockey’ was yet to be in used in the country. Inasmuch, Mahalaya in Bengal would be incomplete without the voice of Birendra Krishna Bhadra. People used to tune in to listen to radio newscasters Surajit Sen, Melville de Mellow, or Barun Haldar; so strong was their presence in our lives. Jasdev Singh and Sushil Doshi’s cricket commentary on the radio made non-Hindi speakers comfortable with colloquial Hindi in an unimposing way.
And then there was Ameen Sayani.
In the ’60s and ’70s, there were radio announcers who would do a roll call of the credits before a song played, and then there was Sayani who didn’t merely announce the names of the songs or films but presented them and appreciated the song’s peculiarities too. Just the way a good radio cricket commentator could create visuals of a game in the minds of the listener, Sayani’s presentations rang like thunderous ovations for each song.
He could connect with people naturally. “Aap Hindi bahut acchi bolte hain,”he said to us, though our mother tongue wasn’t Hindi. This warm statement opened doors for introductions and conversations. To the broadcaster, good performance was key—not only in his film commercials and radio announcements but also in the highly competitive Bournvita Quiz Contest that he hosted every Sunday afternoon. There were no “wrong answers”, only “I’m afraid not” responses before the question passed to the next team. Sayani was the quintessential presenter and storyteller who would never permit the intensity of a competition to rob the enjoyment of it all.
With his long-tailed “Ji haaaan” tapering off with a slight nasality, and his salutation “Behno aur bhaiyon”, Sayani’s voice was inimitable — and the most imitated one. In 2012 in Mumbai, we heard a familiar recorded voice in a vada pav shop. It was a commendable imitation of Sayani’s voice, but the vada pav was more original.
A pioneer in many ways
Throughout his career in radio, Sayani spoke in Hindustani, which is surprising, as the broadcaster came from a family that spoke only Gujarati and Urdu. He studied in an English medium school and later at St. Xavier’s College, Bombay, where he honed his English-speaking skills. But he excelled in Hindustani in his iconic radio programme Binaca Geetmala, for which he is widely remembered.The first superstar of radio service in India, Sayani would endorse products, engage with filmmakers for promotions, play a role or two (as in the 1965 movie Bhoot Bungla), and announce the film cast (for the 1965 film Teen Devian). He would also be offered to write dialogues, something he refused to venture into after an unsatisfactory attempt in Sawan Kumar’s Hawas (1974).
Sayani’s greatest achievement was popularising Hindi film music across India by instilling a sense of competition not only within the music fraternity but also among listeners. In a country where the idea of a ‘countdown’ or song rankings was largely unknown, Sayani stack-ranked popular Hindi film songs in Binaca Geetmala, probably inspired by the billboards in the United States. That made him stand out in the radio industry. He started the practice in 1954, and it took some time for listeners to gauge what song rankings meant. Once they understood how it worked, all hell broke loose: Thousands of postcards were sent to the channel with song requests via “listeners’ clubs”; some were genuine, some were not. These clubs were like fan groups obsessed with imaginary rivalries between singers and composers. Needless to say, the programme was the most awaited one every week.
Paan and cigarette shops in towns, and panchayat offices in villages, would see huge crowds with self-anointed experts debating the selection or exclusion of a particular song or a set of songs. The annual countdown was like an event where people who did not have radio sets would visit friends and relatives who had one. Binaca Geetmala turned more into a celebration of the glamour quotient of a song. Between 8 and 9 pm every Wednesday when the programme was aired, everyone sat glued to their radio sets. The concept of ‘prime time’ on radio was born.
from THEPRINT, link here.
TRIBUTE: So long, Ameen Sahib, your voice was my window to the world of films
Sunday afternoons, between homework, I would be glued to that black transistor listening to Ameen Sayani speak about the latest Hindi film release, writes this Bengali who spent his childhood in Haryana
A black Phillips transistor that my father brought one evening on his way home from the factory he worked at was for years my only window to any form of entertainment.
The black and white Televista TV set we purchased in 1985 could not replace it. Not till the transistor fell completely silent, exactly when I can’t remember now. And along with it went the voice, a voice that introduced me to the magical world of cinema. Hindi cinema to be precise, which was mostly looked down upon.
That voice was Ameen Sayani’s.
“Medium wave do sau unnees teen meter, yaani ek hazar teen sau atsath kilohertz par yeh Vividh Bharti ki vigyapan prasaran sewa ka Dilli Kendra hai. Aaiye ab sunte hain prayojit karyakaram,” after which Ameen Sayani would take over.
Those “prayojit karyakrams (sponsored programmes)” on Sunday afternoons were my window to Hindi films. Though my parents were regular film-goers and I often accompanied them, but for a lower-middle class family to watch each and every new release in the eighties was not an easy task.
Ameen Sayani’s narration helped me imagine how the action unravelled on the screen for all those unseen films which I went to see much later as an adult. While many would and probably still call Hindi cinema’s biggest superstar “Amitabachchan”, I learnt to pronounce the name as Amitabh Bachchan from Ameen sahib. For, he would always stretch the “taa” for dramatic effect.
Those were the early 1980s (I was born during the Emergency). Television sets were still a luxury for most households across India. Radios and transistors were the most popular source of entertainment.
My childhood and early youth were spent in a small industrial town in Haryana bordering Delhi. There were many single-screen theatres in the township, made for refugees coming from Punjab, and turned home for people from all over the country.
Me, still a young boy, didn’t know the voice, or anything about the man who introduced me to the world of Hindi cinema, instilled a love, a fascination and an obsession. Apart from films, the characters from Diamond Comics created by cartoonist Pran, also occupied a large space of the airwave on those Sundays.
Post mangsho-bhaat, Sunday afternoons, between homework, I would be glued to that black transistor listening to Ameen Sayani speak about the latest Hindi film release, like Sharaabi for instance (which I recall listening to), or an upcoming one in about 15 minutes or so. Most of the other films featured have slipped through the tricky cracks of memory. The radio ads for Mugli Gutti 555, Mohan Ghee and some others have somehow stayed on. Others I would need some help to recall today.
In those days, film promotions (I doubt if it was called so) had very limited options. There were the advertisements in newspapers, hand-drawn posters pasted all over towns and cities on billboards, any wall available, the bi-weekly Chitrahaar (every Wednesday and Friday on Delhi Doordarshan) that would play at least a couple of new songs and Ameen Sayani’s voice on Vividh Bharati.
He would introduce a film with the phrase “banner parcham-tale” which I later learnt was a reference to the producer. Then he would go on to narrate a bit of the film’s story mixed with dialogues and some songs, talk about the actors, the lyricist, music director and the director. He would end each programme with a cliffhanger, a question mark on what I later learnt while writing screenplays was the quest of the film’s hero, whether he will succeed. Yes, he would encourage his listeners to watch the film on the big screen.
A school student like me could only watch one or two in a year on the screen. His famous “behenon aur bhaiyon” did not include kids like me.
“Chunanche jab Bharti ne suna…” I remember him talking about the 1990 release Azad Desh ke Ghulam, referring to the female lead played by Rekha. Many years later I learnt the meaning of Chunanche and an RD Burman composition made me aware Chunanche should not be used along with Goya ke.
I remember an episode of a mock-court proceeding aired on Vividh Bharati, called Filmi Muqaddama, sponsored by the textile brand S Kumar, where he chided a young Anu Malik for not singing more often.
Then I had no idea what cinema would eventually come to mean to me. And I owe a great deal of it to Ameen Sayani, a man I never met, even though I lived in Mumbai. As a child, I was so drawn into the world of Hindi films that I kept a notebook where I would write any one piece of dialogue from a film that I got to see on a neighbour’s television set or our own one later, using a sketch pen, each letter with a different colour.
Sadly, an uncle of mine found that notebook and it was confiscated. Much later in my diaries I started writing down the lyrics of old Hindi film songs.
In the Haryana town that I grew up, I have grave doubts if anyone knew the name of Luis Bunuel or Francois Truffaut or Dario Argento or Sam Peckinpah. I certainly didn’t. I had no idea about world cinema then. One window led to another. One seed led to another. And I owe that first love, possibly the only love of my life, to Ameen Sayani.
So long, Ameen sahib.
The legacy of Ameen Sayani, the golden voice of India
On Tuesday, Ameen Sayani, the man who revolutionized radio presentation and perhaps became its most recognizable voice, passed away after suffering a cardiac arrest in his Mumbai home.
In this episode, we take a look at Ameen Sayani’s iconic career and hear from veteran singer Usha Uthup, filmmaker Saeed Mirza, and Rajya Sabha MP Derek O’Brien, who remember the radio legend very fondly.
But to talk about his career we are first joined by Indian Express’ Suanshu Khurana.
Hosted by Niharika Nanda
Written and Produced by Shashank Bhargava and Niharika Nanda
Edited and Mixed by Suresh Pawar
কয়েক দিন আগে যখন জানতে পারলাম ফেসবুকের ২০ বছর হয়ে গেল, তখন থেকে মাথায় ঘুরতে থাকল, এমনও তো দিন ছিল যখন ফেসবুকে স্ট্যাটাস ছাড়া কোনো দিনই অতিক্রান্ত হত না, তখন এই বুকে ফুসবুক ছিল, আর গত ৫টা বছর এই বুক থেকে ফেসবুকটা যে নামিয়ে রাখলাম, মাঝে মাঝে মনে হয় এমনটা পারব তা ভাবতেও পারতাম না একসময়, কিন্তু একটা ব্যাপার আমি খোলাখুলি করে রেখেছি নিজের ফেসবুক অ্যাকাউন্টটা বন্ধ করে দিইনি, সবার জন্য উন্মুক্ত করে রেখেছি, এবং এটাও মেনে নিয়েছি লেখক হিসেবে masud.karim.52ও আমার একটি বই — থাকুক, পড়ুক এই বই সবাই ফেসবুকে গিয়ে, জানুক পাঠকেরা একসময় এই বুকে ফেসবুক ছিল, আমি আমার ফেসবুককে একটা বই বানিয়ে রেখেছি, ২০১১ থেকে ২০১৮ এই আট বছর প্রবল ভাবে ছিলাম ফেসবুকে দিনে দিনে একটা বই বানিয়ে নেয়ার পরিশ্রমে।
কী পড়বেন পাঠকেরা আমার ফেসবুকে, দেখুন তিনটি বিষয় খুব ভালই পাবেন পাঠকেরা সেখানে, আমার বাংলাদেশ তার রাজনীতি সংস্কৃতি ও ধর্ম এই তিনটি বিষয়ে আটটি বছরের আমার নানাদিনের ভাবনাচিন্তারাশি খুব উদ্ভাসিতই হয়ে উঠবে পাঠকের কাছে, আমার সেদিন আর নেই কিন্তু আমার ৪০ বছর থেকে ৪৭ বছরের অনেকগুলো দিনের রাজনীতি সংস্কৃতি ও ধর্ম বিষয়ক নানান স্ট্যাটাসে এই তিন বিষয়ের এটা সামগ্রিক বই পড়তে পারবেন পাঠক masud.karim.52এ ভ্রমণ করে।
আবার আমার ব্যক্তিগত ব্লগসাইটেও ওই ফেসবুককে যথেষ্ট গুরুত্ব দিয়ে গ্রন্থিত করা হয়েছে :
দুহাজারপনেরো সালের আমার কিছু ফেসবুক স্ট্যাটাস
স্ট্যাটাস বাণ : সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১২ – জুলাই ২০১৩
স্ট্যাটাস বাণ : আগস্ট ২০১৩ – জানুয়ারি ২০১৪
Israel’s security is an element of Germany’s “reason of state,” Chancellor Angela Merkel famously stated. It is a formulation that has since been adopted by the country’s leading politicians. But what does it mean? And where did it come from?
Chancellor Olaf Scholz was wearing black when he stepped in front of Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag, on October 12 of last year. Five days after the massacre perpetrated by Hamas, he said that the hearts of all Germans were “heavy in the face of the suffering, the terror, the hate and the contempt for human lives” that had been visited upon Israel. It was clear, he said, that Germany sided with the victims.
And then he uttered a notable sentence: “Israeli security is Germany’s ‘reason of state.'” In other words, Germany’s very existence was linked to Israel’s security.
It was almost the exact formulation that Angela Merkel used during her famous speech before the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, in 2008. Since then, there has been plenty of head-scratching and debate: What does the statement mean? Is it an element of foreign policy doctrine? Is it a blank check for Israel, enabling the country to turn to Germany at any time?
Or was Merkel simply carried away by the moment? Flattered by the honor of being the first foreign head of government to be allowed to speak to the Knesset? And did the formulation perhaps even harm German foreign policy rather than help it?
Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt (a Social Democrat) once said that Merkel had been presenting “an emotionally understandable but foolish notion that could have extremely serious consequences.” Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD), who was Merkel’s foreign minister for a time and today serves as German president, expressed doubt on one occasion that she had been “completely aware of the importance of that sentence.”
DER SPIEGEL set out to discover the origin of Merkel’s statement. We examined classified documents from the WikiLeaks trove and spoke with around a dozen people from Germany and Israel, including diplomats, current and former politicians, senior officials from the Chancellery and the German Foreign Ministry, and with intelligence officials. Almost all of them insisted on anonymity.
Merkel herself declined a meeting. Beate Baumann, her former office manager and closest political confidant, did agree to answer questions, and consulted with the former chancellor. She gave permission for her answers to be used, but not directly quoted.
Berlin, Christian Democratic Union (CDU) headquarters, January 2005
Angela Merkel was under pressure. With the party having just suffered painful losses in state elections in eastern Germany and her adversaries inside the CDU sniffing an opportunity. They believed that Merkel, herself a divorced, childless woman from the east, wouldn’t be able to last much longer as party chair of the conservative CDU.
In Merkel’s favor, though, was the fact that the CDU was preparing its 60th birthday that summer. She was hoping to deliver a special speech that would strike the soul of the party. As the year got underway, she asked her team to come up with a powerful speech, including something about Israel. After all, party godfather Konrad Adenauer had sought close ties to Israel following the Holocaust, which was widely seen as a significant achievement.
Relations with Israel were also extremely important to Merkel. Even during East German times, Merkel, who holds a Ph.D. in physics, was fascinated by the research performed by her Israeli counterparts. She also valued Israel’s position as the only democracy in the Middle East, and she valued the diversity of Israeli society, the beauty of the landscape and the historical sights. During her tenure in the Chancellery, Merkel even played with the idea of moving to Israel for a time after retiring from politics – specifically to the kibbutz Sde Boker, where Israeli state founder David Ben-Gurion lived after he had left the limelight.
And she was well aware of the weight of the historical burden born by Germany. Her father became a pastor in response to the Holocaust, and the mass murder of the Jews was a topic frequently discussed in her childhood home in Templin. Still, Merkel would say after the fall of the Berlin Wall that she “only learned quite late just how inconceivably massive was Germany’s loss because of the Shoah.” Some of her contemporaries believed that her fondness for Israel was a kind of overcompensation.
Merkel’s staff was electrified. They felt that the concept of “reason of state” was “CDU language,” with former Chancellor Helmut Kohl and CDU cornerstone Wolfgang Schäuble having frequently used the term. Who would care if they stole the sentence from a Social Democrat? Plus, Dressler and Merkel knew and respected each other.
The precise meaning of the term itself has been the subject of some debate among academics since making its way to Germany in the 17th century. Many believed that it was a call for the political leadership to prioritize the state’s interests above considerations like law and morals.
Modern-day politicians, though, use the phrase when speaking of vital interests. Which fit quite well. It referred, says Baumann, to a fundamental, non-negotiable concept.
The CDU celebration took place on June 16. Merkel’s position within the party had significantly improved by then and she had been chosen as the conservative candidate for chancellor in the approaching elections. Speaking to her fellow party members, she said: “Germany’s responsibility for European unification, for the trans-Atlantic partnership, for the existence of Israel – all of that is part of our country’s reason of state and part of the reason for our party as well.”
It was an ambitious statement, essentially placing Israel on a level with NATO and the European Union, but it went largely unnoticed. The guests were more eager to chat about the snap new elections in September. The media, too, didn’t pay much attention to Merkel’s sentence.
Berlin, Fall 2005
Merkel won the election and had just taken power when Ehud Olmert, Israel’s deputy prime minister, spoke with her on the sidelines of an event. Olmert doesn’t recall the precise date – he was in Berlin twice in the autumn of 2005. But he has clear recollections of his chat with Merkel. He had been charged by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with finding out if Merkel would be prepared to export Dolphin-class submarines to Israel, an inquiry that involved the most sensitive arms export in Germany.
Israel had been purchasing such vessels from the production site in Kiel since Kohl’s tenure in the Chancellery. Hardly anyone doubted at the time that the special configuration of the submarines served to enable Israel to arm them with nuclear warheads. Any country willing to attack Israel had to anticipate a nuclear counterattack launched from a vessel that was almost impossible to locate. From the Israeli perspective, it was Germany’s most important contribution to the security of the Jewish state.
But such deliveries were in clear violation of German laws pertaining to arms exports. Nevertheless, Merkel’s predecessor Gerhard Schröder of the SPD had proven willing to send two such subs to Israel. “Sharon requested that I ask Merkel if she supported the submarine deal,” says Olmert. “Merkel said that if Schröder had authorized the deal, then she was naturally in favor.” Those close to Merkel say that she has no memory of the encounter.
Schröder had the contracts signed in the last days of his tenure, and Merkel then implemented them. Several years later, she would say at an event held by the women’s magazine Brigitte: “The security of Israel is, for us, part of our reason of state. That can be seen for example, in the fact that we have sold submarines to Israel on repeated occasions.”
Jerusalem, King David Hotel, January 2006
It was Merkel’s inaugural visit to Israel as chancellor and she was staying in the legendary King David Hotel. For the first time in years, the peace process appeared to be moving forward, with Israel just having cleared out of the Gaza Strip. After her arrival, Hamas made a discrete inquiry as to whether the chancellor would be interested in a discussion.
The terror organization was listed on an EU sanctions list and its accounts were frozen. But a few days prior, the group had won a spectacular election victory in the Palestinian Territories – and the anti-Hamas front in Europe appeared to be crumbling.
Merkel hesitated. According to a confidential U.S. report, she had been opposed to including the Islamist group on the ballot in the first place. And she believed, as people close to her say, that Hamas wanted to use her as a lever against Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
But she also didn’t want to simply reject the offer outright. After all, Hamas had won the election. She sent a message that Hamas must first recognize Israel’s right to existence, or at least take clear steps in that direction. The talks never happened. And a similar request was not repeated during Merkel’s tenure as chancellor.
She got along well with her host Ehud Olmert, who had since risen to the position of Israeli prime minister. The two were convivial in small gatherings, joking with each other and drinking their fair share. Olmert found his visitor interesting, a woman from the former East Germany who had belonged neither to the ruling party nor participated in the civil rights movement.
Merkel, meanwhile, was impressed by the omnipresence of the past. She visited the Holocaust remembrance center Yad Vashem, a stop which left her “filled with deep shame.” At dinner, she sat next to Rafi Eitan, an expert in pensions and a former agent with Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence service. The two spoke about providing pensions to former ghetto residents – and about Adolf Eichmann, the chief logistician of the Holocaust. Eitan had been part of the Mossad team that captured Eichmann in Argentina in 1960.
According to a U.S. diplomatic cable, Olmert told Merkel that he was prepared to go “a long, long way with the Palestinians,” but not with Hamas. When the Israelis requested that she work to maintain EU unity on sanctions against Hamas, she said in public that it was a “matter of principle” to eschew negotiations with Hamas until the group recognized Israel.
The position was far from universal. Just a few months later, ex-Chancellor Schröder called on Israel to negotiate with Hamas without any preconditions. Three parliamentarians from the SPD and the business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP) even received a Hamas minister in Berlin, to Merkel’s irritation. If Israel’s security is threatened by Hamas, she says, “then there can be no toleration.”
Bayreuth Festival, August 16, 2006
A number of top officials in the Foreign Ministry and the Chancellery were unhappy when Merkel said during a summer interview with German public broadcaster ZDF: “The existence of Israel is part of our reason of state.” They had missed her speech at the CDU anniversary celebration the year before and there was no draft in existence – nor had one been commissioned, according to numerous contemporaries.
Was the chancellor considering a security guarantee comparable to the NATO mutual defense clause? No, say people close to Merkel today, her intent had been less than that, even if the relationship with Israel was a special one. Just how much less would soon become clear during the 2006 Lebanon War.
Following an attack launched from Lebanon by the Hezbollah militia, Olmert’s reaction was robust. Israel launched a bombing campaign, closed Lebanon’s airspace, set up a sea blockade and, ultimately, sent troops across the border. After just a few days, global public opinion was heavily against Israel. Merkel warned that it should not be forgotten who had triggered the violence, but also demanded that Israel keep destruction “as minimal as possible.”
Olmert then inquired whether Merkel would be prepared to send German soldiers to take part in a UN peacekeeping mission at the Israel-Lebanon border. Cease-fire talks had already gotten underway within the UN Security Council. It would have been quite a sensation: Soldiers from the Bundeswehr, the German military participating – 60 years after the Holocaust – in “the force protecting Israel,” as Olmert described it.
Merkel said nothing about the request in public for several days. In a telephone conversation with Olmert, she expressed concern that German troops could find themselves in a situation at the border where they would shoot at Israelis – an eventuality, she told the Israeli prime minister, that was unacceptable. Olmert made clear that he thought such a scenario was absurd, which seemed to have its desired effect on Merkel.
But the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party to Merkel’s CDU, was adamantly opposed to the idea – as was a majority of Germans. Sending German troops to the border would never have been supported by a parliamentary majority – a requirement in Germany for all military deployments. After all, who wanted to fight against Hezbollah?
Still, the onus was on Merkel. Lebanon was suffering from the sea blockade, and Israel’s government said it would only lift it if the amount of weapons being smuggled to Hezbollah across the Mediterranean Sea and across the land border from Syria was curbed. Fuad Siniora, the pro-Western head of government in the Lebanese capital of Beirut, asked Merkel to mediate. To Merkel’s surprise, Olmert agreed to lift the blockade as long as the Bundeswehr took part in efforts to curtail weapons smuggling.
Which led to Merkel receiving the leaders of her governing coalition in Bayreuth, where she was for the annual opera festival, on the last day of her vacation in mid-August. The group decided on sending a German contribution. Ultimately, two German frigates, along with speedboats and other vessels, headed out to take part in a UN mission to patrol the coast of Lebanon. German police and customs officials were to help establish a control system on the border to Syria – which ultimately did little to prevent arms from reaching Hezbollah.
The Bundestag rubberstamped the deal. In several interviews, Merkel sought to gain support for the mission by using the reason of state formulation. And she also used it in parliament for the first time: “If maintaining Israel’s right to exist is part of Germany’s reason of state, then we cannot just say: If Israel’s right to exist is in danger – and it is – then we are just going to stay out of it.”
Merkel would avoid this particular use of the formulation in the future, because she felt it raised the impression that Israel’s right to exist was up for debate. “What are we actually doing here? This country is recognized under international law,” she said. In later comments, she adopted the formulation that Israel’s “security” is part of Germany’s reason of state.
Berlin, Hotel Intercontinental, December 11-12, 2006
Olmert was in Berlin for his inaugural visit as Israeli prime minister. His standing had taken a hit from the war in Lebanon, but he was nevertheless determined to push forward the peace process with the Palestinians. And his willingness to compromise seemed unending: He even seemed prepared for an almost complete Israeli evacuation of the West Bank and for the potential partitioning of Jerusalem. Merkel quickly realized the opportunities this presented.
On the evening before their official meeting, she went to his hotel on her own so they could speak in private. Olmert’s security personnel didn’t actually recognize the German woman who was loitering in the hallway, and they stormed up to Merkel and surrounded her. Olmert had to clear up the confusion.
The two of them then spent three hours discussing Lebanon and the peace process. It was a passionate discussion at times, but in the end, they established a working foundation. From that point on, Merkel frequently sent her security adviser Christoph Heusgen and Middle East expert Jens Plötner – who is now Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s security adviser – to the region to provide discrete assistance in the negotiations between Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Today, people close to Merkel say that for her, supporting Israel in reaching a two-state solution was a central element of her understanding of the reason of state formulation.
In truth, of course, the Germans had little to offer aside from good intentions. Nothing for the Israelis, who were concerned about their security. And nothing for the Palestinians, who accused Merkel of having a lack of sympathy for the situation they faced. Even Heusgen said of the German mediation effort: “In hindsight, I wouldn’t say that it was world changing.”
On one sensitive question, Merkel took a clear position, which many believe resulted from the influence Israel’s ambassador, Shimon Stein, had on the German chancellor. Stein was among the few diplomats who she received, and she valued his delight in debating and his knowledge, from which she also profited. The result was that in the new CDU platform of 2007, there was a clear recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state.” It was a formulation that flew in the face of Palestinian demands for a right of return for those who fled or were expelled when Israel was founded in 1948.
In a speech to fellow party members, Merkel said: “The security of Israel as a Jewish state is non-negotiable for us. That is something we are making clear to everyone in the world.”
New York, UN Headquarters, September 25, 2007
In her 2007 speech to the UN General Assembly, Merkel used the reason of state formulation abroad for the first time. At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was accelerating his country’s nuclear program and had threatened to destroy Israel. He had even written a letter to Merkel in the same vein, a missive to which she declined to respond.
Now, speaking to the global public, she aired her thoughts. “Each and every German chancellor before me has shouldered Germany’s special responsibility for the existence of Israel,” she said, as part of her plea that Iran be prevented from building a nuclear weapon. “It is part of my country’s reason of state.”
This form of moral support was monitored closely in Israel. But according to people involved at the time, Merkel failed to actually make any plans for a possible war between Iran and Israel. Berlin’s arsenal consisted entirely of economic sanctions when it came to pushing Iran toward compromise.
That, Merkel told the UN, was the practical element of her country’s burden. During her tenure, German exports to Iran would shrink to a third of their former volume. And half a year later, Merkel would hold her sensational speech before the Knesset in Israel.
Jerusalem, Knesset, March 18, 2008
Knesset President Dalia Itzik had invited the German chancellor for the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel, receiving Merkel with the words: “I’ve changed the rules for you.” Until that point, only heads of state had been allowed to speak in Israeli parliament. But Itzik’s proposed change received unanimous approval. Merkel’s pro-Israeli stance had been making the rounds.
As with other speeches during important state visits, Merkel had the first few words translated into the local language and written out in phonetics. A translator then practiced with her as she was preparing for her appearance: “Anni modda lachem sche-nittan li le-dabber ellechem kaan be-bait mechubad se. Se kawwod gado awurri” – I thank you for the privilege of speaking to you here. It is a great honor for me. She then switched from Hebrew to German.
Merkel spoke for 24 minutes, discussing the lessons of the Shoah, the fight against anti-Semitism and the German-Israeli relationship. The term reason of state came in the 19th minute. Merkel quoted almost exactly from her speech at the UN, including the promise: “Israel’s security is non-negotiable for me as German chancellor.”
A number of Israeli parliamentarians were uncomfortable hearing the language of the perpetrators of the Holocaust in the Knesset, including President Itzik. “It was a strange feeling: on the one hand, a woman representing the people who had wanted to exterminate us; on the other, this feeling that she was like a big sister wanting to protect us.”
Today, those close to Merkel say that it was the site of the speech that transformed it into such a special event. Itzik was moved, as she says. “Merkel was plagued by questions as to how one of the most enlightened nations in the world wanted to exterminate an entire people. I think she understood that and acted accordingly.”
Itzik believes the sentence about Germany’s reason of state is a powerful one. “It goes beyond considerations about how this or that might be beneficial.”
Berlin, Chancellery, August 27, 2009
The commitment that Merkel had created through that phrase became clear after Olmert’s resignation. His successor, Benjamin Netanyahu from the right-wing Likud party, pushed forward settlement construction in the West Bank, which placed incredibly high hurdles in the way of a contiguous Palestinian state.
During Netanyahu’s inaugural visit to Berlin, Merkel warned him that the “window of opportunity” for the peace process was closing and that settlement construction had to stop. Netanyahu was unmoved.
A few weeks later, Heusgen, Merkel’s security adviser, met secretly with Philip Gordon, a department head in the U.S. State Department, and Philip Murphy, the U.S. ambassador to Germany. He proposed upping the pressure on Netanyahu. Specifically, he proposed that Washington threaten to withdraw support from Israel in the UN Security Council regarding the so-called Goldstone Report, which accused Israel of human rights violations in Gaza. Heusgen’s proposal is documented in a secret U.S. report. The Americans were not overjoyed by the idea.
Later, Merkel considered making weapons deliveries to Israel dependent on concessions to the Palestinians. When Netanyahu inquired about a new nuclear submarine, Merkel delayed making a decision regarding the financing. The vessel cost around 400 million euros, and Germany was to cover a third of the purchase price.
Even Netanyahu critics in Israel were pushing her to up the pressure. On the other hand, though, her hesitation on the financing of the submarine was inconsistent with her promise that Israel’s security was non-negotiable. Ultimately, she acquiesced. On March 20, 2012, the contract for the sixth submarine was signed. The Germans can be counted on no matter what, it was said in Jerusalem.
Still, Israel did make one concession: freeing up frozen Palestinian tax revenues. It was a small success, but it seemed unlikely that more could be achieved. In the U.S., President Barack Obama had moved into the White House, and his involvement in the peace process would remain limited. And German Middle East policy can only be successful if the Americans take the lead.
As a confidential U.S. report notes, Olmert told visitors just a few days after Merkel’s speech in the Knesset: Merkel is a “real friend” of Israel. “But at the end of the day, it’s the U.S. that counts.”
Jerusalem, May 29, 2012
Just a few weeks after the submarine deal, the new German president, Joachim Gauck, visited Israel. Even on the plane across the Mediterranean, he made it clear to journalists what he thought about Merkel’s reason of state phrase: not much.
In Jerusalem, Gauck said publicly that he wasn’t inclined to “imagine every scenario that would put Germany in a difficult spot when it came to politically implementing her statement that Israeli security is part of Germany’s reason of state.” In other words, Merkel had gone too far.
Gauck would later come to regret his choice of words. In principle, he supported Merkel’s view – contrary to most Germans. Indeed, Merkel would never be able to convince more than a third of her compatriots of Germany’s special responsibility for Israeli security.
And anyway, from a military point of view, Merkel’s promise was rather empty. The Bundeswehr was in deplorable condition at the time and would have been completely unable to provide assistance to Israel in the case of, for example, an Iranian attack. On the other hand, though, Netanyahu didn’t expect such help. “We need military equipment to defend ourselves. We’ll take care of the rest on our own,” as one Israeli official said.
Merkel didn’t much care about Gauck’s criticism. In the several weeks that followed, she would go on to repeat her formula a number of times.
Berlin, Chancellery, December 2012
Merkel went on to issue several public rebukes of Israel’s settlement policy, and when Netanyahu made yet another trip to Berlin, she said into the cameras: “We have agreed to disagree.”
Netanyahu, meanwhile, complained about Germany’s voting patterns at the United Nations, saying he was “disappointed.” Some 138 countries, for example, had voted in favor of the resolution to give the Palestinian Authority “non-member state observer status.” Germany, though, had abstained, which created a certain amount of consternation. Until then, Merkel had been seen as a reliable ally to the Israelis in international organizations.
In actuality, Merkel felt that supporting Israel at the UN was essential – but she was equally devoted to a two-state solution. Such an outcome, she would say in her own unique style, was “without alternative.”
The tone now grew more contentious. Heusgen and an aid to Netanyahu even became involved in a yelling match. Voices were also raised in telephone calls between Merkel and Netanyahu. In speaking to German government representatives, the Israeli prime minister even hinted at Germany’s historical guilt for the Holocaust. “You want the West Bank to be cleansed of Jews?”
Merkel, though, avoided an escalation. During a visit to Israel in 2014, she said: “All sides have to make compromises.” But she had largely stopped using the formulation about Germany’s reason of state. Those close to her say that it had never been a strategy, but had resulted from the fact that other issues had been in the foreground. Either way, it fit the situation. Merkel went four years without visiting Israel.
Assisi, Basilica di San Francesco, May 12, 2018
The Franciscans awarded Merkel the Lamp of Peace, a replica of the fixture on the grave of Saint Francis of Assisi, in 2018. The same award had been presented in the past to the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and the former Israeli President Shimon Perez. In her acceptance speech, Merkel repeated her assertion “that Israeli security is part of Germany’s reason of state.”
The statement came at a time when her relationship with Netanyahu was at an all-time low. She placed great value in discretion and dependability, but he apparently did not. Israeli newspapers would repeatedly print reports about things she had allegedly told him in confidential telephone conversations – but had never actually said, according to people close to Merkel.
The year before, Merkel had even cancelled the annual government consultations that she had introduced in 2008. Officially, the cancellation was due to scheduling conflicts, but in truth, it came in response to Netanyahu’s settlement policies. People close to Merkel say today: How many more times were they supposed to say that they agreed to disagree?
The fact that she nevertheless began using the formulation regarding Germany’s reason of state more often again likely came in response to domestic developments. She was unsettled by rising anti-Semitism in Germany. Just like Rudolf Dressler before her – the man who had come up with the formulation in the first place – she wanted to exert influence on the Germans. And they listened.
Politicians from almost all parties began using the formulation. It appeared in the Bundestag resolution regarding the anti-Israeli boycott movement BDS in 2019, which received support from all parties except the extreme right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the extreme left Left Party. The current governing coalition, which took over from Merkel in 2021, also included it in its coalition agreement: “For us, Israel’s security is reason of state.”
Berlin, Today
Angela Merkel is currently working on her memoirs, which are set to be published this fall, and there are of course passages about Israel. Much of her tenure has come under criticism since she left office, including her approach to Russia and her policies on migration. But the formulation about reason of state has remained – and become part of Merkel’s legacy.
“Reason of state can include so much: the delivery of submarines, the sending of troops or just a few polite words of support. As chancellor, Merkel showed the way. And the formulation has developed its own dynamic. It is anchored in the public consciousness, with every divergence requiring an explanation. Which also explains why Chancellor Scholz returned to the formulation following the October 7 terror attack by Hamas. It is the German stance.
And what about the Israelis? “Under normal circumstances, we do not need the support of anyone. And there is nothing militarily Germany can do that we can’t get from the United States anyway,” says ex-Prime Minister Olmert. And yet, Merkel’s formulation does have value: as “moral support.”
from DER SPIEGEL’s English website: The true story behind Merkel’s promise to Israel.
While excelling in Hindustani vocals, Rashid Khan also showcased his proficiency in playback music, contributing to blockbusters such as ‘My Name is Khan,’ ‘Jab We Met,’ ‘Isaaq,’ ‘Manto,’ ‘Mausam,’ ‘Bapi Bari Ja,’ ‘Kadambari,’ and ‘Mitin Masi’
Ustad Rashid Khan left an enduring legacy with his soul-stirring notes, his melodious voice echoing through time and leaving an indelible imprint on the rich heritage of Hindustani music.
Rashid Khan, aged 55, passed away in a city hospital on Tuesday after valiantly battling cancer for over four years. He is survived by his son, two daughters, and wife.
Possibly the last living legend of Rampur Sahaswan gayaki (style of singing), Rashid Khan was recognised as the 31st generation of Sangeet Samrat Mian Tansen, as detailed on his official website.
Known for his mastery in the ‘Vilambit Khayal’ gayaki, he captivated millions of Hindustani vocal classical music enthusiasts for more than three decades.
Born in Badayun, Uttar Pradesh, Rashid Khan’s initial training was under his maternal grand-uncle, Ustad Nissar Hussain Khan. In April 1980, he relocated to Kolkata at the age of 10 when Nissar Hussain Khan moved there with his grandfather.
Rashid Khan’s debut concert took place when he was just 11, and by 1994, he had gained recognition as a musician.
Deeply influenced by Hindustani classical music from an early age, Rashid Khan commenced his music lessons under the guidance of his grandparent, Inayat Hussain Khan.
In the realm of musical traditions, the Rampur-Sahaswan gayaki shares a close kinship with the Gwalior gharana. This particular style is defined by its medium-slow tempos, richly resonant voice, and intricate rhythmic play.
Rashid Khan weaves together a narrative deeply influenced by maestros such as Ustad Amir Khan and Pandit Bhimsen Joshi. Proficient in the art of the tarana, much like his guru Nissar Hussain, he infused his renditions with a distinctive personal touch.
While demonstrating a shared mastery of instrumental stroke-based styles, reminiscent of Nissar Hussain’s renown, Ustad Rashid Khan gravitated towards the khayal style, presenting it in a manner uniquely his own.
While excelling in Hindustani vocals, Rashid Khan also showcased his proficiency in playback music, contributing to blockbusters such as “My Name is Khan,” “Jab We Met,” “Isaaq,” “Manto,” “Mausam,” “Bapi Bari Ja,” “Kadambari,” and “Mitin Masi.” Rashid Khan was recognised for his innovative approach, blending Hindustani vocals with genres like Sufi and collaborating with Western instrumentalist icon Louis Banks. He engaged in ‘jugalbandis’ with sitar artist Shahid Parvez.
Khan’s Rabindra Sangeet (songs of Rabindranath Tagore) album, ‘Baithaki Rabi,’ released in the mid-2000s, showcased his versatility.
Commenting on the album at the time of its launch, Khan stated, “I believe a musician cannot complete his circle or journey without having sung ‘Rabindra Sangeet.’ “I am ready for criticism, but this is my way of imbibing Gurudev’s song, internalizing the meanings and ‘bhab’ and interpreting in my way without deviating from the swaralipi.” A familiar face at classical concert conferences like Dover Lane, Behala Classical Festival, and ITC SRA Sangeet Sammelan, Rashid Khan remained active during the Covid-19 outbreak. He hosted classical music sessions at home with his son, also a skilled classical music artist, which were streamed online.
Apart from Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan awards, Rashid Khan was conferred with the West Bengal government’s state honour, Bangabhusan in 2012.
উস্তাদ রাশিদ খান (Ustad Rashid Khan)। এমন এক নাম যা শাস্ত্রীয় সঙ্গীতের আকাশে উজ্জ্বল নক্ষত্র হয়ে থাকবে। চিরকালীন, অবিনশ্বর। পণ্ডিত ভীমসেন যোশী বলতেন, হিন্দুস্তানি সঙ্গীতে রাশিদ খান এক আস্থাভাজন নাম। তিনিই ভবিষ্যৎ। হ্যাঁ, এই নামেই যে কত গান, কত সুর মনে পড়ে যায়। এই গান, এই কন্ঠই তো আমাদের সম্পদ হয়ে থেকে যাবে।
উত্তরপ্রদেশের বদায়ুঁতে জন্ম হলেও ছোটবেলাতেই কলকাতায় চলে আসেন রাশিদ।কলকাতাকে নিজের কর্মভূমি বলতেন। রামপুর-সহসওয়ান গায়কিতে মুনশিয়ানা ছিল তাঁর। অপূর্ব মার্জিত সুরে যেন মেলবন্ধন ঘটত গোয়ালিয়র ঘরানার সঙ্গে। কিন্তু রাশিদের পরিবেশনার মুনশিয়ানায় তা কখনও প্রকট হয়ে ওঠেনি। তাঁর গায়কির মাদকতায় মন বিভোর হয়ে যায়। তাতে উস্তাদ আমির খান, ভীমসেন যোশীর প্রভাবও অস্বীকার করার নয়।
কিন্তু সবকিছুর মধ্যেও রাশিদ খান নিজস্বতা বজায় রেখেছিলেন। আর এটাই তাঁর সিগনেচার। যেকোনও তান, বন্দিশ, তরানায় রাশিদের উপলব্ধি ও মন্থন সুরের এক অদ্ভূত মায়াজাল তৈরি করত। সেই আবেশ যেন এখন কানে রয়ে গিয়েছে। বাংলা কিংবা হিন্দি সিনেমায় যখনই গেয়েছেন, মন্ত্রমুগ্ধের মতো শুনতে হয়েছে।
সুর নিয়ে নানা পরীক্ষা-নিরীক্ষা করেছেন রাশিদ খান। পাশ্চাত্য সঙ্গীতেও তাঁর আগ্রহ কম ছিল না। ফিউশনেও আপত্তি ছিল না, যদি তা শ্রুতিমধুর হয়। কখনও পাশ্চাত্যের যন্ত্রশিল্পী লুইস ব্যাঙ্কসের সঙ্গে, কখনও আবার সেতারশিল্পী উস্তাদ শাহিদ পারভেজের সঙ্গে জুটি বেঁধেছেন। সে যুগলবন্দি যিনি শুনেছেন, একবাক্যে স্বীকার করবেন। আহা, এই তো সুরের গাঁটছড়া। ২০২২ সালে পদ্মবিভূষণ সম্মান পেয়েছেন রাশিদ খান। পেয়েছেন সংগীত নাটক অকাদেমি পুরস্কার। এমন সুখস্মৃতি সঙ্গে নিয়েই বিদায় জানাই সুরের আকাশের এই শুকতারাকে।
আর সব বছরের মতো এবারও শহীদ বুদ্ধিজীবী দিবস এসে চলে গেল। এবারের দিবসটি অন্যান্য বছরের চেয়ে কিছুটা আলাদা হওয়ার কথা ছিল, বিশেষ করে এই দিবসটির তাৎপর্য আর প্রাসঙ্গিকতার আলোকেই। এই দিবস ধরে সাম্প্রতিক কিছু ঘটনা নিয়ে আলোচনা উঠে আসার দরকার ছিল। সেটি একেবারেই ঘটেনি। নির্দিষ্ট যে বিষয়টি নিয়ে আলোচনা অন্তত এই দিনে ‘সবচেয়ে বেশি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ’ ও সময়োপযোগী ছিল বলে মনে করছিলাম সেটি কোথাও উত্থাপিত হতে দেখিনি। তাই এই বিষয়ে লেখার তাগিদ অনুভব করছি। এই যে ওপরে লিখলাম ‘সবচেয়ে বেশি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ’, কথাটা কিন্তু এতটুকু বাড়িয়ে বলিনি। লেখাটি পড়লে আপনার কাছেও বিষয়টি স্পষ্ট হবে বলে আশা করছি।
আন্তর্জাতিক অপরাধ ট্রাইব্যুনালে যুদ্ধাপরাধীদের বিচার শুরু হওয়া অবধি এ সংক্রান্ত গত ১৫ বছরের সবচাইতে গুরুত্বপূর্ণ ৩টি ঘটনাকে যদি চিহ্নিত করি, তাহলে সম্ভবত এই লেখায় যে বিষয়টি তুলে ধরার চেষ্টা করছি, সেটি হতে যাচ্ছে তার একটি। একটু ধারণা দিই— এমনকি হয়তো শাহবাগ আন্দোলনও এই তিন প্রধান ঘটনার তালিকার মধ্যে পড়বে বলে আমার মনে হয় না!
আপনারা জানেন, ১৯৭১-এ বুদ্ধিজীবী হত্যাকারীদের একজন হিসেবে চৌধুরী মুঈনুদ্দীন নামে একজনের বিচার হয়েছিল বাংলাদেশের আন্তর্জাতিক অপরাধ ট্রাইব্যুনালে (আইসিটি-তে)। ২০১৩ সালে আসামির অবর্তমানে বিচারের রায়ে তাকে সন্দেহাতীতভাবে দোষী সাব্যস্ত করে আইসিটি এবং তাকে ফাঁসির দণ্ড প্রদান করা হয়। দণ্ডপ্রাপ্ত আসামি মুঈনুদ্দীন যুক্তরাজ্যে বসবাস করায় সেই সাজা বাস্তবায়িত হয়নি। সম্প্রতি মুঈনুদ্দীনের পুরো ঘটনা অত্যন্ত গুরুত্বপূর্ণভাবে নতুন মোড় নিয়েছে।
২০১৯ সালে যুক্তরাজ্যের স্বরাষ্ট্র দফতর অনলাইনে জঙ্গিবাদ বিষয়ে একটি রিপোর্ট প্রকাশ করে। সেখানকার একটি ‘ফুটনোটে’ চৌধুরী মুঈনুদ্দীনের নাম উল্লেখ করে বলা হয় যে তার বিরুদ্ধে বাংলাদেশের আইসিটির একটি রায়ও রয়েছে। ঘটনার শুরু সেখান থেকে। যুক্তরাজ্যে মুঈনুদ্দীনের আইনজীবীরা দাবি করে যে রিপোর্টে তার রায়ের এই বিষয়টির উল্লেখও নাকি তার বিরুদ্ধে মানহানির সামিল এবং এই মর্মে তারা স্বরাষ্ট্র দফতরকে আইনি নোটিশ পাঠায়। স্বরাষ্ট্র দফতর এই লিগ্যাল নোটিশের পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে সেই ফুটনোটটি সরিয়েও নেয় অনলাইন থেকে। তারপরও মুঈনুদ্দীন যুক্তরাজ্য স্বরাষ্ট্র দফতরের বিরুদ্ধে যুক্তরাজ্যের হাইকোর্টে মানহানির মামলা দায়ের করেন।
যুক্তরাজ্যের আদালতে মুঈনুদ্দীনের বক্তব্য ছিল, বাংলাদেশের আদালতের রায়কে সূত্র হিসেবে ব্যবহার করার বিষয়টিই তার জন্য মানহানিকর, কারণ বাংলাদেশের আইসিটির নাকি কোনো ধরনেরই গ্রহণযোগ্যতা নেই। সুতরাং, আন্তর্জাতিক অপরাধ ট্রাইব্যুনালের মাধ্যমে ১৯৭১-এর যে ধরনের ইতিহাস প্রতিষ্ঠার চেষ্টা করা হয়েছে আর যাদের বিরুদ্ধে অভিযোগ এবং রায় দেয়া হয়েছে তার সবই ভিত্তিহীন। এসবের ফলে নাকি যুক্তরাজ্যের একজন সম্মানিত নাগরিক হিসেবে মুঈনুদ্দীনের মানবাধিকার এবং সম্মান ক্ষুণ্ন হয়েছে। বিপরীত পক্ষ (অর্থাৎ, যুক্তরাজ্য স্বরাষ্ট্র দফতরের আইনজীবীরা) পাল্টা অভিযোগ আনে এই বলে যে অন্য একটি দেশের আদালতে ইতোমধ্যে চূড়ান্তভাবে নিষ্পত্তিকৃত একটি বিষয় পুনরায় উত্থাপন করে মুঈনুদ্দীন যেটা করার চেষ্টা করছেন তা হলো মূলত যুক্তরাজ্যের আইনব্যবস্থার অপব্যবহার (আইনে যাকে বলা হয় ‘অ্যাবিউজ অব প্রসেস’), সুতরাং মুঈনুদ্দীনের মামলাটি খারিজ করে দেয়া হোক।
হয়তো বুঝতে পারছেন, পরোক্ষভাবে এই মামলাটির অন্যতম বিচার্য বিষয়ই হয়ে দাঁড়িয়েছে যুক্তরাজ্যের আদালতে আইসিটি আর বাংলাদেশের বিচার ব্যবস্থার গ্রহণযোগ্যতা যাচাই।
যুক্তরাজ্য হাইকোর্ট মুঈনুদ্দীনের মামলাটি খারিজের নির্দেশ দেয়। সেই নির্দেশের বিরুদ্ধে মুঈনুদ্দীন আপিল করেন যুক্তরাজ্যের উচ্চতর আপিল আদালতে। আপিল আদালতের ৩ জন বিচারকের মধ্যে ২ জন হাইকোর্টের নির্দেশের সঙ্গে একমত হন, কিন্তু ১ জন বিচারক মুঈনুদ্দীনের পক্ষে (অর্থাৎ মামলা খারিজের বিপক্ষে) রায় দেন। এই ১ বিচারকের রায়ের ভিত্তিতে মুঈনুদ্দীন আবার আপিল করেন— এবার যুক্তরাজ্যের সুপ্রিম কোর্টে। এটিই যুক্তরাজ্যের সর্বোচ্চ আদালত।
গত ১ এবং ২ নভেম্বর যুক্তরাজ্যের সুপ্রিম কোর্টে মামলার বিষয়টির চূড়ান্ত শুনানি অনুষ্ঠিত হয়। প্রধান বিচারপতিসহ পাঁচ বিচারকের সামনে ওই শুনানি অনুষ্ঠিত হয়। মুঈনুদ্দীন এবং স্বরাষ্ট্র দফতরের পক্ষ থেকে দেশের প্রধান দুটি ল-ফার্মের আইনজীবীরা সেখানে পাল্টাপাল্টি অংশ নেন।
গত চার বছর ধরে এবং বিশেষ করে গত নয় মাস ধরে আমি এই মামলার পুরো বিষয়টি নিবিড়ভাবে অনুসরণ করেছি। সরাসরি মামলার পক্ষ না হতে পারার সীমাবদ্ধতা সত্ত্বেও নিজের সীমিত সাধ্য আর সামর্থ্যের মধ্যে যতটুকু সম্ভব তার শতভাগ দিয়ে চেষ্টা করে গেছি পরোক্ষ এবং প্রত্যক্ষ দুভাবেই এই মামলায় ১৯৭১-এর ভিকটিমদের এবং আইসিটির মূল দিকগুলো সামনে নিয়ে আসার। উদ্দেশ্য ছিল, দুপক্ষের আইনজীবীদের সাবমিশনে যে মৌলিক বিষয়গুলো একেবারেই উঠে আসেনি সেগুলোর পাশাপাশি তাদের এবং যুক্তরাজ্যের বিচারকদের করা জ্বলজ্যান্ত ভুলগুলো তুলে ধরা।
চূড়ান্ত বিচারে কতটুকু সফল হয়েছি তা এখনই বলা মুশকিল, কারণ, যুক্তরাজ্য সুপ্রিম কোর্টে বিষয়টি এখনও চূড়ান্ত রায়ের জন্য অপেক্ষাধীন। তবে এটুকু উল্লেখ না করলেই না। যুক্তরাজ্য সুপ্রিম কোর্টে দুপক্ষের শুনানি শেষ হওয়া পর্যন্ত আমার অন্তত মনে হয়েছে, পুরো মামলাটির শুনানি আইসিটির জন্য ইতিবাচক হয়েছে তা বলা যাবে না। যুক্তরাজ্য সুপ্রিম কোর্টের বিচারপতিদের দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি হয়তো (ধরে নিচ্ছি যদিও) অনেকাংশেই নির্ভর করেছে মুঈনুদ্দীন এবং যুক্তরাজ্য স্বরাষ্ট্র দফতরের দুই পক্ষের আইনজীবীদের কাছ থেকে তারা এ পর্যন্ত যা শুনেছেন বা যা শোনেননি শুধু তার ওপরই।
যেকোনো দিনই রায় হতে পারে। জানি না যুক্তরাজ্যের বিচারকরা কী রায় দেবেন শেষপর্যন্ত এবং তা কীভাবে আন্তর্জাতিক অঙ্গনে উদ্ধৃত এবং (অপ)ব্যবহৃত হতে পারে মুক্তিযুদ্ধ, যুদ্ধাপরাধের বিচার আর ভিকটিমদের বিরুদ্ধে!
যুক্তরাজ্য সুপ্রিম কোর্টের এই রায়টি কেন অত্যন্ত গুরুত্বপূর্ণ হয়ে উঠতে পারে, সেটি জানিয়ে রাখাটা প্রয়োজন মনে করছি, সে কারণেই এই লেখাটি লেখা। চৌধুরী মুঈনুদ্দীনের এই মানহানির মামলাটিকে যুক্তরাজ্য সুপ্রিম কোর্ট যদি সর্বতোভাবে এবং সর্বসম্মতিক্রমে খারিজ করে দেয় তাহলে তো কিছুই বলার নেই। সেই সম্ভাবনা এখনও আছে। তেমনটি হলে এই মামলাটি হয়তো ইতিহাসের বা আইনের বইয়ের কোনো একটি ছোট ফুটনোট হয়ে থেকে যাবে। কিন্তু রায়ে যদি এর বিপরীতটি ঘটে, অর্থাৎ, মুঈনুদ্দীনের মানহানির দাবি যদি টিকে যায়, তাহলে নিচের আশঙ্কাগুলো বাস্তব হয়ে ওঠার এক ভিন্ন বাস্তবতা তৈরি হবে আমাদের সবার জন্য। অনেকগুলো সম্ভাব্য ফলাফল আর আশঙ্কার মধ্যে শুধু চারটি উল্লেখ করছি নিচে।
১) যুক্তরাজ্য সুপ্রিম কোর্ট মুঈনুদ্দীনের পক্ষে (অর্থাৎ আইসিটির প্রক্রিয়ার বিপক্ষে) রায় দিলে সেই রায়টি দেশ-বিদেশে যুদ্ধাপরাধী আসামিপক্ষ উদ্ধৃত করবে আইসিটির পুরো প্রক্রিয়া এবং এর প্রতিটি বিচারের রায়কে চূড়ান্তভাবে প্রশ্নবিদ্ধভাবে করার কাজে। অবশ্যই, আইনি বিচারে যুক্তরাজ্যের রায় বাংলাদেশের আইসিটির রায়ের ব্যাপারে কোনো ধরনের বাধ্যবাধকতা তৈরি করে না, তবে প্রচার/অপ-প্রচারের বিভ্রান্তিকর রাজনীতিতে এবং মুক্তিযুদ্ধের ইতিহাসকে ঘোলা করার কাজে যুক্তরাজ্যের আদালতের রায় শক্তিশালী এক হাতিয়ার হয়ে উঠবে স্বাধীনতাবিরোধী পক্ষের হাতে। এই যে প্রথম আশঙ্কার কথাটি লিখলাম, তা হলো আমার লেখা চারটি ফলাফলের মধ্যে সবচেয়ে কম ক্ষতিকর, কারণ বাকিগুলো আরও সুদূরপ্রসারী!
২) যদি যুক্তরাজ্যের আদালতে বাংলাদেশের আইসিটির বিরুদ্ধে করা সমালোচনাগুলো ধোপে টিকে যায়, তাহলে এর প্রভাব হবে মুঈনুদ্দীনের মামলা ছাড়িয়ে আরও বিস্তৃত। কারণ, তখন সমালোচনাগুলো পশ্চিমের এক গুরুত্বপূর্ণ আদালতের বদৌলতে এক ধরনের আইনি বৈধতার সিল পেয়ে যাবে। এই বিষয়টিকে তখন আইসিটির বিচারে দণ্ডপ্রাপ্ত সব আসামিই ব্যবহার করতে পারবে এ জাতীয় কৌশলগত মানহানি মামলায়। তাদের উদ্দেশ্য হবে মুক্তিযুদ্ধ ইস্যুতে নিজেদের কৃতকর্মের ইতিহাস চাপা দেয়া। বর্তমানে যুক্তরাজ্যের আইনব্যবস্থা ও আদালত এমনিতেই এ জাতীয় মানহানি মামলার ক্ষেত্রে আকর্ষণীয় ফোরাম হয়ে উঠেছে সারাবিশ্বের অন্য সব ব্যবস্থার তুলনায়। এই সুযোগটি ঢালাওভাবে নেয়ার সুযোগ তৈরি হবে তখন যুদ্ধাপরাধী পক্ষের দিক থেকে। এভাবে ১৯৭১-এর প্রতিষ্ঠিত ইতিহাস একটু একটু করে বিকৃত হতে থাকবে পরবর্তী প্রজন্মের কাছে।
৩)পূর্ণাঙ্গ বিচার প্রক্রিয়া শেষে বাংলাদেশের আইসিটির রায়ের পরও যদি দণ্ডিত একজন অপরাধী এই রায়কে মানহানিকর বলে যুক্তরাজ্যের আদালতে উৎরে যেতে পারে, তাহলে ১৯৭১-এ সংঘটিত অপরাধগুলো (গণহত্যা, মানবতার বিরুদ্ধে অপরাধ, যুদ্ধাপরাধ) নিয়ে বর্তমান ও ভবিষ্যতের সব ধরনের গবেষণা আর লেখালিখির কাজ আর উদ্যোগগুলো এক বড় ধরনের প্রতিবন্ধকতার সম্মুখীন হবে। লেখক এবং গবেষকদের কাজগুলো করতে হবে প্রতি পদে মানহানি মামলার খড়গ মাথায় নিয়ে। আইন বিষয়ে যাদের কিছুমাত্র ধারণা আছে তারা জানবেন— কাউকে হয়রানি করতে বা আর্থিকভাবে সর্বস্বান্ত করতে মানহানি মামলার কোনো জুড়ি নেই।
৪) বাংলাদেশে গণহত্যার বৈশ্বিক সার্বজনীন স্বীকৃতি অর্জনের যে প্রজন্মব্যাপী আন্দোলন মাত্র শুরু হয়েছে, তার পুরোটাই এক অনিশ্চিত ভবিষ্যতের সম্মুখীন হবে। কারণ, ১৯৭১-এ সংঘটিত গণহত্যা আর মানবতার বিরুদ্ধে অপরাধ আর অপরাধীদের কৃতকর্মের ইতিহাস একমাত্র যে আইনি ফোরামে আনুষ্ঠানিকভাবে প্রতিষ্ঠিত হয়েছে সেটি হচ্ছে বাংলাদেশের আন্তর্জাতিক অপরাধ ট্রাইব্যুনাল বা আইসিটি। তাই এটা কোনো কাকতালীয় ব্যাপার নয় যে ১৯৭১-এর অপরাধীপক্ষ সবসবময়ই তাদের আক্রমণের কেন্দ্রবিন্দু করেছে এই আইসিটিকে। শুধু একটিমাত্র লক্ষ্য নিয়ে, আর তা হলো এই ট্রাইব্যুনালকে গোটা বিশ্বের কাছে অগ্রহণযোগ্য দেখানো বা একে যতভাবে সম্ভব প্রশ্নবিদ্ধ করে তোলা। যুক্তরাজ্যে মুঈনুদ্দীনের মামলারও প্রধান উদ্দেশ্য সেটি। তাই, ট্রাইব্যুনালে মাধ্যমে সন্দেহাতীতভাবে প্রতিষ্ঠিত অপরাধগুলোকে নতুন করে বিতর্কের সম্মুখীন করা গেলে গণহত্যার স্বীকৃতি অর্জনের আন্দোলনই বিতর্কের সম্মুখীন হয়।
যুক্তরাজ্য সুপ্রিম কোর্টের রায়টি উপরোক্ত বিষয়গুলোর কারণেই আমাদের জন্য অত্যন্ত গুরুত্বপূর্ণ হয়ে উঠেছে এবং এর ওপর অনেককিছুই নির্ভর করবে। আশা করি এই লেখাটি পরিস্থিতির সম্ভাব্য গুরুত্ব অনুধাবনের পাশাপাশি, সংশ্লিষ্ট সবাইকে পরবর্তী পদক্ষেপ নির্ধারণে কিছুটা হলেও সাহায্য করবে।
এই পদক্ষেপ নির্ধারণের পথে যে প্রশ্নের উত্তরগুলো আমাদের প্রথমেই খুঁজতে হবে সেগুলো হলো, ১) চৌধুরী মুঈনুদ্দিনের মামলাটি যুক্তরাজ্যে এতদূর পর্যন্ত নির্বিঘ্নে গড়াতে পারল কীভাবে তা খুঁজে বের করা; ২) মুঈনুদ্দীনের পুরো ঘটনার অন্য আরও প্রতিটি ধাপে (যেমন: এক্সট্রাডিশনের মাধ্যমে তাকে বাংলাদেশে হাজির করায় ব্যর্থতা, ইন্টারপোলের রেড নোটিশ একতরফাভাবে আসামিপক্ষের প্রত্যাহার) বাংলাদেশ সরকারের যে পদক্ষেপগুলো নেয়ার কথা ছিল তা সঠিকভাবে নেয়া হয়েছিল কিনা; ৩) আইসিটিতে দণ্ডপ্রাপ্ত অন্য আর সব পলাতক অপরাধীর শাস্তি কার্যকর করা বা তাদের বাংলাদেশে ফিরিয়ে আনার ক্ষেত্রে কোনো ব্যবস্থা গ্রহণ করা হয়েছে বা হচ্ছে কিনা; ৪) ট্রাইব্যুনালে চলমান বিচার প্রক্রিয়া সম্পর্কে সরকার এবং সংশ্লিষ্টদের বর্তমান দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি আসলে ঠিক কি সেটা জনগণের কাছে স্পষ্ট করা ইত্যাদি। ১৯৭১ সালের মুক্তিযু্দ্ধে রাজনৈতিক নেতৃত্ব প্রদানকারী রাজনৈতিক দলটির (যে দল এখন বাংলাদেশে রাষ্ট্রক্ষমতায়) কাছে আমাদের যে প্রত্যাশা, তার আলোকে এগুলো আমার ন্যূনতম জিজ্ঞাসা।
যুক্তরাজ্যের আদালত যদি মুঈনুদ্দীনের বিপক্ষে রায় দেয়, তাহলে বাংলাদেশ সরকারের করণীয় হবে এবার তাকে দেশে ফিরিয়ে আনার জন্য প্রয়োজনীয় পদক্ষেপ গ্রহণ করা। আর রায় যদি তার পক্ষে যায়, তাহলে আমাদের নাগরিক সমাজ, আমাদের মিডিয়া, আমাদের বুদ্ধিজীবীদের এক দীর্ঘ লড়াইয়ের জন্য প্রস্তুত হতে হবে। ১৯৭১-এ বুদ্ধিজীবীদের হত্যার ইতিহাস সারা বিশ্বের কাছে সঠিক এবং জোরালোভাবে তুলে ধরার দায়িত্ব এ সময়ের বুদ্ধিজীবী এবং শিক্ষিত সমাজেরই। সরকারের তো বটেই। কারণ, তাঁদের আত্মত্যাগের কারণেই আজকের বাংলাদেশ।
রায়হান রশিদ এর এলেখাটি প্রকাশিত হয়েছিল বিডিনিউজ২৪ডটকম এর মতামত বিভাগে। লিন্ক : জানি না যুক্তরাজ্যের বিচারকরা কী রায় দেবেন শেষপর্যন্ত এবং তা কীভাবে আন্তর্জাতিক অঙ্গনে উদ্ধৃত এবং (অপ)ব্যবহৃত হতে পারে মুক্তিযুদ্ধ, যুদ্ধাপরাধের বিচার আর ভিকটিমদের বিরুদ্ধে!
রায়হান রশিদের প্রাসঙ্গিক আরেকটি দশ বছর আগের লেখা, মুক্তাঙ্গন ব্লগে। লিন্ক : চৌধুরী মুঈনউদ্দিনের একান্ত সাফাই সাক্ষাৎকার : বিভ্রান্তির প্রশ্নহীন প্রচার।
প্রাত্যহিক পাঠ 