Protect Yunus

Things continue to unfold quickly in Bangladesh. Yesterday, at least 93 people died in clashes between pro-democracy groups and those backing the current regime. The government blacked out many social media sites and communication vehicles such as WhatsApp, and inexplicably declared a three-day national holiday starting today (Monday, August 5). In the meantime, the protesters announced that they were moving up their “March to Dhaka” to today.

Even amidst such carnage, there were some hopeful signs. Professor Yunus’ interview with The Indian Express, a leading Indian newspaper, was published. It is worth a read, as it spells out for those unfamiliar with what is happening and what it all means, and also what India, Bangladesh’s largest and most influential neighbor, could do to address the crisis.

In another positive sign, the Bangladesh University Teachers’ Network proposed a process for managing the complex transition from the resignation of the current government to a democratically elected one by having a well-designed interim government. They are to be commended for trying to suggest a decent pathway.

Furthermore, retired army officers led by the former chief of the army staff expressed concern for the unnecessary loss of life, and about the fact that the country’s border is largely undefended since Border Guard Bangladesh has been called in as a paramilitary force to suppress the protesters. He added that they retired officers message to the government was: “Do not destroy the good standing of the armed forces by keeping them engaged in a disgraceful campaign.” And the current Chief of Army General Staff has been quietly but noticably distancing himself from the policies of the government with cryptic statements like those in this article.

These developments merited another article in the New York Times co-authored by its Delhi bureau chief, Mujib Mashal.

And if the reaction to this tweet is any indication, the Bangladeshi diaspora is playing an increasingly active and impassioned role in demanding justice in the country. Expect them to continue to creatively engage in the battles for democracy and justice.

Yet, the Prime Minister continues to push for a violent response, calling for dealing with the protesters with an “iron hand,” as described in the headline of this Daily Star article. What comes next is anyone’s guess. But no matter how many lives are tragically lost in the process, the end of the current government seems likely if not assured at this point.

As we have emphasized on this blog since it was launched in 2017, the persecution of Professor Yunus and the mistreatment of the people of Bangladesh by their government are interrelated stories. In fact, the attacks against Yunus have come to symbolize the overall misrule of the country by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. 

In July 2024, the discontent boiled over when the nation’s High Court reinstated quotas for coveted civil service jobs for the children and grandchildren of those who fought for Bangladeshi’s independence war in 1971. By way of background, there have been previous protests about these quotas, which led Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to abolish them in 2018. But once again, Hasina has had the supposedly independent judiciary do her dirty work by reinstating them on June 5, 2024, presumably to mollify her hard-core supporters. When that backfired by leading to massive student protests in July and then the deaths of scores of young people and their sympathizers at the hands of the police, paramilitaries, and thugs associated with the ruling party, the court reversed itself and nearly eliminated the quotas entirely. It is amazing how jurisprudence can shift in a matter of weeks when the survival of a hated Prime Minister is hanging in the balance!

But by the time the quotas were nearly abolished again, the country was enflamed by the needless deaths (at least 200 and perhaps as many as 1,000), many more injuries, the imprisonment of around 10,000 students and opposition politicians, curfews and the on-again, off-again Internet and social media blackout imposed by the government. The business community decried the impact on commerce, especially those that required access to the Internet and transit of finished goods to the country’s ports. The protests evolved to be against not just the quotas, but against the entire regime which was increasingly being referred to as “fascist.”

Once the government opened up communications, many tragic stories – including shocking videos of unarmed protesters being shot – emerged, further enraging the populace. Lame efforts to excuse the behavior of the government and its allies were mocked and derided. For example, a video emerged of a young man named Abu Sayed in Rangpur (a northern district) taunting police from a distance (in a manner that in no way threatened them) and then being shot dead in cold blood by the very police who should have been protecting him and his right to protest peacefully. Then, in an effort to evade responsibility, the authorities initially pinned the blame for his death on a 16-year-old whom they accused of causing Sayed’s death by throwing stones at him. (This is despite the Daily Star reporting that it was “clear as daylight” from video evidence that the police had shot him.) The boy spent 13 days in prison before being released on bail. 

The Daily Star among others reported on Sayed’s death, writing, “In two video clips, verified by the Amnesty International, at least two police officers fired 12-gauge shotguns directly at him from across the street. Sayed clutched his chest on impact, and the officers fired at least two more times. Amnesty International used satellite images to geolocate the positions of Sayed and the police officers and found that they were at a distance of about 15 meters during the shooting. Also, Sayed posed no apparent physical threat to the police, Amnesty International said in a statement on July 18, adding that the police’s attack on Sayed was reckless and unprovoked. Sayed’s death certificate said he was “brought dead” to the hospital.”

In the meantime, UNICEF has released a statement condemning the deaths of at least 32 children, which the Home Minister responded to by saying that there was not a single child killed.  Who do you trust, a United Nations agency committed to protecting children, or someone installed by Sheikh Hasina to defend her misrule?

Students bravely resumed their protests at the end of July which culminated in massive gatherings on August 2 and 3. They did so despite intensifying government efforts to intimidate and silence them. For instance, three student leaders who were being treated for wounds suffered during the mid-July protests were “taken into custody for their own protection” by the police. After days of mockery and outrage by the public and the media, the leaders were released. In a growing number of cases, students, their parents, and other sympathizers have been boldly confronting police and successfully demanding that fellow protesters who are being taken into custody be released. Increasingly, the police have been forced to give in to their demands. It seems that many in law enforcement are increasingly doubting the orders that they are being asked to follow.  

The most common refrain of people in Bangladesh these days is, “The Prime Minister went too far this time and can’t possibly survive this.” For their part, the students shifted from nine demands including an apology from the PM and the resignation of several ministers to a one-point demand: the resignation of the PM and her entire government. The media, which had been guilty of self-censorship for several years, found its voice and began reporting aggressively on the protests, the resulting state-sponsored violence, and the growing disgust amongst the populace about the government’s tragic role. 

In a classic too little, too late response, one minister apologized – but only for the Internet being down for a few days. The PM finally stopped her tone-deaf mourning of the damage to government property (while saying nothing about the loss of life), and instead invited students to meet with her in her offices, which the students rejected. But by the time these half-measures were announced, the government had lost all credibility and hardly anyone was paying any attention to what it said. Students called for a national noncooperation movement starting today (Sunday, August 4) to be continued until the government resigns. The inevitability of the fall of this much-hated regime is becoming obvious to nearly everyone in the country.

There has been some excellent International reporting on the crisis. The latest wave of protests was covered in the New York Times and by Reuters and the Times of India. The Bangladeshi diaspora has weighed in, issuing statements and convincing U.S. Senator Markey and 21 colleagues to send a strong letter to the U.S. Secretary of State demanding action, which received significant coverage in Bangladesh. This compelling segment aired in Al Jazeera featured a courageous student leader in Bangladesh and three young Bangladeshis studying abroad. 

Professor Yunus’ statement about the bloodshed, followed by his influential interview with The Hindu (a leading Indian newspaper) where he called for new elections has given him great moral standing among the protesters and the populace in general. The PM and her hapless ministers could only respond by saying that the protesters were being duped by people like Yunus and the leaders of the opposition parties. In fact, the government took the step of outlawing one of the opposition parties, which sparked additional protests. Actually, students – who have been at the center of progressive political movements in Bangladesh for decades – were in the lead from the beginning, but their courage in challenging oppression has spurred others to step up and offer supportive words and actions. 

So where does this go from here? One can imagine it could play out in a manner similar to the fall of the BNP government in March 1996, when a month-long noncooperation movement that had broad popular support shut down the country for several weeks and forced the party in power at the time to resign. A neutral caretaker government ran the country for 3 months until a remarkably free and fair and (this must be said) joyous election was held and a new regime took power, ushering in several of Bangladesh’s best post-independence years.

Professor Yunus is currently in Europe, honoring a longstanding commitment to advance the causes of social business and the positive impact sports can play on society. He is also offering support and encouragement to those advancing positive change in his native land. By the time he returns to Bangladesh, he may be welcomed back by a country that has been transformed through student activism that stirred the conscience of an entire nation to throw off the yoke of authoritarian misrule, corruption, and oppression. Hopefully, the death toll will not grow, as too many young lives have already been lost. (Sadly, though, at least 30 more deaths have been reported on August 4, according to the Daily Star.)

People in Bangladesh and the Bangladeshi diaspora seem intent on pushing for regime change, whatever it takes. The key question is whether or not the Prime Minister and the people around her will insist on going down with a bloody battle, and how the country’s military will respond to any additional orders to attack protesters and to “shoot on sight.” Let’s hope for as peaceful a transition as possible.  

As we have emphasized on this blog since it was launched in 2017, the persecution of Professor Yunus and the mistreatment of the people of Bangladesh by their government are interrelated stories. In fact, the attacks against Yunus have come to symbolize the overall misrule of the country by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

In July 2024, the discontent boiled over when the nation’s HIgh Court reinstated quotas for coveted civil service jobs for the children and grandchildren of those who fought for Bangladeshi’s independence war in 1971. By way of background, there have been previous protests about these quotas, which led Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to abolish them in 2018. But once again, Hasina has had the supposedly independent judiciary do her dirty work by reinstating them on June 5, 2024, presumably to mollify her hard core supporters. When that backfired by leading to massive student protests in July and then the deaths of scores of young people and their sympathizers at the hands of the police, paramilitaries, and thugs associated with the ruling party, the court reversed itself and nearly eliminated the quotas entirely. It is amazing how jurisprudence can shift in a matter of weeks when the survival of a hated Prime Minister is hanging in the balance!

But by the time the quotas were nearly abolished again, the country was enflamed by the needless deaths (at least 200 and perhaps as many as 1,000), many more injuries, the imprisonment of around 10,000 students and opposition politicians, curfews and the on-again, off-again Internet and social media blackout imposed by the government. The business community decried the impact on commerce, especially those that required access to the Internet and transit of finished goods to the country’s ports. The protests evolved to be against not just the quotas, but against the entire regime which was increasingly being referred to as “fascist.”

Once the government opened up communications, many tragic stories – including shocking videos of unarmed protesters being assaulted and shot – emerged, further enraging the populace. Lame efforts to excuse the behavior of the government and its allies were mocked and derided. For example, a video emerged of young man named Abu Sayed in Rangpur (a northern district) playfully taunting police from a distance (in a manner that in no way threatened them) and then being shot dead in cold blood by the very police that should have been protecting him and his right to protest peacefully. Then, in an effort to evade responsibility, the authorities initially pinned the blame for his death on a 16-year-old whom they laughably accused of causing Sayed’s death by throwing stones at him. (This is despite the Daily Star reporting that it was “clear as daylight” from video evidence that the police had shot him.) The boy spent 13 days in prison before being released on bail.

The Daily Star among others reported on Sayed’s death, writing, “In two video clips, verified by Amnesty International, at least two police officers fired 12-gauge shotguns directly at him from across the street. Sayed clutched his chest on impact, and the officers fired at least two more times. Amnesty International used satellite images to geolocate the positions of Sayed and the police officers and found that they were at a distance of about 15 meters during the shooting. Also, Sayed posed no apparent physical threat to the police, Amnesty International said in a statement on July 18, adding that the police’s attack on Sayed was reckless and unprovoked. Sayed’s death certificate said he was ‘brought dead’ to the hospital.”

In the meantime, UNICEF has released a statement condemning the deaths of at least 32 children, which the Home Minister responded to by saying that there was not a single child killed.  Who do you trust, a United Nations agency committed to protecting children, or someone installed by Sheikh Hasina to defend her misrule?

Students bravely resumed their protests at the end of July, which culminated in massive gatherings on August 2 and 3. They did so despite intensifying government efforts to intimidate and silence them. For instance, three student leaders who were being treated in hospitals for wounds suffered during the mid-July protests were “taken into custody for their own protection” by the police. After days of mockery and outrage by the public and the media, the leaders were finally released. In a growing number of cases, students, their parents, and other sympathizers have been boldly confronting police and successfully demanding that fellow protesters who are being taken into custody be released. Increasingly, the police have been forced to give in to their demands. It seems that many in law enforcement are increasingly doubting the orders that they are being asked to follow.  

The most common refrain of people in Bangladesh these days is, “The Prime Minister went too far this time and can’t possibly survive this.” For their part, the students shifted from nine demands including an apology from the PM and the resignation of several ministers to a one-point demand: the resignation of the PM and her entire government. The media, which had been guilty of self-censorship for several years, found its voice and began reporting aggressively on the protests, the resulting state-sponsored violence, and the growing disgust amongst the populace about the government’s tragic role.

In a classic too little, too late response, one minister apologized – but only for the Internet being down for a few days. The PM finally stopped her tone-deaf mourning of the damage to government property (while saying nothing about the loss of life), and instead invited students to meet with her in her offices, which the students rejected. But by the time these half-measures were announced, the government had lost all credibility and hardly anyone was paying any attention to what it said. Students called for a national noncooperation movement starting today (Sunday, August 4) to be continued until the government resigns. The inevitability of the fall of this much-hated regime is becoming increasingly obvious to nearly everyone in the country.

There has been some excellent international reporting on the crisis. The latest wave of protests was covered in the New York Times and by Reuters and the Times of India. The Bangladeshi diaspora has weighed in, issuing statements and convincing U.S. Senator Markey and 21 colleagues to send a strong letter to the U.S. Secretary of State demanding action, which received significant coverage in Bangladesh. This compelling segment aired on Al Jazeera featured a courageous student leader in Bangladesh and three young Bangladeshis studying abroad.

Professor Yunus’ statement about the bloodshed, followed by his influential interview with The Hindu (a leading Indian newspaper) where he called for new elections, has given him great moral standing among the protesters and the populace in general. The PM and her hapless ministers could only respond by saying that the protesters were being duped by people like Yunus and the leaders of the opposition parties. In fact, the government took the step of outlawing one of the opposition parties, which sparked additional protests. Actually, students – who have been at the center of progressive political movements in Bangladesh for decades – were in the lead from the beginning, but their courage in challenging oppression has spurred others to step up and offer supportive words and actions.

So where does this go from here? One can imagine it could play out in a manner similar to the fall of the BNP government in March 1996, when a month-long noncooperation movement that had broad popular support shut down the country for several weeks and forced the party in power at the time to resign. A neutral caretaker government ran the country for 3 months until a remarkably free and fair and (this must be said) joyous election was held and a new regime took power, ushering in several of Bangladesh’s best post-independence years.

Professor Yunus is currently in Europe, honoring a longstanding commitment to advance the causes of social business and the positive impact sports can play on society. He is also offering support and encouragement to those advancing positive change in his native land. By the time he returns to Bangladesh, he may be welcomed back by a country that has been transformed through student activism that stirred the conscience of an entire nation to throw off the yoke of authoritarian misrule, corruption, and oppression. Hopefully, the death toll will not grow, as too many young lives have already been lost. (Sadly, though, at least 52 more deaths have been reported on August 4, according to the Daily Star.)

People in Bangladesh and the Bangladeshi diaspora seem intent on pushing for regime change, whatever it takes. The key question is whether or not the Prime Minister and the people around her will insist on going down with a bloody battle, and how the country’s military will respond to any additional orders to attack protesters and to “shoot on sight.” Let’s hope for as peaceful a transition as possible.  

As Professor Yunus increasingly speaks up about the recent killings of students, other protesters and bystanders by the Bangladesh government and its allies, and about the need for new elections, the government finds itself beset by worsening crises of its own making.

For example, the European Union has indefinitely postponed the first round of negotiations on a proposed Partnership and Cooperation Agreement meant to extend Bangladesh’s right to export goods duty-free into the EU after 2026. As reported by the Daily Star on its front page on August 1, the decision to not hold the previously scheduled negotiating session “comes a day after the EU High Representative and Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell on Tuesday issued a statement condemning the ‘shoot on sight policy’ announced by the authorities in Bangladesh.” If the Agreement cannot be finalized, Bangladesh would see its exports to the EU significantly reduced. The EU imports 58% of the total goods and services exported by Bangladesh every year, worth $24 billion in 2023.

The recent unrest and the government’s reaction to it contributed to S&P Global downgrading Bangladesh’s long-term sovereign credit rating from BB to B-. This follows Moody’s downgrading of Bangladesh in May 2023. According to an editorial in the Daily Star titled “Stop the economic downward spiral,” the other factors leading to the downgrade were the 35% decline in the country’s foreign currency reserves over the last 24 months, a 5.9 percent decline in exports in fiscal year 2024, persistent high inflation, and a precipitous recent drop in remittances from abroad. 

Meanwhile, protests continue around the country, demanding justice for those killed, imprisoned, and tortured by the government in response to the recent student-led demonstrations. 

The situation in Bangladesh continues to be both tragic and volatile. The needless bloodshed perpetrated by the police, paramilitary groups, and pro-government student organizations hangs over the nation, and the Prime Minister is losing any credibility she previously had through tone-deaf statements, appearances, and press conferences related to the killings. She has not expressed any condolences to the victims of her government’s killing rampage and their families, which is especially troubling.

Professor Yunus’ appeal to global leaders and the United Nations that was published by the Protect Yunus Campaign on behalf of the Yunus Centre (due to the government-imposed communications blackout that lasted for several days) has been influential, and has been picked up by leading international newspapers and media companies, such as The Wire, Bloomberg and Foreign Policy. Notably, the U.N. Office of High Commissioner on Human Rights responded to Dr. Yunus’ appeal by issuing a strongly-worded statement calling “on the Bangladesh Government to immediately end the violent crackdown against protesters and political opponents, fully restore access to the Internet and social media and ensure accountability for human rights violations.”

The New York Times published several lengthy and highly critical articles of the government’s response to the unrest, including one written by its Delhi bureau chief, Mujib Mashal, who had earlier written an in-depth critique of the Awami League government. In this latest article, titled “Longtime Leader’s Crackdown May Prove to be Self-Defeating,” he wrote: “Even in a country with an ample history of deadly political violence, Ms. Hasina’s crackdown has led to what diplomats and analysts have called atrocities without precedent in Bangladesh in recent decades. To many Bangladeshis, a line has now been crossed, and anger at the sheer carnage seems unlikely to diminish soon.”

Mashal continued, “The sustained protests that have convulsed Bangladesh this month are a backlash against Ms. Hasina’s formula for power: absolute, disconnected, and entitled.” The Times article was accompanied by a front-page photo of the aftermath of the carnage in Bangladesh.

The Foreign Minister fulminated against Professor Yunus’ call for an end to the killings, calling his actions treasonous, as reported here and here. The Minister was also forced to comment on the fact that the influential Chief Minister of the Indian state of Bengal (which borders on Bangladesh) commented negatively about the shedding of the blood of “helpless students.” A government briefing for Dhaka-based diplomats was harshly criticized by the U.S. ambassador for being biased and lacking in credibility.

The Foreign Minister’s charge of treason against Professor Yunus may become a pretext for arresting him upon his return to Bangladesh in a few days, something that we (and others in the human rights community) will be watching closely. (Speaking of human rights organizations, just today CIVICUS released a powerful article condemning the government’s violent response to the protests.) The Minister also complained about excellent, hard-hitting reporting by Al Jazeera by calling it “false and fabricated.”

The Bangladesh government is trying to project a sense of normalcy even as its credibility crumbles. Professor Yunus is in Paris, fulfilling a longstanding commitment to attend the Olympics there as a guest of the International Olympic Committee. He will return soon, facing new court dates on August 5 and August 14. It remains to be seen what condition his country will be in when he returns, and what will happen to him when he does.

An Urgent Appeal to World Leaders From Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus To Stop the Nationwide Killing Spree of Bangladeshi Students and Other Citizens Now in its Third Day

Due to the communications blackout in Bangladesh, the Protect Yunus Campaign is disseminating the statement below on behalf of the Yunus Centre.

July 21, 2024

Bangladesh has been engulfed in a crisis that only seems to get worse with each passing day. Students, and others protesting alongside them, have been attacked by the nation’s police, the Border Guard Bangladesh, and the Bangladesh Chhatra League, leading to at least 200 estimated deaths and 700 injuries, some of them serious. High school students have been among the victims.

I urgently call on world leaders and the United Nations to do everything within their powers to end the violence against those who are exercising their rights to protest. There must be investigations into the killings that have taken place already.

The Internet and telephone service in Bangladesh has been cut off, so it is unlikely that my fellow citizens will hear this appeal soon or be able to make their own to world leaders. I urge people of goodwill around the world to add their voices to my call for world leaders and the United Nations to end this unnecessary carnage so that we can all get back to the work of building the self-reliant, democratic, and peaceful Bangladesh of our dreams.

The Bangladeshi Prime Minister (PM) has mostly given up on claiming that the persecution of Professor Yunus is not newsworthy, something she and her supporters claimed when global leaders wrote three open letters to the PM asking her to relent in her smear campaign and legal harassment of Professor Yunus, and had the letters published as paid advetisements in the Washington Post (twice) and the New York Times (once). New reporting by NPR, the leading national radio station in the United States, and Bloomberg, further drives home the point that the treatment of Yunus is newsworthy. In fact, it also underscores that his mistreatment is part of a larger pattern of authoritarian regimes abusing human rights, press freedoms, and democratic norms. (The violent crackdown on student protesters in Bangladesh this week is yet more evidence of this troubling trend.)

The NPR segment, which you can listen to here (the transcript is also available through the link), is a straightforward interview with Professor Yunus exploring his work and persecution. The interviewer asked if the charges are fabricated, which Yunus responded to by saying that said they are, and asked whether he can receive a fair trial under the current regime, which he said is impossible. The interviewer did not challenge either of these obviously correct statements from Professor Yunus.

The Bloomberg story is longer, and is composed of a detailed article, a podcast (the transcript of which can be found here), and a 12-minute video. For those who do not have a Bloomberg subscription and may struggle to view this coverage, let us take the liberty of summarizing them for you. (It is possible to register with Bloomberg without a fee and get one free article as a result.)

The article did a good job outlining Professor Yunus accomplishments, the recognition he has gotten for them, and his popularity in Bangladesh and abroad. It makes the important point that the earlier accusations that he “embezzled” Norwegian aid funds were proven false.  It also refutes the claim by the Prime Minister that Professor Yunus blocked World Bank funding of the Padma Bridge by noting that the World Bank stated at the time that corruption within the PM’s government was the actual reason. Finally, it implicitly contradicts the government’s claim that Yunus “begged” the more than 200 global leaders who signed the three letters of support (such as this one) by noting that one of them, fellow Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jody Williams, is eager to come to Dhaka to continue to show her strong support for Yunus. (In reality, most of the signers were very eager to help, including venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, who is quoted elsewhere in the article saying that Bangladeshi government actions such as the mistreatment of Yunus “will reduce foreign direct investment very substantially.”)

There are times when the journalists fell down on their job of assessing competing claims or challenging the government’s false narratives. On the shocking occupation of the offices of Grameen Companies earlier this year, it simply notes that the police did not investigate and that the occupiers disappeared after a few days. The breakdown of the rule of law and the brazen attack this represented against the life’s work of Professor Yunus are scarcely broached. Elsewhere, the government’s claims that the companies Professor Yunus started are rightfully the property of Grameen Bank are not challenged, despite the fact that there is no basis for such expropriation under Bangladeshi law, as is described here.

When the Information Minister was asked about the Prime Minister’s public statement to a national television audience that Professor Yunus should be thrown off the Padma Bridge and submerged in water just short of death, he explained it away as “kind of a mix of a joke and anger.” That same minister said that he never saw that his Prime Minister desired the Nobel Peace Prize (despite widespread belief that she covets such recognition*), and, laughably, that “she would have gotten it if she had tried.” Tried to do what, exactly? Tried to rule her nation honestly while respecting human rights? That would be a start, but basic good governance hardly qualifies someone to receive such a prestigious award. We imagine the journalists figured that writing off such an unstatemanlike and violent threat as a “joke” was so obviously inappropriate that they didn’t need to comment on it themselves.

The journalists’ decription of the Grameen Bank could have been better at times. The claim by the hapless Information Minister that Grameen Bank’s interest rates were “very high” is not scrutinized beyond quoting Professor Yunus’ factual statement that they were (and remain) 20% or less, depending on the type of loan. (By the way, once inflation is factored in, even Grameen’s highest rates are effectively much less than the American middle class pays on its credit card debt.) Better reporting would have given essential context by noting, for example, that Grameen’s rates during the time Yunus ran it were not only the lowest of any large microlender in Bangladesh, but were one of the lowest rates offered by any unsubsidized microfinance institution in the world. The article should also have noted that even after the government exerted greater control of Grameen Bank after Yunus’ forced resignation in 2011, its interest rates have not been lowered. (If they were in fact “very high,” one would imagine that the new government-appointed chairman would have ordered them to be lowered on his first day on the job.)

The journalists’ commentary on the microfinance sector in general is also uneven, and perhaps a bit sloppy. Regarding the costs to microfinance borrowers, they wrote that “annualized interest rates were heading to 100%.” Better journalism would have noted that as early as 2006, global interest rates by microlenders were on average 26%, and had been declining for years, according to CGAP (an arm of the World Bank). The same paper notes that the very high interest rates (like the unacceptably high 85% charged by Compartamos in Mexico) impact only about 1% of borrowers globally.    

A more recent study cited in the book The Future of Microfinance (on page 19) found that in 2015, the median interest rates for 18 largest microfinance institutions serving a combined 86% of the global market were between 13% and 18% (including some that, unlike Grameen, receive government or philanthropic subsidies).

However, the article correctly cited Professor Yunus as a strong proponent of client-centered microfinance where interest rates are kept as low as possible and profiteering is minimized. In fact, the gradual decline in microfinance interest rates described above is due to a combination of forces including supportive public policies, media scrutiny, technology advances, operational efficiencies, and the advocacy of global leaders, none more important than Professor Yunus. The journalists themselves visited a Grameen village and were impressed by the evidence they found for Grameen’s positive impact.

Perhaps most telling, the journalists note the incongruity between the claims that Professor Yunus has embezzled millions and his modest lifestyle, based on traveling with him and visiting his home and family in Dhaka. The article dryly notes that, “If Yunus has laundered millions of dollars, it’s hard to see where it went.” To underscore the point, they mention his “modest” apartment and its “unassuming couches,” and let the reader reflect on the obvious disconnect between the wild accusations and the observed reality. For those of us in the Protect Yunus Campaign who have sat—often while sweating profusely—with Professor Yunus in the unassuming and non-air-conditioned office he worked out of for decades at Grameen Bank, that reality is all too familiar.

*In this 2023 article, a Minister seeking to curry favor with the PM mentioned how surprised he was that she hadn’t won the prize yet. Many others in her orbit say such things.

A lot has happened since we last posted to the Project Yunus blog on June 12. Most encouragingly, Professor Yunus made a triumphant return to Manila for Social Business Day and for other engagements, after not having visited the Philippines for a number of years.  In the past, he has served on the board of directors of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), an essential organization that made the Green Revolution possible, and he was honored in 1984 with the Ramon Magsaysay Award, popularly known as the “Nobel Prize of Asia.” (Here is an excerpt of the speech by the president of the Magsaysay Award Foundation at Social Business Day as published in the Daily Star, a leading newspaper in Bangladesh.)

His trip began with a speech at the Asian Development Bank that one participant said kept the assembled ADB leaders and staff “riveted.” Professor Yunus was the main attraction at Social Business Day, held June 27-28 at the SMX Aura Convention Center in Manila and organized by the Yunus Centre and the Negros Women for Tomorrow Foundation (NWFT).  The gathering attracted around 400 delegates from more than 27 countries. Later, he was the keynote speaker at the Academia Dialogue and Three Zero Club convention held at Asia Pacific College on June 29. (Three Zero Clubs are groups of five young people who organize for and advance Professor Yunus’ vision of a world where there is no wealth concentration, poverty, unemployment, or net carbon emissions.)

On June 30, he was the special guest speaker at the 40^th anniversary of the Negros Women For Tomorrow Foundation (NWTF), a nonprofit that spawned Dungganon Bank, one of the largest and most respected microfinance institutions in the Philippines that came into existence due to a former governor of the province of Negros Occidental meeting Professor Yunus at a conference many years ago.  

At Social Business Day, Professor Yunus and allies including McKinsey & Co. announced a new, ambitious digital health-care initiative called Shukhee (“Happy” in Bengali) that you’ll be hearing more about soon.

Before we move on to topics closer to Bangladesh, let’s pause for a moment to reflect on the trip highlights, incomplete as they are, mentioned above. A leading Asian nation honors Dr. Yunus in multiple ways as one of the great civil society leaders of our era, and people from as far away as Mexico, Brazil, and the United States travel to take part. Yet in his own country, he remains persona non grata due to what exactly? Non-existent crimes? Jealousy? Who really knows except the Prime Minister?

Anyway, since our last posting, Reuters published a story very favorable to Professor Yunus that was reprinted widely. In an attempt at fairness, the journalist interviewed a government minister who  made a shockingly false accusation against Professor Yunus. The article said, “[Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Anisul) Huq cited tax paid by Yunus after the Supreme Court ruled against him in a tax-evasion case.”

The Yunus Centre, which often does not refute such things, did issue a response this time. It included this, “There was never a tax evasion case by the tax authority against Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus at any point of time. So the question of the Supreme Court giving any verdict on tax evasion by Professor Muhammad Yunus is totally fictitious. The reason that Professor Yunus went to court was to contest a legal point on a tax issue, whether donation comes under income tax law (because the Tax authority imposed tax on his donation). The case went up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed with the tax authority and Professor Yunus paid the tax. That resolved the issue. Neither party in the case was ever talking about any tax evasion. Tax authority never went to court on any issue against Professor Yunus. It was Professor Yunus who went to the court to resolve a legal point.” It concluded by noting, “The Honorable Law Minister completely misrepresented the case to the global media against a distinguished citizen of the country and against the image of the country.”

The Protect Yunus Campaign has done additional research on this matter. It turns out that the laws in Bangladesh about tax-deductible contributions to charitable trusts are somewhat ambiguous. For example, the age at which people can contribute to them is not specified; rather, it refers to a “suitably advanced age.” In practice, anyone in their 70s or older has been able to legally contribute tax-free to these trusts. But Professor Yunus, fearing that the ambiguities in the law would be used against him by a hostile administration, asked the Supreme Court to rule on his eligibility to contribute tax free. The Court ruled that he could not, and he immediately paid the required taxes last year without complaint.

In yet another article about Professor Yunus’ persecution that was highly favorable to him, Time magazine published, “From ‘Banker to the Poor’ to ‘Bloodsucker’: The Sorry Saga of Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus.” It noted, “Yunus faces the increasingly autocratic government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, [who] pursues, despite widespread condemnation, a bitter and bizarre vendetta against him.”

It continued, “The truth [about this conflict] is complex, melding personal jealousy, a precipitous decline of democracy and human-rights inside Bangladesh, as well as waning American influence across a region suffering a distinct authoritarian revival. First, it’s an open secret that Hasina is consumed with jealousy that Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize given her repeated snubs.”

It added, “…whenever something goes awry, particularly involving Western dignitaries or institutions, Hasina points the finger at Yunus. In 2012, the World Bank reneged on funding construction of the Padma Bridge—Bangladesh’s longest bridge, connecting the less developed southwest of the country to the capital Dhaka and the north—citing ‘credible evidence corroborated by a variety of sources which points to a high-level corruption conspiracy.'” The journalist made many strong and accurate points, but this last one is perhaps the most important: Whenever the Prime Minister finds herself in trouble of her own making, she diverts attention by blaming Professor Yunus.

Upon returning from a trip to India where she probably received negative feedback on her treatment of Professor Yunus, and where she negotiated some highly controversial agreements with India that some say compromise Bangladesh’s sovereignty, Hasina spent a significant amount of time at a press conference responding to the Time article, which she said she had read. She did this instead of discussing her trip in depth, which was the reason the press conference was called in the first place. The PM flatly denied all of the criticisms leveled at her in the article, and then challenged Professor Yunus to a debate. Interestingly, the people she should be debating are her political rivals, but instead she has jailed many of them on trumped-up charges.

In the meantime, the labor court case against Professor Yunus will hold its next hearing on July 4. The Clooney Foundation for Justice is one of many independent organizations that have deemed this case to be without merit and politically-motivated. In their findings issued earlier this year, the Clooney Foundation’s TrialWatch report found “that the proceedings against Yunus appear to have been improperly motivated based on a combination of factors – the fraught political climate in which the trial took place, the many other cases brought against Yunus, the statements made by Sheikh Hasina about Yunus, the expedited nature of the proceedings, the apparent selective targeting of Yunus amongst many other individuals at Grameen Telecom arguably subject to the same law, the authorities’ unusually aggressive and potentially unforeseeable interpretation of the Labour Law, and procedural irregularities… TrialWatch calls on Bangladesh’s Labour Appellate Tribunal to overturn the conviction of Yunus and his co-defendants.”

The equally meritless “embezzlement” charges leveled by the Anti-Corruption Commission were officially accepted by the Bangladesh judicial system last month, leading to the proceedings against Professor Yunus that will begin in mid-July. Journalist David Bergman has exhaustively debunked the charges in this article and this follow up piece. In the end, the entire case hinges on the fact that after an out of court settlement between Grameen Telecom and its workers had been reached, the agreement was signed but the bank account to which the payments were going to be sent had not yet been opened by the workers’ trade union. So it was left blank and filled in by hand a few days later after the account was opened. The funds were then sent, exactly as proscribed by the agreement, to the intended account. Incredibly, that’s it! This is what the government’s laughably thin case calls “embezzlement.” It actually was a pragmatic effort to speed the payment to Grameen Telecom’s workers, or at worst a clerical anomaly that was quickly corrected.

Next up is the Paris Olympics, which Professor Yunus has done so much to shape in collaboration with the French government and the International Olympic Committee. As mentioned above, the case involving the allegations from the Anti-Corruption  Commission begins with a procedural hearing on or around July 15. There has been talk of it having weekly hearings from then on, which would prevent Professor Yunus from traveling to Paris where he would be an honored guest at the Olympics. It will be interesting to see whether the Bangladesh government blocks his participation and if they do, how that impacts Bangladesh-French relations and world opinion of Hasina’s regime.

In the weeks ahead we expect to see more stories that are favorable to about Professor Yunus’ work and the battle with his own government.