SQUABBLE RESOLVED BETWEEN CIVIL SOCIETY LEADER AND

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 DHAKA 005768

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/11/2016
TAGS: PGOV PHUM BG
SUBJECT: SQUABBLE RESOLVED BETWEEN CIVIL SOCIETY LEADER AND
GOB OFFICIAL


Classified By: A/DCM D.C. McCullough; reason 1.4(d)


1. (C) Summary. Diplomatic facilitation resolved a bizarre
but potentially serious squabble between a civil society
leader and the head of the GOB's Board of Investment.
Neither protagonist was innocent of blame, but the dropping
of defamation charges against CPD's Deb Bhattacharya is a
notable victory for the principle of an active and
independent civil society. End Society.


2. (SBU) For nearly one month, Dhaka's chattering classes
were mesmerized by an incredible spat between Deb
Bhattacharya of the Center for Policy Dialogue (CPD),and
Mahmadur Rahman, head of the GOB's Board of Investment. CPD
specializes in economic research but this summer it began a
controversial series of "clean candidates" forums in major
Bangladeshi cities that both the opposition Awami League and
especially the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) have
criticized as illegitimate and intrusive. Bhattacharya and
Rahman are long-time sparring partners on the scope and
impact of Bangladeshi economic growth.


3. (SBU) On August 9, the Dhaka Metropolitan Court had issued
arrest warrants for Bhattacharya and four CPD board members
pursuant to a suit filed by Rahman alleging that CPD leaders
defamed him by telling reporters on August 8 that he was a
Pakistan collaborator during the 1971 Liberation War. He
also charged that CPD tarnished the image of the country by
committing acts "tantamount to sedition" in providing
inaccurate economic data to the World Economic Forum (WEF)
and the UN to indicate declining foreign investment and
economic productivity in Bangladesh. The press conference
followed several recent statements by Rahman questioning
Bhattacharya's patriotism because of, among other things, his
Hindu ethnicity and his marriage to a Russian. CPD quickly
denied ever calling Rahman a war collaborator and produced
videotape of the conference that seemed to support its
position.


4. (C) On August 17, we met with Rahman to express concerns
about his actions, particularly his playing of the Hindu
communal card, and their impact on civil society in the
sensitive run-up to national elections. There was also the
perception that, as a known associate of the BNP faction led
by Tariq Rahman, he was acting with their knowledge against a
civil society group that some BNP leaders say is spearheading
a "third force" insurrection against the government. Rahman
sharply denied he had consulted anyone about his lawsuit, and
recalled that at the Embassy's recent anti-corruption
conference he had criticized the BNP for being run like a
family business. He cited intemperate statements by
Bhattacharya and journalists linked to him as justification
for his legal action.


5. (C) The following week, Bhattacharya met with us and other
diplomats to express concern about his safety, saying
incendiary posters had appeared in parts of Dhaka calling him
a traitor. He mused about public diplomatic endorsement of
his position but recognized that too tight an embrace might
be counter-productive. At his request, we agreed to
reiterate to senior GOB officials our concerns for due
process and the safety of civil society leaders. In
response, Home Minister Babar noted he had provided
Bhattacharya with a police bodyguard and that he fully
recognized the GOB's responsibility for their safety.


6. (C) On August 24, Bhattacharya expressed new fears for his
safety. The heads of the US, UK, Canadian, Australian, and
UN diplomatic missions, all of whom had been previously
approached by Bhattacharya, met and then invited Bhattacharya
and Rahman for what became two rounds of negotiations at the
UK and then the US COM residences. The compromise eventually
reached was that after Rahman withdrew his suit against CPD,
Bhattacharya would reiterate that he had never made the
statements attributed to him about Rahman. A joint statement
was drafted, copies were signed by both protagonists, and the
copies were left with the Ambassador for delivery the next
day to Rahman and Bhattacharya after they completed their
actions.


7. (C) Comment: Without passing judgment on Rahman or
Bhattacharya, the good news is that an at-times comic and
potentially tragic situation was resolved in a way that
boosted the ability of civil society to play an active role
in Bangladeshi life. The scrutiny that we and our diplomatic
colleagues applied to this case underscored to the GOB that
it would be held accountable for its role in this bizarre
affair, especially if it ended badly.

DHAKA 00005768 002 OF 002


BUTENIS