An open letter to Prof Muhammad Yunus

Hasina took away your bank and you’ve served revenge. Here’s the test: now that you have public office, it implies public trust. Can you have it and do nothing with it? And if you would, what will it be?

Illustration: Manali Ghosh | ThePrint

Respected and dear Prof Yunus,

At the very outset, I am conflicted on whether I should congratulate you or commiserate with you. Usually, one wouldn’t need to qualify such a brilliant ascent to power with a caution. But the challenge of leading a large, populous and still largely poor nation in the Subcontinent cannot be taken lightly.

Nevertheless, congratulations first. When I had the privilege of spending a couple of days with you, at a large philanthropy conference in Hubballi-Dharwad in early 2016, I was awed by your sincerity, gentle manner and yet a firm belief in your ability to master the odds.

In the Walk The Talk episode we recorded, you had told me the story of how Sheikh Hasina had taken away your bank, and you responded by taking your bank overseas.

You refused to take the bait of probably a too-clever-by-half response by me that her government took away your bank, and you took revenge by building one overseas. You said we’re not seeking revenge, but just doing the right thing. I could see then that you were angry, hurting and holding back.

The opportunity came last August in an incredibly dramatic meltdown of the Hasina government. You were brought back from overseas to head the new administration, though you still haven’t given yourself an executive or political title. You’ve stayed with ‘Chief Adviser’, and probably will go with that to Davos later this month.

Can I round off this part of my letter by suggesting that Hasina took away your bank from you and you’ve now served revenge by taking away her government?

I say this with no judgement. She was obviously deeply unpopular—the latest election was an even bigger sham than the one before it. In fact, almost like what the Pakistanis conjured up earlier by keeping the leading party and its leader (Imran Khan) out of the contest.

Can I suggest that while you may have been nursing your wounds, you weren’t prepared for this dramatic turn. Unless you believe in astrology like most politicians do, and have the services of a brilliant astrologer. Certainly, one better than L. K. Advani’s who failed him fully on the promise of his inevitable rise to prime ministership. Dr Manmohan Singh taunted him during the debate on the nuclear deal that he was trying to topple him since his astrologer had promised him the prime ministership.

Dr Singh also used to make another important point. He said he had told Musharraf in their first meeting, ‘You and I are both accidental leaders of our countries. Public office is like public trust. We can’t have it and do nothing with it’. His message to Musharraf was that “we” should engage seriously and resolve the chronic India-Pakistan issues. These conversations were published in his lifetime.

Can I humbly beseech you to apply the same test to yourself? Your situation—as in your dramatic rise—is way more like Dr Singh’s than Musharraf’s. Musharraf’s rise wasn’t accidental or dramatic to that extent. In Pakistan, every army officer thinks he can be the president from the day he gets commissioned. Yours was even more fortuitous than your economist peer’s in India. So, here’s the test: now that you have public office, it implies public trust. Can you have it and do nothing with it? And if you would, what will it be?

Restoring democracy, rebuilding and re-legitimising the institutions and then walking away, leaving behind a grateful nation, you might say, is what you want to do. And this is an excellent list of KRAs. Question arises: how much time do you give yourself to achieve this? Do you have a finish-by date. Or what we, in our business, call the deadline, and which, by the way, I am struggling to meet right now as I type this letter to you.

You’ve talked about setting up different commissions. Good idea. Just that in our countries such commissions tend to be self-perpetuating. I noted in your recent interview to Al Jazeera that you aren’t giving any finish-by date. In fact, in that conversation, you even mention that this could take up to four years.

Do you really have that much time? We can all see you are in excellent health and may you live a long and even more fulfilling life. Continuing on in power in this kind of makeshift arrangement, however, has a short half-life. Your bigger adversaries, the dominant political parties, are already beginning to get impatient. I also don’t believe you want to become the Subcontinent’s Robert Mugabe or Mahathir Mohamad. You are way too well-educated and wise to harbour such delusions.

You are keeping the Islamists quiet through appeasement but they are going to get more impatient as time passes. Plus, they have a view of the kind of republic they want now.

The biggest trouble you’ve brought yourself is in promising to usher in a new republic in Bangladesh. I had explained in this episode of CutTheClutter (here’s the link, if you wish to check out) that Bangladesh’s constitution has also had as many iterations as Pakistan’s since 1972. You are now going to write an entirely fresh constitution, deal with the democrats and the Islamists and also keep in mind your own philosophical views. Such miracles are not pulled off easily, especially without a constituent assembly, a parliament, or conventional politicians. Do you really think a top-down constitution will have legitimacy? And if so, for how long? Our experience, from Bangladesh and Pakistan, suggests that the “next guy” will bring in his own constitution.

I note with concern that one ploy your administration is using to keep your population patient is the oldest in our neighbours’ playbook: anti-Indianism. It’s a familiar but dangerous ploy.

It is tempting to play Pakistan versus India. Would it deliver anything more than the joy of trolling India who you see as Hasina’s friend, I am not sure. In fact, I would have used the word juvenile with joy, but I don’t, with deference to your years and intellect. There is very little, if anything at all, that Pakistan can bring Bangladesh except political, philosophical and sectarian baggage. India is the only neighbour that matters to you, and Bangladesh is our most valued friend in the east. Why would you want to mess up this relationship?

As a close watcher of these issues for decades, I can see India meaning no harm to Bangladesh. Nor has Bangladesh for almost two decades now, though there was much mischief done in the past. Hasina reversed that, and India will be deaf, blind and brainless to not appreciate and acknowledge that. It also worked well for Bangladesh as it enjoyed high growth and improvement in social indicators.

That’s why, in 2013, I had similarly written this open letter to Narendra Modi (then Gujarat chief minister), appealing to him to intervene and help Dr Singh’s government conclude our border agreement. He did it subsequently as prime minister. There are no outstanding issues between us. There are only shared interests and areas of mutual benefit. If your only irritation with India is that Hasina is here, you really do not expect India to hand her over to you. Even if it is tough to get off that kerb, I’d suggest that you avoid making it a zero-sum game in our ties.

And finally, a point to you. What is your day-after, or retirement plan? The Subcontinent’s unelected rulers have an exit problem. Not one has been able to go into retirement to play golf (for generals), write books or resume running their business. What is your plan, and do you have a schedule? Unless, of course, you are convinced that after you are done, you will be hailed as the new Bangabandhu, as the original is erased from history and memory.