KHWAJA WASEEM ARZOO WRITES FROM DALLAS:
This morning I heard from Dhaka that ‘Abdullah Welfare Trust’ once again drawing criticism for a generous payout of Tk 10,000 as charity to a family member. Such amount, everyone believes, was sanctioned first time otherwise it was limited to 2000 taka till recently. Members those who approved are alleged to have been supporting agenda of the chairman and his cronies.
In order to clear their position beneficiaries demanded from ‘Abdullah Welfare Trust’ to address issue and decision if it is due to any phenomenal policy change or was just to please someone’s personal agenda? Please don’t get me wrong. I am not against trust or pointing finger to any member, neither have so desired for ‘Trust’ to stop charity or act a penny-pincher as well. Charity undeniably is a noble gesture. But being the welfare trust, it is not an option but an imperative, for them to maintain a uniform policy for every beneficiary who come to them in need and receive equal treatment.
Best regards.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Now This Is UGLY! when you say the following:-
"Members those who approved are alleged to have been supporting agenda of the chairman and his cronies."
It seems to me, that the poster Wasim Arzoo or person hidden behind him don't like the chairman of the trust for some reason.
Anyway, Taka 10,000 is not a lot of money these days.(even in Bangladesh)
By the way I do not know who is the Chairman of the trust or the other members of the (present)trust. However, I only know that Khawja Rehan of Dubai (maybe still in New York) is the member of the trust and I did talked to him informally about the trust recently and did posted the topics of my conversation, herein.
It is not a good idea to call an elected member(s)"CRONIES" provided, they are indeed elected within the provision of the bylaws of the trust,
Respectfully,
Iftekhar Hassan
Wasim Bhai,
Thanks for sharing this news. I see what you are saying. You have a valid argument that the present board members should maintain a uniform policy.
Iftekhar Bhai,
I also agree with you when you say” It is not a good idea to call an elected member(s)"CRONIES" provided; they are indeed elected within the provision of the bylaws of the trust.”
I neither know the recipient nor was sure of the reason compelling enough for the above said grant. Hence do not want to draw conclusion without knowing the full story.
In my personal opinion Trust is suffering from faulty mechanism. I tried to analyze Trust and recommended few suggestions below.
Sixties & Seventies: Generation 1- Decade of Life Membership
As soon the eleven Bujurgs formed the trust, they declared themselves “Life members”. This provision was grossly undemocratic. That is how Trust was deprived of young blood and fresh ideas. This closed the door for the young leaders of that time like K.M. Halim (Phuppa) and K.Asad Quader (Chachha) for a prolonged time.
None of the founding fathers of the Trust was corrupt. They ran the show as personal family affair. Their greatest achievement was compromise with The B Association.
Thanks for their effort that the Nawabbarians can claim today to be landlord.
Eighties & Nineties: Generation 2 -Friends Alliance
As Trust had passed its infancy in the 80’s it became victim of “friend’s alliance”. For the first time politics was introduced here. Politics reflected everywhere - the way the campaigns were waged and the alliances formed. The then secretary and the president were honest and served selflessly. Their greatest achievement was getting the property back form the court appointed receiver Mahakobi. Nawabbarians are grateful for their service and hard work.
However either due to personal ego or fear of being bugged by Mahakobi’s agent they had chosen the same path as their predecessors. They wanted to be surrounded by a “yes sir group” and let couples of incompetent person win the election banking on their own reputation. Their alliance based electoral strategy proved to be harmful. This had starved the trust- service of highly educated person such as K.M. Azad (ex director of Bangladesh Biman).
Twentieth Century: Generation 3- Leadership crisis & bribery by the underworlds
After the departure of the second generation trust has been plagued by leadership crisis.
The example of winning election through alliance set up by the earlier generation continued. Threat and bribery from underground Don became rampant .Most of the members compromised their integrity. More recently Khwaja Saberuddin one of the remaining honest and highly educated person who won the Trust’s election with historic number of votes (700+) succumbed to dirty politics. In a span of few months of his holding office he showed his management expertise and was about to turn around Trust’s downtrodden fortune. The vested group skillfully used propaganda and religion (which has soft corner on every people’s heart) and Khwaja Saberuddin opted his way out through resignation. Cheers.
The constitution of the Trust is not bible or Koran that can’t be changed. It needs major overhauling which is long overdue. I would suggest the following amendments:
A. Nullify trusteeship of abstainer: The membership of a trustee should be cancelled if he/she remains absent from Trust’s proceedings for more than 90 days in a row.
B. Ban Alliance: Each individual should run the election with his personal agenda. Forming alliance should be banned as it not only brings incompetent person but also closes the door for the competent one.
C. Cap spending limit: Spending limit should not hit the ceiling of ten thousand taka per contestant. We should remember that trust is a non profit org and money could be used as a tool to manipulate vote.
D. Debate among the contestants: Trust could organize a meeting of the contestants before the election. This should be held on a neutral venue and with full security arrangements. Here all the contestant should talk to the beneficiaries and prove why he/she is a better candidate than the other.
E. Voter’s unbiased decision: Finally the success of the election and the trust depends on the voter’s choice. The barometer for choosing a candidate should not be the relationship test. Rather the decision should be based on how an individual can add value to the trust. As long the voters don’t fall in the trap of unholy alliances and put Trust’s interest above anything else, all will be fine.
Otherwise I warn beneficiaries of bleak future and darker days ahead.
Personal opinion of Anas Khwaja: does not represent the website team’s position.
Post a Comment