Economist of London blunders again

on the basis of such half-baked or unreliable research, says Enayet Rasul Bhuiyan A survey by the Economist, a periodical paper of London, has rated 140 cities round the world to determine how livable or not these seemed to be in the judgment of the surveyors. Bangladesh's capital city has come out second from the bottom or as the second-most unlivable city from the results of the survey. Dhaka's position is 139th while that of Harare is 140. There is no need to say that there can be no happiness for Bangladeshis from knowing about the Economist survey. The same in no way shall contribute positively to the image of the country internationally. But it is also pertinent to question the objectivity of the exercise done by the Economist. For it cannot be said that despite its renown, the Economist has been doing a fair job in its ratings of countries in different areas in recent times. For example, the Economist in another such survey conducted only some months ago, profusely praised Bangladesh for its attainments in democracy. But as any reasonable and unprejudiced observer of the Bangladesh scene knows it, Bangladesh with its dysfunctional parliament, suppression of the political opposition in many cases, violation of the fundamental civil and political rights of citizens, etc., can hardly be praised for the present state of its democracy or for democratic governance. So, there are reasons also not to take the Economist's survey as an infallible guide to Dhaka's present or the future. This survey was conducted in six major areas namely stability, health services, education, infrastructures, culture and environment . Under the first head, stability, that vitally includes law and order, political tumults, terrorist activities and related factors, Dhaka can be described as almost a serene city at least by regional comparisons. Bangladesh has its share of political troubles but the same are dwarfs compared to the frequent political and terrorism related violence we note in Pakistani and Indian cities. The sort of high insecurity that hang perennially over Pakistani cities such as Karachi, Islamabad, etc., from suicide bombers and terrorist attacks are not seen in Dhaka. The same kind of apprehension about their security almost always appear to be in the minds of citizens of the major Indian cities -- Delhi and Mumbai. Running gun battles between law enforcers and terrorists are common sights in these Indian metropolises. For citizens, law and order and concern for their physical security and safety of their properties are very important indicators to determine a city's livability or otherwise. In this extremely important area, the Economist surveyors seemed to be blind to the remarkably better position of Bangladesh's capital city compared to major regional cities. The position of Bangladesh in this area can be considered better than even some big cities of developed countries. For example, the number of serious crimes such as murders, rape and robberies committed on average in New York City in a day would be many times more than the average for the same in Dhaka notwithstanding that Dhaka is home to over 15 million people and most of them have an existence below or close to the poverty line who should have every incentive to engage in crimes. Thus, the law and order situation in Dhaka is still to be considered as mild compared to many other cities in the world which got higher ranking in the survey. As for the environment, Dhaka continues to be far more livable than many other cities. For example, Muscovites choked from smokes and heat for some months at a stretch recently and were confined to their homes . Many US cities remained in frozen conditions where mobility remained suspended for long in the present winter season. Dhaka faces no such great climatic or environmental hazards . It is also questionable how far the Economist's assessments of Dhaka city in terms of culture and even education reflect accuracy. Dhaka may not be culturally at the top of the world's cities. But it is still distinguished for its cultural vibrancy compared to many other cities of the world. Its educational base is low compared to cities of developed countries but should not fare so badly in contrast to many other developing countries. Therefore, it appears that there are many reasons to feel awfully disheartened by the Economist's report on Dhaka city. It should have rather praised Dhaka for tackling so much when it its population density is the highest among the world's cities. However, the above is not to say that the ones in charge of governance in Bangladesh can afford to be casual in treating Dhaka's problems. This city is already home to over 15 million people when it was planned for living by, say, not more than two to four million people. Dhaka's population is expected to soar to 25 million by 2020 and to 35 million by 2030. Dhaka could indeed be overwhelmed by its population pressure and hopelessly inadequate utilities and services if the present lackadaisical approach to responding to its problems continues in the much the same manner like now. But it needs recognition also that Dhaka's conditions are still not unlivable and that with great stress put on proper plans and their full and timely implementation, a positive turnaround of the city is quite possible. At any rate, the present conditions of Dhaka-assessed objectively-would not show it to be so unlivable as the Economist survey showed it. Even in its degraded conditions , Dhaka, realistically ranked, should be seen as better endowed than many other cities of the world. One only has to grasp the point that a city which has become so unlivable does not draw people to it at such a brisk rate. People rather tend to flee away from such a city. That the rush to Dhaka city is turning only stronger by the day is proof of the fact that its attraction for people remains unchanged or its pull factors remain undiminished. Dhaka's problems stem mainly from utter lack of planning or enforcing strictly whatever plans are there on the boards. The Detailed Area Plan (DAP) for Dhaka that has been prepared must be fully and very well implement at the fastest. Every effort should be made to make the plan inclusive of the requirements of the vast number of the poor and underprivileged people living in Dhaka. But the growing formidable problems of Dhaka and the urgent need to attend to them, can have nothing to do with describing the city as if it has been already pushed into the abyss. The Economist magazine published from UK is renowned for the competence and dependability of its comments and reports. It also runs a parallel service, called the Economist Intelligence Unit, that publishes rating of countries and institutions from the economic and business perspectives. But it is increasingly posing as a question how far this famous publication will continue to retain its expected character or dependability. Our government should protest such misinformation in it-- such as ranking Dhaka as the second-most unlivable city-- in the vital interest of protecting the image of the country.