Cutting off the nose

Cutting off the nose to spite the face is an age old adage to describe an action out of pique. Albeit metaphorical, this defines a desperate act that would damage oneself more than the source of one's anger. I do not know why, but I am attracted to this proverb by the surreal controversy raised at the highest level of our country over an unproven charge of funds embezzlement against an individual who is an icon of pride and achievement for a nation otherwise known for poverty. Truly, I find no answer for this behavior among us unless we accept another expression that some people run after a kite to retrieve a headgear without checking their heads first.
Since the early days of our painful birth as a sovereign country, we have been known internationally as a basket case, as a country swimming in an ocean of poverty and battling often the scourges of nature in the shape of flood, hurricanes, and famines. Our nation had become a poster child of extreme penury, abject malnutrition, and breeding ground of diseases of epidemic proportion. With an ever expanding population squeezed in a tiny area, we had the label of the most densely populated place on earth. The international community looked upon us with great pity, and the foreign press took pains to describe our misery in bold letters whenever a disaster struck our hapless country.
For a long time our only recognition in the international community was for natural disasters and great poverty. For a great number of years we survived on aids and charity from the richer countries. For a long time every dollar that we spent on our development program, eighty cents came from foreign assistance. Foreign relief and foreign aid were a major source of our income. Our people who made a living abroad hung their heads low; they had little to be proud of except their own labor.
It took a generation for us when we found a home grown institution and its founder who gave to the world a new image for the country. An image that celebrated the painstaking work of a soul dedicated to bring an alternative solution to end the cycle of poverty. This was Grameen Bank and its visionary founder Prof. Mohammed Yunus who showed the country and the World at large an innovative way to empower multitude of powerless people to lift themselves from the morass of deprivation and penury without losing their dignity. Grameen Bank proved that there were ways to put to productive use massive amount of human resources, particularly women and the unemployed, that otherwise go in waste.
Years before Mohammed Yunus would be honored by the Nobel Institute Bangladesh became an icon of hope for the impoverished nations of the world with his novel concept of micro-lending. This ground breaking approach would be accepted as a model for bringing economic growth and empowerment of the poor in both developing and developed world. No one ever thought that a model that was born in a remote village of Chittagong would one day be emulated in the outskirts of Chicago or in the slums of New York. Today there are now 141 Grameen replication projects in 38 countries. It has succeeded because the concept has created an effective and sustainable response to world poverty. Thanks to Grameen Bank and Prof. Yunus the concept of microcredit is a highly accepted approach toward eradication of poverty around the globe.
I do not want this to be a litany of praises either for Prof. Yunus or his pioneering ways. This is redundant. Grameen Bank and its founder became household names nationally and internationally by what they have achieved; they do not need any propaganda. In a landmark departure from traditions, the Nobel Institute awarded the peace prize on an individual who did not dazzle the world with political wizardry, but with a radical idea that the poor can be trusted with fiscal responsibility. In an editorial note, the Financial Times observed (October 14, 2006) that in awarding the Peace Prize to Prof. Yunus, "the Nobel Committee has shown imagination by recognizing three agendas that support peace: ending poverty, empowering women, and emphasizing the importance of trust in human relations".
My great regret is that sometimes we as a nation fail to rise above personal and partisan politics, and yield to resentment of greatness in others. We fail to recognise people's dedication to a cause of greater good and service to humanity, and attribute personal motivation to their causes to denigrate or belittle their success. In our tunnel vision we fail to see the paths these gifted individuals have lighted all round, and the people they have helped along the way. Our personal differences sometimes make us blind to the honor and pride these great individuals bring to the country, and hopes they create for the future generations.
I am confident in time this momentary distraction will also pass. This controversy will be resolved. The Norwegian government has already shown the first step. It is now up to others who we trust as leaders to remove this controversy. We need to show that we are all behind a name and an institution the world has accepted as icons of poverty alleviation. Else, we will all prove to be undeserving of the adulation we have so far received from the international community.

Ziauddin Choudhury works for an international organization in the USA.