Govt in a fix over how to sack Yunus

New Age, 2 March 2011

Govt in a fix over how to sack Yunus

Abdullah Juberee and David Bergman

The Bangladesh Bank, the finance ministry and the law ministry are in conflict with each other about how to sack Muhammed Yunus from his position as managing director of Grameen Bank.
The finance ministry – following advice it received from the law ministry - asked Bangladesh Bank on Tuesday to use the powers set out in the Bank Company Act 1991 to force the removal of Muhammed Yunus from Grameen Bank.
‘We are not dealing with Grameen bank now. Bangladesh Bank is looking after the issue,’ Shafiqur Rahman Patwari, Secretary of Banking and Financial Institution Division, of Finance Ministry, told reporters at the ministry.
‘It has sufficient powers to take action.’
However, K. M. Abdul Wadood, the general manager of the Banking Regulation and Policy Department at Bangladesh Bank who is responsible for dealing with the current issue over Yunus’s employment, told New Age that the central bank does not have the powers to sack Grameen Bank’s managing director.
He said that the powers in the Bank Company Act 1991 which the government wants the Bangladesh Bank to use are not appropriate for dealing with employment issues of this kind.
Early on Tuesday, the finance minister, Abul Maal Abdul Muhith confirmed to journalists that his ministry had received a letter from Bangladesh Bank stating that Muhammad Yunus’s continued employment as managing director of Grameen Bank was illegal.
It was this letter which Muzammel Huq, the new chairperson of Grameen Bank, was reported to have placed before the meeting of its Board of Directors a day earlier, on Monday.
After that board meeting, Muzammel stated that, ‘By operation of law, [Yunus] has ceased to function as managing director.’
In response to this claim, Jannat-E-Quanine, general manager of Grameen Bank had issued a statement saying, ‘There is no directive on Professor Yunus to cease functioning as managing director, nor is there any suggestion of his being removed from this post.’
Muhith told reporters that, ‘The central bank does not even know about his continuation [as managing director of Grameen Bank]. Grameen Bank did not consult with [Bangladesh Bank] about the appointment. He does not exist as a [managing] director since 2001 to them.’
Under section 14 of the Grameen Bank ordinance, a managing director can only be appointed ‘with the prior approval of the Bangladesh bank’.
The decision by the finance ministry to send the matter back to Bangladesh Bank followed a meeting early on Tuesday morning between the law and finance ministry officials.
Finance ministry officials had brought to the meeting a proposal to change the law that would allow Yunus to be removed.
The law ministry officials however told their finance ministry colleagues that no legal amendments were necessary and that Bangladesh Bank could use its powers under section 45 of the Bank Company Act 1991 to force Yunus’s exit.
This section allows the Bangladesh Bank to issue any mandatory direction on any ‘banking company’ if it consider any one of four broad criteria exists.
These criteria include circumstances where the Bank considers it to be ‘in the public interest’ to issue a direction, or where it thinks that it should do so in order ‘to secure the proper management of any banking company’.
However, Wadood from the Bangladesh Bank told New Age that this section of the 1991 Act cannot be used in the way proposed by the finance ministry.
He said that it could only be used in relation to activities ‘where there is no existing regulations, laws or rules. It is not effective.’
‘The Grameen Bank Ordinance 1983 was created by the finance ministry. It is their responsibility to take action,’ he told New Age.
The government’s continued attempts to find a way to force Yunus out from Grameen Bank are occurring despite the US government ramping up its pressure on the Bangladesh government to back down.
New Age reported earlier in the week that US officials has told the prime minister Sheikh Hasina, that it would stop all high level diplomatic interaction with Bangladesh unless the government resolved the crisis amicably.
However, on Monday morning, following the normal cabinet meeting, a meeting took place at the cabinet division in the secretariat between the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina and the finance minster specifically to discuss how to force Muhammed Yunus out of Grameen Bank, senior finance ministry officials told New Age.

US asks govt not to harass Yunus

New Age, 28 Feb, 2011 

US asks govt not to harass Yunus

David Bergman 

US officials have told Sheikh Hasina that there will be no further high-level interaction between the United States and Bangladesh until the harassment of Muhammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank, ends.
A senior western diplomat, with direct knowledge of these conversations, told New Age that Hasina was warned that her government must not force Yunus out of the Grameen bank and that Bangladesh’s first Nobel Peace laureate should be allowed to leave the bank gracefully and be given reasonable time to find a successor.
Mohammed Yunus has been under sustained attack from the Bangladesh government and sections of the country’s media since the broadcast of a Norwegian documentary in December 2010 alleging that Yunus had ‘quietly tapped’ the Grameen Bank for $48 million of Norwegian aid money.
Although the Norwegian government found that this allegation was false, the Bangladesh prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, described Yunus as a ‘blood sucker’ and set up a wide-ranging inquiry into the bank.
Three criminal cases involving defamation, fraud and food adulteration have also been filed against him although the High court in the past week stayed the adulteration case for six months.
Hasina was told directly by US officials that a possible visit to Bangladesh early April by the US secretary of state, Hilary Clinton, following her trip to Delhi, was contingent on a resolution of this high-profile crisis.
Hasina, who is planning to visit Washington in April to take part in the World Islamic Forum, has also been informed that she will not be given a meeting with the US president, Barack Obama, unless Yunus is personally agreeable to the terms of any compromise.
While many countries share US concerns about the Bangladesh government’s handling of the Grameen bank, no other country has been so supportive of Muhammad Yunus
The government’s attack on Yunus has already resulted in the loss of some US financial support.
The US Millennium Challenge Corporation, an independent US foreign aid agency funded by the US congress, decided in January against putting Bangladesh on its ‘threshold’ programme where countries must ‘demonstrate a commitment to just and democratic governance, investments in the people of a country, and economic freedom.’
Humayun Kabir, who until 2009 was the ambassador to the United States, told New Age, ‘Maintaining high-level contacts is important for both the countries as these are building blocks to the relationship which is a very important one for Bangladesh. United States is one of the country’s most important trading partner and a partner in security.’
Although Hasina has shown no signs of relenting, it is understood that discussions between Muhammad Yunus, the finance minister, Abul Maal Abdul Muhith, and former Grameen Bank chairperson Rehman Sobhan, took place in Delhi over the last few days where they all attended the same conference.
‘Muhith has been told what the Grameen Bank wants. It is now in the minister’s hands,’ said a person privy to the conversations.
Even if Hasina gives Yunus time to leave the organisation, a likely stumbling block to any agreement, however, concerns the position of Muzammel Huq, the new chairperson of the Grameen Bank, appointed in January by the Bangladesh government.
Formerly, the general manager of the bank, Muzammel was fired by Yunus more than 10 years ago. The New York Times recently reported that he said that Yunus had a ‘small heart’ and could not ‘give credit to anyone but himself.’
Another contentious issue is whether Yunus will be allowed to continue at the bank in some advisory or honorary role
On Monday, the Grameen Bank will hold its first board meeting under Muzammel’s new chairmanship. The board comprises three government appointees – including the chairperson - and nine others elected by the borrower-shareholders.
The western diplomat told New Age that the finance ministry was going to use the board meeting as an opportunity to send a dismissal letter to Yunus on the basis that his previous extension to his employment had not been sanctioned by the Bangladesh Bank.
However, it is understood that the government, under pressure, decided not to do this.
The government may have to come to a quick decision on whether to change tack
Yunus is due to go to the United States in early March where he is likely to meet Hilary Clinton. The western diplomat told New Age that what Yunus tells Clintion about any change in the government stance towards him and the bank will influence any plans Clinton may have about coming to Bangladesh.
The Bangladesh government is also likely to be aware that the argument over Yunus is impacting badly on the US Congress which has recently awarded Yunus a Congressional Gold Medal.
The Congress decides, each year, the level of money that the United States Agency for International Development will provide to Bangladesh. It will also ultimately consider whether Bangladesh’s apparel sector should be included in the Generalised System of Preferences that would reduce the tax on imported Bangladesh garments – a long standing demand of the country’s apparel sector.
While in the weeks after the initial press reports, civil society actors in Bangladesh showed little support for Yunus, in recent days this has changed, with increasing number of people signing statements against the government’s ‘harassment’ of Yunus.
His greatest high-level support however comes from outside Bangladesh, with Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland, recently setting up a Friends of Grameen, which includes the former president of the World Bank James Wolfensohn.
Robinson alleged that Yunus and the Grameen Bank were the victims of a ‘campaign of misinformation.’

Dipu holds emergency meeting with diplomats on Grameen Bank

New Age, 2 February 2011

Dipu holds emergency meeting with diplomats on Grameen Bank

David Bergman 

The foreign minister, Dipu Moni, held an emergency meeting with ambassadors and senior diplomats in Dhaka to justify the Bangladesh government’s decision to hold an inquiry into the Grameen Bank, diplomats have told New Age.
The meeting at the foreign ministry was held on January 9 just over a week after Ellen Goldstein, the World Bank’s Bangladesh country representative, had sent a letter to the finance minister raising concerns on behalf of bilateral and other international donors about how the government was dealing with the Grameen Bank.
At the briefing, Dipu Moni explained to diplomats that the government considered the Grameen bank to be an ‘organ of the state’ and that there were many alleged irregularities which needed investigation.
Three days later, the government announced the formation of a five member inquiry team led by AK Monowar Uddin Ahmed of Dhaka University to look into the affairs of the Grameen Bank.
New Age can also reveal that a few days before the diplomatic briefing, Dipu Moni’s office phoned up the Asian University of Woman to inform it that the prime minister would only speak at the university’s international conference in Dhaka, which was to be held later that month, if Mohammad Yunus was removed from the programme.
Yunus had been invited by Cherie Blair, one of the university’s patrons and wife of former UK prime minister Tony Blair, to give a ‘keynote’ speech at the end of the conference.
The university has also asked him to be part of a special day of celebrations honoring 25 students who were daughters of Grameen Bank borrowers.
Following the intervention of Dipu’s office, Yunus’s agreed involvement in the conference was cancelled.
Omar Shareef, the university’s chief operating officer, denied that Yunus’s absence had anything to do with the government. ‘There was scheduling conflicts and that was the reason why Mohammed Yunus could not attend,' he said.
A Grameen Bank statement to New Age however said, ‘Professor Yunus was scheduled to preside over the closing plenary of the conference. There was also a programme planned with the AUW Muhammad Yunus’ scholars at the Grameen Bank headquarters. These programmes were set for many months. We were informed by the university authorities at the last moment that due to unavoidable circumstances these programmes could no longer take place. They were therefore cancelled.’
A spokesperson at the foreign minister’s office said that he was unable to comment as Dipu Moni, was outside the country.
On the morning of January 9, all embassies in Dhaka received a letter inviting ‘ambassadors and high commissioners’ to a briefing later that day at the foreign ministry.
‘The foreign minister started by saying that the country was facing a lot of challenges,’ one diplomat present at the meeting told New Age. ‘Dipu Moni went on to say that the government would be happy if all it had to deal with was terrorism and food prices, and the war crimes trial but sometimes things come along requiring the government to respond and Grameen Bank was one of them.’
‘Dipu Moni then said that the government was aware of the concerns from friendly countries which was why she wanted to dispel misconceptions about what kind of entity the Grameen Bank was,’ the diplomat continued, reading from contemporaneous notes taken at the meeting.
‘She then went on for 30 minutes to read out from a thick dossier she had in front of her. She mostly read out long chunks from the 1983 Grameen Bank Ordinance, but also the constitution and the 1940 lenders act.’
‘Her basic point was that the notion that the Grameen Bank is independent of the government is a complete non-starter. It is a statutory public authority and therefore an instrument of the state, she said. Sometimes she also referred to the Grameen Bank as an “organ of the state” to be governed by the government. She emphasised that the government determines everything about the bank, what work it does, the scope of capital and the authority to wind it up.’
‘The foreign minister referred a number of times to the fact that since 1990 the government has helped out Grameen when its capital had been short.’
Continuing to quote from notes taken at the meeting, the diplomat said Dipu Moni listed a number of issues that would be examined by the inquiry.
These included whether Grameen Bank was lending to people not entitled to get loans (‘not the landless poor’); whether Yunus was in office beyond his compulsory retirement age; claims that changes of the terms of employment of staff were unlawfully gazetted in the name of Mohammed Yunus; and the allegation that companies had been formed which were ‘not authorised by law.
‘She also raised questions about the guarantees that were furnished, the levels of interest rates and the methods of collection,’ the diplomat said. Other diplomats confirmed the accuracy of this diplomat’s recollection.
The meeting lasted for about half an hour.
Prof Monwar Uddin Ahmed, the chair of the review committee set up to look into Grameen Bank’s affairs told New Age that its inquiry would be objective.
It would look at the ‘Overall functioning of Grameen bank, and suggest how to improve functions of the bank in the future, and in that context look at all legal economic social dimensions of the bank,’ he said
‘There is also provision for a special audit of Grameen Bank by the Bangladesh Bank which will be a supplementary to the review. The committee has also been asked to make list of sister organisations of Grameen Bank and find out the relationship of Grameen Bank to these sister organisations, and to review all the news flashed into the media particularly about the Norwegian programe and to assess whether there was any transfer of funds to a sister organisation.’
On being asked to comment on Dipu Moni’s comment to the diplomats, the Grameen Bank firmly rejects the argument that it is a government body.
In a written statement to New Age it points out that the 1983 Grameen Bank Ordinance states that the government only ‘owns 25 per cent of the bank’ and is allowed to nominate only 3 of the 12 directors.
It states that although the bank was a ‘statutory body,’ under the provisions of the ordinance, ‘the board of the Grameen Bank is given autonomous power to manage the bank and make all policies, and rules.’
The statement goes on to say that as of 2009 the government in fact only owns 3.4 per cent of the bank. ‘The government has not put additional money in, while the poor people’s share in the bank has been going up steadily. [The poor people] are owners of the bank and share in its profits.’
In relation to the other matters raised by Dipu Moni at the meeting, Grameen Bank statement said that the ‘Grameen Bank has always operated within the law and denies all allegations of wrong doing.’
It notes that the 1983 ordinance ‘lists many objects of Grameen Bank, besides lending money to the poor.’
Specifically in relation to the allegation that Mohammed Yunus should by law have retired, the Grameen Bank statement to New Age says: ‘Sixty is the normal retirement age of the Grameen Bank’s employees… [T]he terms and conditions of the managing director are set by the board. There is no question of the managing director being past the retirement age. His tenure is decided by the board.’

Validity of charges against Grameen under question

New Age, 12 December 2010

Validity of charges against Grameen under question 

David Bergman 

Grameen Bank probably never had a worse week. A Norwegian documentary claimed that its noble peace prize winning founder had ‘quietly tapped the Grameen Bank’ for Tk 3474 million of aid money, that Norwegian assistance had ‘disappeared’ from the bank and, some aid money was diverted to fund Grameen Phone.
The allegations were then taken up by bdnews24.com – with a headline, ‘Yunus “siphoned Tk 7bn aid for poor”’ which was widely published in Bangladesh. Soon it was a truly international story with the Times in the UK saying that Yunus’s ‘reputation was under threat.’
A four page rejoinder by the bank did little to stem the allegations – with senior Awami League politicians accusing Professor Muhammad Yunus, the managing director of the bank of ‘corruption’ and even the prime minister arguing that the allegation was ‘nothing but sucking out money from the people after giving them loans.’
Yet, the tide now seems to be turning in Grameen Bank’s favour. The Norwegian government last week said that the inquiry report by Norad showed no evidence that any of this money was used for ‘unintended purposes.’ The minister stated that there was no evidence that Grameen Bank has ‘engaged in corrupt practices or embezzled funds.’
Since the controversy first started, New Age has been looking closely at these allegations.
It read all the documents released by the documentary makers (including those originally written in Norwegian), looked though Grameen Banks’ annual reports going back to 1995, and have conducted lengthy conversations with senior financial figures within the Bank.
Now, with Professor Mohammed Yunus making his first public statement on the allegations later today, New Age can reveal that our investigation shows that those suggesting that aid money was misused have failed to understand the financial transactions at the heart of the controversy.
The first misunderstanding was that the transactions not only involved donor money but also a separate fund made up of money internally generated by the Bank. As a result, the documentary claimed that money that Grameen phone had invested in Grameen Telecom had come from donor money, when it had in fact came from a separate fund within the Bank – the Social Advancement Fund.
Secondly they did not appreciate that the ‘transfer’ of donor money from Grameen Bank to another company was only a paper exercise – and the money never actually left the account of Grameen Bank. As a result, all the allegations suggesting that the transactions resulted in the ‘siphoning’ of money were completely misconstrued.
The story starts in December 1996. Amongst the 26 different funds and other money in Grameen Bank’s bank accounts that year were two particular pots of money.
One pot of money was the Tk 3474 million (NOK 608) which was given to the bank by a consortium of donors as revolving funds to be used for house and other kinds of loans.
Norad states that its contribution to this pot was Tk 754 million (NOK 170 million) - about a quarter of the total. The other donors included Swedish International Development Corporation Agency (SIDA), the Ford Foundation, and the German government aid agency, GTZ.
The second pot of money was called the Social Advancement Fund (SAF), which amounted to Tk 442 million. This had been internally generated by the Bank over a period of years by setting aside 2 per cent of the interest payments received on revenue received from borrowers paying back their loans and was to be used for the welfare and benefit of the Bank’s members and employees. The Social Advancement Fund was set up at the request of the donors themselves – and was not considered by them to be part of their money.
In December 1996, Grameen Bank set up a new company, Grameen Kalyan. In correspondence to Norad, Dr Yunus gave two main reasons for its establishment.
The first was to provide an organisation that could more efficiency distribute the Social Advancement Fund for the welfare of Grameen’s bank staff and members.
This was achieved by Grameen Bank giving Tk 198 million of this money to Grameen Kalyan - the money being physically put into Grameen Kalyan’s account in a number of separate installments completed by the end of May 1997. The remaining Tk 243 million in the Social Advancement, comprising an investment in Grameen Telecom, was also given to Grameen Kalyan.
The second reason for setting up the new company was to provide a way to protect from taxation the money that was paid into the Social Advancement Fund (the 2 per cent from the revenue received on the bank’s loans to its members). This was considered an issue, as the Bank feared it might soon lose its tax exemption status resulting in this money being treated as ‘profit’ and therefore taxed.
This second purpose was achieved by Grameen Bank giving Grameen Kalyan the Tk 3474 million (NOK 608) donor money and then immediately borrowing the money back from Grameen Kalyan on the basis that it would pay it 2 per cent interest. Since the ‘2 per cent’ was now interest on a loan – it would not be taxed if the Bank’s tax exemption was removed.
Although the May 1997 agreement between Grameen Bank and Grameen Kalyan (as well as subsequent NORAD documents) use the word ‘transfer’ to describe what happened to the donor money, this money was not – unlike the Tk 198 million SAF money - actually physically transferred to Grameen Kalyan. The change of ownership and the loan was, as the Norwegians themselves state in their documents, a ‘bookkeeping’ exercise, a notional transfer. The donor money remained in Grameen’s bank account at all times.
In February 1998, completely by chance, the Norwegian government came to know about this set of transactions when it was glancing through Grameen’s bank annual report. And it raised a number of warning lights for them.
First, the government thought that it represented a breach of their agreement to give the money since the Tk 754 million it had given Grameen Bank was now legally owned by another company. Secondly, since the money was not owned by Grameen Bank, there was a potential risk that it could be diverted for other purposes. Thirdly, it thought that even if the Bank’s tax exemption was removed, Grameen Bank should pay.
Following discussions involving the Grameen Bank and the Norwegian and Bangladesh governments, it was agreed that Grameen Kalyan would transfer back all of NORAD’s money (then sitting along with all the other donor money in Grameen’s account) into the name of Grameen Bank. This was another paper exercise, which did not involve the movement of money, and which did not effect how the money was used.
It is known from the papers obtained by the film maker that NORAD had wanted all the donors in the consortium to act together. It is therefore notable that none of the other donors – who had given three quarters of the pot of donor money - decided to join NORAD in asking for a change in the ownership of its money. This would suggest that they did not consider Norad’s concerns to be sufficiently serious.
Their foresight proved accurate. Even though Tk 2720 of the non-NORAD donor money in the Grameen Bank account continued to remain in the ownership of Grameen Kalyan – there was never any suggestion that this money was used by Grameen Bank in any way other than providing loans.
Six years later, in 2003, Grameen Bank decided, possibly on the prompting of Bangladesh Bank, to return the non-Norad donor money back to the ownership of Grameen Bank. The annual report of that year, which New Age has seen, attests to the fact that this money was returned.
Whilst people may still have questions about why Grameen Bank did not seek the consent of donors before making these transactions, and wonder why the Bank went to such great efforts to avoid paying any possible tax, the evidence does not support allegations that the aid money at the heart of the allegations was misused.
The money did not move out of Grameen Bank’s account. The money used to invest in Grameen Telecom and the money physically in the Grameen Kalyan account all came from a different source of money, the Social Advancement fund.
We asked Tom Heinemann, the maker of the documentary, to comment on these findings. ‘I never suggested that money had been misused in my documentary,’ he said. ‘We were only asking what had happened to the money. Why did Norad keep these documents secret.’
He said that those Bangladesh news media who alleged corruption had occurred were in trouble. ‘There will be a boomerang against them. I never said there was corruption’
Heinemann focused on the point that ‘Grameen Bank had broken agreements. …Donors had not intended the money to be transferred [to another company]. There were massive implications of that transfer which is why [the] money was demanded back. The compromise meant that Grameen Kalyan kept [the money]. This was not how the donors had planned it.’
He also questioned the accuracy of the Norad investigation report – stating that he still thought that there was Norwegian money accounted for. ‘I am still not clear where the money has gone,’ he said

Norway clears Grameen Bank of misusing funds

New Age, 9 December, 2010

Norway clears Grameen Bank of misusing funds
David Bergman 

The Norwegian government has cleared the Grameen Bank of misusing any of the Tk 754 million (NOK 170m) that it had given the bank between 1985 and 1996.
Erik Solheim, the Norwegian minister of the environment and international development, said in a press release on Tuesday , ‘According to the report, there is no indication that Norwegian funds have been used for unintended purposes, or that Grameen Bank has engaged in corrupt practices or embezzled funds.’
The allegation that money had been misused by the Grameen bank was first made in a documentary broadcast by the Norwegian Television station, NRK.
Made by the documentary’s director Tom Heinneman, it claimed that money had ‘disappeared’ from the bank.
Specifically, it alleged that Tk 243 million (NOK 50m) of Norwegian donations had been given to finance Grameenphone.
The allegations were then repeated by bdnews24.com under a headline stating that Yunus ‘siphoned Tk 7bn aid for poor.’
The article on the news web site, which was widely published in Bangladesh, also claimed that Yunus had taken from the Grameen Bank $70 million, two-thirds of Norad’s donations.
Norad’s inquiry report, undertaken on the request of the international development minister, finds that none of these allegations were accurate.
The report explains that Norad had given Tk 754 million (NOK 170m) to the Grameen Bank for providing loans to the poor. This was part of a bigger package of donations from other donors that totalled Tk 3472 million (NOK 540m).
In December 1997, the embassy found out that the Grameen Bank had transferred all this money to a company called Grameen Kalyan.
The report said the donor money was then loaned back to the Grameen Bank to be used ‘for the same purposes as the original intention set out in the [donor] agreement.’
The Norwegian government objected to this arrangement and remained un-persuaded by Grameen Bank arguments that it would help reduce the bank’s possible future tax liability.
The report said that after a series of discussions, ‘the Embassy secured agreement to a full return of the revolving loan funds.’ This means that all of the Norad money, Tk 754 million (NOK 170m) returned into the ownership of the Grameen Bank.
The report then quoted the statement made by Grammen: ‘Afterwards not only Norad’s money, but the 100 per cent of all donor’s money to the extent of Taka 3,474 million 501 thousand was “transferred back” from Grameen Kalyan to Grameen Bank….’
In relation to the alleged use of donor money for funding the Grameen Phone, the report said, ‘Norwegian aid funds… were not used to fund Grameen Telecom.’
Instead this money had come from a fund called the Social Advancement Fund which was created internally through the Grameen Bank.
Toufique Khalidi, chief editor of the bdnews24.com, told New Age, ‘Norad’s report neither contradicts the Norwegian TV documentary, nor does it refute anything in our report. It rather corroborates what we have reported.’
Tom Heinneman, the Danish director of the Norwegian documentary, said that he was too busy to comment on the report.

Index

Between October 2010 until the end of 2015, I worked as a reporter and editor for the Bangladesh national newspaper, The New Age.

New Age was a great place to work but its IT systems were rather primitive, and on a number of occasions it lost all its website content. Now only reports post-2015 are online.

This blog contains (or will contain as it gets updated) most of the articles that I wrote for the paper during that period. Some of the more recent articles are already available on two other blogs:

 - The first is a blog about Bangladesh politics, called Bangladesh Politico

- The second is one about Bangladesh's International Crimes Tribunal, called Bangladesh War Crimes 

Below is an index of the articles contained on this blog