It is generally accepted that poverty, vast income disparity between the halves and have-nots, considerable unemployment and underemployment, ultimately lead to state failure. Other contributing factors are corrupt governance, partial democratization, degrading human security, and lack of social and welfare facilities.

After more than three decades Bangladesh, though not Henry Kissinger's "international basket case" (an observation made in the heat of Cold War politics and to ease Nixon's visit to Beijing), still remains a least developed country. If between seven and double digit growth rate is necessary to free the country from "poverty trap" then we may have to wait for quite sometime.

The Chinese claim to have moved three hundred million people out of poverty in three decades. India prides herself for a three hundred million middle class having purchasing power to buy goods which previously would have been considered as conspicuous consumption.

In Bangladesh the growth of real per capita income in FY05 is expected to slow down, with marginal increase in the per capita income of the poor and widening gap between per capita income of the poor and non-poor. In the face of these facts, the claim made by the authorities of "flood of development" naturally becomes suspect.

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen describes development as a fundamental human right . Indeed while reviewing William Easterley's book, The White Man's Burden, Sen points out the radical difference between "what is in demandwhich is integrally linked to the buyer's ability to payand that of supplying needed goods and services to people whose income and wealth do not allow a need to be converted into a market demand."

Essentially, development demonstrated through construction of residential buildings and shopping malls for the comfort of the few while the great majority of the people live in desolation and despair is no development at all. It is a cruel joke played on the people for being "privileged" every few years to cast ballot to elect political leaders in the hope that their lot will be measurably improved.

The needless violence perpetrated on the hapless people at Kansat by the authorities is a case in point. Innocent people were killed, men, women and children were brutalized, their homes were looted and they were driven out of their home only because the people were agitating for supply of electricity and to end corruption by the concerned officials. Kansat happenings remind one of the overkill prescribed by the Bush doctrine of preemption where response to "threat" was not only disproportionate but also not imminent invalidating any justification for the use of force.

No one in his right mind will believe that stick-wielding agitators posed any threat to the lethally equipped law enforcement people. Twenty odd people were killed and scores more were injured, reminiscent of the atrocities committed by the Pakistani occupation forces in 1971. Brutalities were unnecessary and avoidable. But then the police assault on journalists in Chittagong who went there to cover the Bangladesh-Australia cricket match and on the Awami League led political protests in recent days procession on the 18th April leads one to wonder as why the administration always chooses to exercise extreme measures when peaceful ways are available.

Bangladeshis have experienced virulent martial laws, both foreign and domestic, and endured untold sufferings but always triumphed at the end. Why then, one may ask, is this instinctive tendency to use force? We, the people, have the right to call the government to account for the unnecessary use of force, ask whether it was necessary to kill and injure so many people where dialogue could have sufficed? The routine response to pay blood money to the dead and the injured as atonement for crimes committed in cold blood has to be abjured. Loss of life cannot be measured in terms of money nor the void left behind by the dead can be filled.

It is generally recognized that violent response to disputes results from lack of arguments for dispute resolution or due to the impatience of the authorities to hear our the arguments of the aggrieved party. Governments generally have the monopoly of violence because if that monopoly is broken then sub-state actors and/or their mentors can cause internal conflicts in which the non-partisans get caught in the cross fire. But the governmental monopoly on violence must be backed by legitimacy for it to be effective and the legitimacy could be, in Max Weberian sense, traditional, charismatic or legal-rational. History is replete with examples where exercise of coercive authority proved to be barren. Erich Honnecker tried it but failed to prevent the fall of Berlin Wall. More recently, the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia, orange revolution in Georgia, peoples' power in Ukraine and Philippines (Marcos and Estrada episodes) are examples enough. The on-going struggle for regaining democratic rule in Nepal is also a case in point. The Americans and the Europeans have upbraided Bangladeshi authorities time and again for violation of basic human rights. Almost every year the US State Department in its annual reports on human rights and religious freedom keeps on reminding the authorities that respect for these rights are integral to good governance. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch keep on pointing out specific cases of human rights violations by enforcement authorities.

One suspects that the West, which after centuries of fighting wars has found more merit in compromise than in conflict, is more tolerant of aberrant behavior by countries like Bangladesh because these subalterns are yet to achieve the essential ingredients for sustainable democracy. Besides some academics like Professor Iris Young have attempted to understand some people's acceptance of the use of violence by the legitimate agents of the state as an extension of its power to ensure obedience of the people to the authorities' understanding of the laws of the country.

Such an enforced understanding can transform the country into a police state in which Orwellian tyranny becomes a reality. Already the laws empowering the authorities to listen in to telephone conversation on the pretext of ensuring security are in place despite its possible abuse by those listening in and almost unanimous condemnation by the civil society.

What is worrying is that steadily but surely all the organs of the state are being politicized and robotized. German born philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote in her seminal work On Violence: "The greater the bureaucratization of public life, the greater will be the attraction to violence. In a fully developed bureaucracy there is no body left with whom one can argue, to whom one can present grievances, on whom pressure of power can be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which every body is deprived of political freedom."

One fears Bangladesh may slide towards anarchy where the people in power, ignoring its transient nature, might have decided to meet dissent with more and more brutal force and use not only the state agents but also party cadres to club down dissenting voices. One cannot also be totally dismissive of the Rao Farman Ali blueprint of 1971 to physically eliminate political opposition. Already several attempts to assassinate the leader of the opposition were made but mercifully failed.

Several front ranking leaders and grass root workers of the opposition Awami League have been killed. Intellectuals known for their progressive views have either been murdered or are under death threat. It is open season for journalists and internationally Bangladesh is ranked as a risky place for journalists to work.

Governmental efforts at curbing Islamic extremism have been found wanting. If published account of four thousand members of the suicide squad and two hundred thousand Islamic militants is given credence, then the capture of some leaders of JMB, though commendable, leaves much to be desired. In today's world of international connectivity and national interest being dependant on international cooperation the world at large may like to be assured of "externalities" i.e. cost of an activity that spill over onto people who are not involved in the activity.

Given the current situation in Bangladesh, the authorities may wish to consider the people as rulers and not as ruled and themselves as servants of the people. The opposition parties are not obstructionists but creationists whose reform proposals are aimed at creating a level playing field for the next general elections. Bangladesh may not be rich monetarily but Bangladeshis are inheritors of a rich socio-cultural heritage.

Bangladeshis are, perhaps, the only inhabitants of this planet who gave blood for establishing the right to their language. Coercion, therefore, to still the dissenting voice of such a people may work for a while, but is unlikely to stem the tide of popular demand for good governance and ending of corruption.

As Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz suggests enquiry of the policy makers should be for "moral growth that is sustainable, that increases living standards, not just for today but for future generations as well, and that leads to a more tolerant, open society (which can) ensure that benefits of growth are shared equitably creating a society with more

social justice and solidarity." With such a goal in mind both the opposition and the government should sit together to sort out their differences without sacrificing the basic moral values of the liberation war.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.