PROFESSOR Anu Muhammad has discussed resource curse in its many forms on many occasions. He related it to the supposed problems of Iran. He related it to the exemplary case of Nigeria, surely one of the worst victims of the curse. Then, of course, there were countries in South America, including Venezuela and Bolivia, although both these countries have recently witnessed changes in their governance and orientation of their political establishments. Last Wednesday, September 2, Anu Muhammad experienced the resource curse firsthand. He faced the curse full on, although not quite in full force; after all, he came out of it with just a few fractures. Perhaps, Anu Muhammad would be first to admit that.

   It had barely been a week since the same group of people, who gathered at Muktangan that day, gathered to celebrate the third anniversary of Phulbari Day in Dinajpur. Three years ago on August 26, about 70,000 people of that sleepy sub-district town and adjacent areas in Dinajpur gathered to protest against a proposed open-pit coalmine in the area that would displace at least 100,000 people. Paramilitary forces shot and killed three young boys marching in protest. Now that was resource curse at its full force. Anu Muhammad would verify it. He had barely left the spot calling an end to a peaceful demonstration when gunshots rang through the air. His citizens’ organisation had been a driving force in mobilising public opinion at Phulbari on that day, as it was last Wednesday.

   The National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Natural Resources and Power and Ports, of which Anu Muhammad is the member secretary, has always been vocal, and has never failed to express its opinion with conviction, since its formation in 1998. Although initially the committee’s main area of interest was fossil fuel extraction, it later became involved with other related issues of national importance — power and ports. The main agenda last Wednesday happened to be one of its agendas at the time of its inception – gas exports. At that time, there was a strong pressure to export gas through pipeline from Bibiyana to, reportedly, Hariyana in India. At that time Bibiyana was being operated by Occidental, which was later taken over by Unocal, both American oil and gas companies with significant political clout.

   The ‘rationale’ for gas exports was that since Bangladesh did not really have that much of a demand to use Bibiyana’s gas, there was no point continuing with further exploration in the field. But if the operator was allowed to export then there would be handsome dividends for Bangladesh. Besides, many an expert favouring the export rationale pointed out that Bangladesh has a high potential of striking even more gas fields with further exploration. So, they said, there should be no problems with exporting a little. There was a strong pressure because gas export through pipeline was prohibited in the product sharing contracts between Bangladesh and the oil companies. The contracts allowed gas exports after value addition, for instance as liquefied natural gas, which would require further investment and generate employment in Bangladesh.

   More than 10 years later, Bangladesh’s energy security remains at the heart of the issue. And with the hindsight of a global scramble to secure energy sources, experts insist that foreign companies must not be allowed to export gas no matter in which form or mode. The insistence seems all the more rational against the global quest for energy security and the national context of depleting gas resources and increasing gas crisis, which predictably leads to power crisis. In fact, gas crisis has become acute to the point that it is being diverted from other industries like urea manufacturing to electricity production. And, even after that, reports have it that industrialisation is being hampered due to power shortage. 

   In this connection Petrobangla, which is the government agency handling these matters, is supposed to have the ‘first right of refusal’, incorporated into the production sharing contracts, when it comes to foreign companies selling gas. This clause is expected to provide a safeguard against gas sales to third parties if Petrobangla, or Bangladesh, is given the first priority in purchasing gas from foreign companies. Then it follows that in principle Petrobangla might be considering to refuse purchasing gas although there is a shortage in the country or the question of exports would not arise.

   According to reports, the current model ‘production sharing contract’ contains such provisions that would allow 80 per cent of natural gas found in offshore blocks to be exported. However, one cannot argue this case with full conviction since the actual agreements between the successive governments and international oil companies or coalmining companies have never been made public. But whatever has leaked out to the press gave the national committee enough reasons to be concerned about the country’s energy security. 

   Furthermore, the attitude of successive governments regarding energy deals, regardless of the nature of government, has always been the same. No matter which government is in power, the energy sector has always been kept mostly out of public scrutiny. Almost every government’s nucleus and their coterie are said to have secured personal gains from deals in fossil fuel extraction. And almost every government has gone out of its way to protect the interest of these companies. The Awami League government failed to ensure proper compensation from Occidental, and subsequently Unocal, for the Magurchhara blow-out. It was also the Awami League government that laid the foundation of handing over Tengratila, as an ‘abandoned’ gas field, to Niko Resources. The following government of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party-led alliance failed to ensure proper compensation for the two blow-outs at Tengratila. The BNP-led government was also the one that seemed only too eager to enter into an agreement with Asia Energy, which did not have any previous experience in mining, another greenhorn like Niko, for the proposed open-pit coalmine.

   The national committee’s Phulbari chapter, as well as the committee’s central leaders, launched a movement to raise public awareness through a relentless campaign of more than a year to mobilise the people in opposing the coalmine. They organised a mass rally to announce a social boycott of all quarters related to Asia Energy in August 2006, when the law enforcers shot at the procession and killed three young boys. The allegations of substantial personal gains of key officials involved with the power and energy sector finds more ground considering the fact that this sector remains one of the prime minister’s portfolios and are virtually run by state ministers. The current energy adviser, Tawfiq-e-Elahi Chowdhury, is a former secretary for energy. He is said to have been instrumental in ‘losing’ probe committee reports on the Magurchhara blow-out. He is also said to have been the prime mover behind having Tengratila, a full-fledged unexplored gas field, ‘deemed as abandoned’ and thereafter handed over to Niko.

   Anu Muhammad or the organisation that he represents must have touched upon a sensitive issue to attract such wrath of the state machinery as to injure about 50 people at the same rally that was attended by several hundred people, many of whom were general public and students, besides of course the token presence of the left parties. Although one life should not be more valuable or precious than any other, the government’s apologetic attitude, the main opposition party’s apparent sensitivity towards this issue, and the reaction of the people suggest that this individual is more important than the three young boys killed in Phulbari three years ago. The public outcry had not been so strong then, as it was this week. Be that as it may, it is not a question about the individual or the organisation.

   What is important to note is that the national committee, since its formation, has remained steadfastly unmoved from its principled position. Whether right or wrong, it has argued its position with evident conviction and at the same time campaigned nationally to raise public awareness. The committee has never backed away from questioning or criticising the governments in office. The fact that this citizens’ organisation can gather almost a thousand people at a rally, which many political parties with significant networks cannot bring together, shows that its words ring true, especially among the younger generation. It is because of the national committee’s unrelenting attitude that it has slowly, but surely, gained currency and has now become a force to be reckoned with when it comes to fossil fuel extraction in Bangladesh. Unfortunately, that does not go down well with the governments, past, present or future. 

First published in New Age, September 10, 2009.