Cultural, Human Rights, International, Life as it is, Political

Xenophobic delusional peddlers of Brexit

Barack Obama in his state visit to the UK in April 2016 to mark farewell to his two-term presidency of America said quite clearly that Britain’s membership of the EU magnified Britain’s place in the world. He also stated that should Britain decide to leave the EU and then try to draw trade deals with America, she would find herself always at the end of the queue. The message was quite blunt that America, as a trading nation, would always deal with big players like the EU, China, Japan, India and so forth first and then only the small nations like Britain would come, no matter what the deceitful delusional Brexiteers’ claim and assert that the ‘special relationship’ with America was profound.

But the delusional morons advocating Britain’s exit from the EU would dismiss everything, rejecting with contempt that Barack Obama’s view carried no weight as he was the outgoing president. Little did they know that the whole of American political and bureaucratic establishments, past and present, had echoed Obama’s views. Twelve American past Secretaries of State had signed a document endorsing his views. But the Brexit advocates claimed that America would fall head over heels to come to favourable trade deals with Britain! Just a few months down the line, the incoming president declared clearly, “America first, America first” and imposed exorbitant tariff on steel imports, wherever they are manufactured!

When the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and many other world economic bodies warned that Britain’s economic power and its stature in the world would be severely diminished if Britain left the EU, the Brexit advocates said they were all wrong! These economic organisations, according to Brexit people, had made many wrong predictions and they were wrong again. The Brexiteers without doing any economic analysis came to predict Britain’s economic future was very bright outside the EU! These delusional day-dreamers were nothing but block-headed xenophobic bunch.

These Brexit leaders, mostly right-wing Tory fanatics, peddled mind-boggling lies and deceits – £350 million per week to the NHS from the saving of £19 billion per year membership fee; making trade deals are the “easiest things in the world history”; the Irish border issue is insignificant and “can be solved like London congestion charges”; stopping 80 million Turkish immigrants coming to Britain, “taking back control” from the EU etc.

On 29th of March 2017 Theresa May, the new prime minister gave the Brexit notice to the European Commission and the withdrawal terms state that within 24 months the exit should be completed. The mantra of the prime minister was, “Brexit means Brexit” and she discarded the “single market” and “customs union” completely. These utterings made her the darling to the ultra-right-wing xenophobic Tory Brexiteers.

Let us see what those Brexiteers had said before the EU referendum with the shrillest voices to discredit the pragmatic voices and what the reality is now. Those Brexiteers purposely ignored the benefits of the EU membership – regional regeneration fund coming to industrially depressed areas such as Liverpool, North Wales, North of England etc; educational grant to British students and British universities, advanced research grant, security cooperation, nuclear cooperation, European Research Council (ERC) funding and lots of other programmes to help Member States. Withdrawing membership will automatically negate all these benefits and so to say membership fee will be the total saving is a total bonkers.

When the EU leaders, particularly the German Chancellor and French President, stated that Britain outside the EU would lose all the privileges and the advantages of being in the EU, Brexit leaders said they were wrong. The EU would give better deal to Britain outside the EU! Did the Brexit peddlers know better what France, Germany and other EU countries would do than their own leaders? Delusion and wishful thinking were at its dizzy heights with these morons.

Prime minister’s “Brexit means Brexit” was nothing short of pandering to extreme right-wingers’ dogma. She is now saying that Brexit may be delayed due to legislative logjam and pragmatic reasons. Many compromises had to be made, particularly with regard to Irish ‘Good Friday Agreement’; otherwise the dark days of IRA and sectarian killing may return.

The xenophobic imperialist Tory politicians thought that they could bring back the second era of British colonialism and ‘rule Britannia’ status if Britain is outside the EU. Boris Johnson, the arch delusionist, who became the foreign and commonwealth secretary at the back of his monumental falsehood went to India, Myanmar and other ex-colonies deluding that he would get the reception and imperial status of colonial foreign secretary, but came back utterly humiliated. Liam Fox, Brexit international trade secretary, who made the claim of making trade deals is the easiest thing in world history, could not make a single worthwhile trade deal in over two years! 

The deceitful Brexiteers have all fizzled out now, their promises of £350 million per week have all but thrown out, the 80 million Turks were total fantasy. But they are holding on to the new mantra, “people have spoken out overwhelmingly” – with 51.8% to leave as against 48.2% to remain. A 3.6% margin is hardly overwhelming, when all those lies and deceits had been taken into account.

The fact was that the referendum process was hoisted on to the public by the internal squabbles of the Tory party. The previous Tory party leader had to agree to have a referendum under duress from the Eurosceptic Tory political agitators. When the referendum came, the vile instincts of the Eurosceptics burst out into open to stir up fear and prejudices of the ignoramus people. Lies, deception, xenophobia, bigotry, innuendos and all other vile instincts that run counter to the spirit of democracy had been played out.

No matter how loudly Brexiters shout, “Brexit is the will of the people”, if the voters had been fed with misinformation, fear and prejudices, the outcome is bound to be anything but sensible. When over a million people ‘Google searched’ the word ‘EU’ a day after casting vote on the EU referendum, one can say that there was something grossly wrong. Democracy had been massacred in the referendum.

Democracy cannot survive in ignorance, illiteracy or moral degeneracy. When honesty, decency, morality etc. are divorced, democracy takes leave too. As Franklin D. Roosevelt famously said, “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education”.

– Dr A Rahman is an author and a columnist.

Bangladesh, Cultural, Human Rights, International, Life as it is, Literary

Tagore’s renunciation of OBE in 1919

David Olusoga has attempted to justify his honour. But surely black and Asian Britons should try to undo imperial delusions.

Rabindranath Tagore: ‘The time has come when badges of honour make our shame glaring in their incongruous context of humiliation.’ Photograph: Fox Photos/Getty Images

A century ago the eminent Bengali writer Rabindranath Tagore returned his knighthood to the viceroy of India, which was awarded in 1915. The “time has come when badges of honour make our shame glaring in their incongruous context of humiliation”, Tagore wrote in outrage as scores of peaceful protesters were massacred in Jallianwala Bagh. He would now “stand, shorn of all special distinctions, by the side of my countrymen”.

In accepting the knighthood, Tagore had been unfairly accused of being a colonial flunkey, partly because he had expressed justifiable reservations about aspects of Indian nationalism. The 1919 atrocities in Amritsar jolted the Nobel laureate into accepting that his Knight Commander of the British Empire (the CBE still in use today) could not be treated as unconnected to the bloodied realities of that empire’s operations.

The belief that titles such as Officer, Dame Commander or Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire can be treated as purely symbolic, untainted by the gross brutalities of the imperial project, appear more plausible today, with historical distance. Accepting his Order of the British Empire, the public historian David Olusoga, who has a Nigerian father, has insisted defensively that while “the empire was an extractive, exploitative, racist and violent institution”, the fact that “there isn’t an empire any more” changes things completely.

The E-word is now a slightly retro empty term – a little bit distasteful, for sure, but happily emancipated from any historical reference. However, Olusoga’s comforting thought runs counter to the British establishment’s own adamantine but honest refusal, despite official criticism of the word as “anachronistic” and “insensitive”, to substitute “empire” in these titles with something less divisive and racially charged. It also ignores the extent to which aspirations to a resurgent imperial global grandeur have resurfaced, so explicitly and harmfully in the case for Brexit. Is the empire really over, or has it remained a virus-like sleeper cell in the British political imagination?Ms Dynamite

Rabindranath Tagore, ca. 1930

The black scholar Paul Gilroy suggests that Britain’s refusal to accept the loss of empire has produced “deluded patterns of historical reflection and self‑understanding”. Surely it is the task of black and Asian Britons to undo, not pander to, these delusions.

The most eloquent case for descendants of the enslaved, the indentured and the colonised to refuse honours that exalt the British empire was made by the poet Benjamin Zephaniah in this paper. He linked his own rejection of an OBE in 2003 not just to past atrocities or a “betrayal” of enslaved ancestors but to the very real afterlife of empire: racism, police brutality, privatisation, militarism, ongoing economic dispossession and the retention of the spoils of empire. One is either “profoundly anti-empire” or one accepts its many self-serving fictions along with the honour, including the notion that despite a few mishaps, it was a largely benevolent enterprise.

Zephaniah’s choice was based on clear principles, from a long and often forgotten tradition of black and Asian resistance to the global harm inflicted by empire, and the understanding that imperial and domestic rule were maintained by paternalism, buying loyalties heading off dissenters at the pass and ensuring that criticism was toned down. In the 1930s, the fiercely anti-colonial black British newspaper International African Opinion identified “the judicious management of the black intelligentsia, giving them jobs, OBEs and even knighthoods” as a key tactic for diffusing confrontation.

Bestowing knighthoods on African chiefs (indirect rule) and Indian princes elicited their assistance in controlling the colonised masses, though this was not always possible given widespread resistance. A select class of non-white leaders could be upheld as exemplars of a just system even as the large majority continued to face widespread discrimination and inequality.

Olusoga suggests that, by acknowledging the “incredible achievements of black and Asian Britons”, OBEs can be seen as a defeat of racism. Apart from the ways in which tokenism usually enables hierarchical and exclusionary systems to continue business as usual, the more vital question is whether OBEs actually facilitate what Olusoga correctly describes as the “need to confront” not celebrate the history of empire. The role of an officer of the empire is hardly calculated to induce that much-needed confrontation.

The British establishment, utterly reliant on fictions of imperial glory and benevolence, is not so naive as to facilitate its own undoing. Olusoga and others are fully entitled to their personal choices and private compromises. What is more questionable is the presentation of these personal decisions as politically sound choices made selflessly in the name of all black Britons.

Does having a few black names with OBE after them really signify that the British establishment acknowledges the profound historical contributions of black and Asian people to this nation, not least through producing much of its wealth? Beyond exceptional individual achievement, non-white Britons have also collectively organised for rights, fought racism challenged the empire, lobbied for legislation, run for political office, led demonstrations, produced community newspapers, and engaged in radical political education. So no: the “only options on the table” are not “to accept or decline” a seat at it. The real task is to bring this country to an understanding of what empire was, did and continues to do – and to question how a genuinely democratic decolonisation can be achieved in future.

• Priyamvada Gopal is a lecturer at Cambridge University

Advanced science, Astrophysics, Life as it is, Technical

Quantum Conundrum

The quantum concept that came into existence precisely in the year 1900 was both revolutionary in outlook and spectacular in outcome. This very concept which was put forward by Max Planck in 1900 when he tried to explain black body radiation was subsequently taken up by a luminary like Albert Einstein (as yet unknown to the world) in 1905 and gave a rational explanation to the hitherto difficult scientific problem.

The classical physics (also known as Newtonian physics) was ruling the day until about 1900 when all day-to-day physical problems could be explained by this discipline. But gradually it was running out of steam as new technically challenging phenomena came up due to invention of new instruments and reliable measurements were made.

The intractable physical processes like the black body radiation, interactions of light with particles, the puzzling behaviour of light and many more physical processes could not be explained by traditional classical mechanics. So, a new method, a new mode of thinking, a new science had to be invented that would explain all these inexplicable things.

Although Max Planck was first to venture outside the conventional concept of light being wave in nature to explain ‘black body radiation’ in 1900, it was Albert Einstein who gave scientific explanation by proposing in 1905 the ‘quantisation’ of light – a phenomenon where light was assumed to consist of discreet packets of energy – which he called quantum of light or photon. This quantum of light was advanced in order to explain the hitherto inexplicable photoelectric process, where light was allowed to fall on the surface of a metal and electrons were detected to have emitted. No matter how long or how intense one type of light was, electrons would not be emitted. Only when light of higher frequencies was allowed, electrons were emitted. Einstein showed that photons (quantum of energy in a bundle) of higher frequencies have higher energies and those higher energy photons could emit electrons. (It was like, no matter how long or how heavy the rain is, the roof would not be dented. Only when hailstorm of sufficient big sizes falls on the roof, does the roof cave in). For this quantisation theory, Einstein was awarded Nobel prize in 1921.

Thus, light came to be viewed as both wave and particle, depending on experimental circumstances, and hence the nomenclature ‘wave-particle duality’ came into common vocabulary. If hitherto electromagnetic light can be viewed both as wave and particle, can particles (like electrons) behave like waves? Indeed, so. If electrons are allowed to go through two slits, they interfere and produce alternate bright and dark spectral lines on a screen, exactly like light waves do. The microscopic world does not distinguish between waves and particles, they are blurred into indistinguishable entities. That is the nature that quantum mechanics has produced. 

Although Einstein was the pioneer of quantisation of light, he was not at ease with the way this new concept had been taken up by ‘new lions’ under the stewardship of physicists like Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, Max Born and many more in the early part of the last century. They collectively produced the full-blown quantum mechanics, which Einstein had difficulty in recognising.  

In quantum theory, particles like electrons revolving round the nucleus of an atom do not exist as particles. They are like strata of waves smeared round the nucleus. However, they exist, behaving like particles, when some energy is imparted to the atom or some energy is taken away from the atom resulting in those electrons moving up or down in energy levels. In other words, electrons exist only when there is an interaction or transition. Without such transitions, electrons just do not show up. However, electrons (with negative charge) are there around the nucleus, but there is no way of telling where the electrons are – only probability of their presence (wave function) can be described! No wonder, Einstein was not happy with such description, which he called incomplete.

Heisenberg produced what came to be known as ‘Heisenberg uncertainty principle’. The elementary particle like an electron cannot be measured with absolute accuracy both its position and momentum at the same time. The act of measuring the position of an electron disturbs the complementary parameter like velocity and so certain amount of uncertainty in momentum creeps in – that is the uncertainty principle. Similar uncertainty exists when measuring time and energy of the particle at the same time.

Niels Bohr, the high priest of quantum mechanics, produced from his Advanced Institute of Physics in Copenhagen, what came to be known as ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of quantum mechanics. This interpretation advanced the idea that elementary particles like electrons do not exist in stable or stationary conditions; they only exist in transitions and in interactions.

The ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ further emphasised that a quantum particle can only be said to exist when it is observed, if it is not observed it does not exist. This was a revolutionary concept. Einstein could not reconcile with that idea. He retorted, “When the Moon is there in the sky, it is real; whether one observes it or not”. Thus, the great intellectual battle on the nature of reality ensued between Einstein and Bohr. Einstein firmly believed that the quantum mechanics as it existed in his life time was inconsistent and incomplete (although he withdrew the ‘inconsistent’ branding, as quantum mechanics kept explaining modern technical processes with consistency). To prove that ‘incompleteness’, he produced various ‘thought experiments’ at various times to challenge Bohr’s ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’. Bohr countered those challenges with technical explanations, but Einstein was not fully convinced.   

Einstein did not like the abstract nature of quantum mechanics. He always demanded that theory must correspond to the reality, if not, it becomes a ‘voodoo’ science.  

For his criticism, he was not very popular with the advocates of ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’. They even lamented that ‘how is it possible that Einstein who was the pioneer of quantum theory and who revolutionised gravitational concept by saying that space is warped by gravity and the gravitational field is indeed the space, now he is reluctant to accept ideas of quantum mechanics’?   

Quantum mechanics had solved many intractable problems and predicted many physical aspects which subsequently came to be true. But at the same time, it is incomprehensible, extremely abstract and devoid of ‘elements of reality’. Anybody hoping to see theory mirroring reality would be totally disappointed. Even Richard Feynman, American Nobel laureate, who contributed significantly to the development of quantum physics once retorted, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics”! Nonetheless, quantum mechanics is the most advanced scientific discipline of today.

– Dr A Rahman is an author and a columnist.

Cultural, International, Life as it is, Religious, Technical

Albert Einstein’s Views on Religion

cropped-cropped-20170908_133057_00122.jpg

Einstein and Tagore, the two intellectual giants of the 20th century, from the West and the East

Many people, particularly those promoting and propagating religious beliefs (in all major religions), had over the years laid claims that Albert Einstein was a man of religious conviction. They often put forward Einstein’s famous quote, “God does not play dice”, implying that belief in God’s harmony and absolutism in creation was inbuilt in Einstein’s thought process. Nothing, I emphasise nothing, could be more egregiously misinterpreted and misrepresented than this.

Albert Einstein was not a man of religious conviction by any standards. His religious views, if considered dispassionately, would verge on the side of atheism; although he did not like him to be branded as an ‘atheist’. His views on religions were very well contained in his one and half page letter, written in German in 1954 (just a year before his death) to the German philosopher, Eric Gutkind, which contained, “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends, which are nevertheless pretty childish”. He also said, “No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this”. That letter had been sold in an auction at Christie’s in New York only a few days ago (2018) for the staggering sum of $2.9 m (£2.3 m).

Einstein's letter

That “God does not play dice” was not said by Einstein out of devotion to God, but as a retort to the underlying theme of “Copenhagen interpretation” produced by Niels Bohr/Heisenberg and others on quantum mechanics. Although Albert Einstein and Max Planck were the pioneers of quantum concept in the first decade of the 20th century, subsequent developments of quantum mechanics by Niels Bohr / Schrodinger / Heisenberg / Pauli / Dirac and many more leading to probabilistic nature of objects (elementary particles) were very much disputed by Einstein. An object is either there or not, it cannot be half there and half not; Einstein contended. In that context, he rejected the probabilistic nature of objects by that quote. He also said, the moon is there on the night sky whether we observe it or not. Just because we cannot observe the moon because of cloud in the sky does not mean the moon is not there!

However, quantum physics was relentlessly moving forward into the probabilistic interpretation of objects and successfully explained many hitherto inexplicable physical processes. Einstein struggled the latter part of his life with the nature of reality. When Tagore and Einstein met in Berlin in 1926 (and at least three more times until 1930 meeting in New York), they had a very fascinating philosophical discussion/debate, not so much on the existence of God but on the nature of reality. Tagore held the Eastern philosophical view of convergence of man (meaning life) and nature, Einstein held the view of ‘absolutism’.

In the letter, Einstein, an Ashkenazi Jew, also articulated his disenchantment with Judaism. “For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people,” he wrote.

However, as a child he was religious; as is the case with most of the children of religious families anywhere in the world. But he had a fiercely independent mind and a deeply inquisitive trait. He disliked authoritarian attitude – whether in teaching or training. He was very unhappy at the Luitpold Gymnasium (a strict discipline focussed school) in Munich, where his parents enrolled him for proper education. He described later that he deeply disliked the ‘rote learning’ method at the school with no opportunity for creative thinking. He, however, remained at that school to keep his parents happy. Years later, he advised people, “Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning”.

Einstein did not or could not completely discard the notion of supremacy of the supernatural power, which became inbuilt in his childhood, although he rejected consciously the idea that this religion or that religion derives from the orders or massages from God. By the age of 13, he started doubting the religious teachings and “abandoned his uncritical religious fervour, feeling he had been deceived into believing lies”.

He believed in or had strong inclination towards “Spinoza’s God” (Baruch Spinoza, a 17th century Dutch thinker), “who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind”. Einstein had the same or similar mindset. This streak of thinking had a strong resonance with the Eastern philosophy that man and nature merge into one or have strong inter-connection.

The physical world follows a set of laws and principles with specific physical constants relevant to the natural world. Any variation of these laws and constants would negate the existence of this universe and could possibly generate another universe. That may be the underlying thinking in the idea of multiverse. So, to claim that a grand designer created this universe with specific set rules and laws for our habitation in mind is a mendacious presumption.

Einstein was, to a large extent, ambivalent about God, the so-called grand designer. He could neither prove or disprove the existence of this ‘Uncaused Cause’, the ‘Unmoved Mover’ and hence it was sensible to maintain some ambivalence; but all his instincts were against such a presumption. He said facetiously, “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”
– Dr A Rahman is an author and a columnist.

Bangladesh, Economic, Environmental, International, Life as it is, Political

Politics of climate change, sinking Bangladesh and floating houses

Climate change is real and permanent. There is no turning round as we have gone past the point of no-return. It can only get worse from here. Climate change is, therefore, an existential threat for our children and grandchildren for whom time is running out fast.

Floating house in BangladeshApparently, it isn’t a threat for those who abdicated leadership of a warmer world and yet formulate environment-damaging energy policies from the luxury of their cooler world—air-conditioned homes and offices. If they cared even a bit about their progeny, they wouldn’t be flying in ozone-layer-depleting private planes or riding fossil-fuel-guzzling stretched limos and SUVs.

A few world leaders led by Donald Trump believe that carbon dioxide makes the earth greener instead of creating climate crisis. Consequently, Trump deleted references to “climate change” from government websites, fired scientists from advisory boards and the Environmental Protection Agency. He seized on the uncertainty in climate models to reverse greenhouse gas emission regulations of the Obama administration and withdrew the United States from the 2016 Paris Agreement on curbing global warming. He even nonsensically blamed this year’s out-of-control California fires on environmental laws. Other climate change deniers are his bagful of deplorables, the well-paid operatives of organisations that take contributions from fossil fuel corporations and a colourful cast of self-styled “experts” who have made a living out of rejecting the scientific evidence of climate change.

They are perhaps not aware that one of the most alarming but reliable projections for global warming has been made by researchers at the prestigious Carnegie Institution of Science in Stanford in California. The results of their research, based on a decade’s worth of satellite observations concerning the net balance between the amount of energy entering and leaving the atmosphere, have been published in the December 2017 issue of the high impact, peer-reviewed journal Nature. They concluded that if large emissions of greenhouse gases continue unabated throughout the century, worldwide temperatures could rise nearly five degrees Celsius between 2081 and 2100.

It is an undeniable fact that episodes of raging wildfires, high-category hurricanes, ferocious cyclones, floods of biblical proportions, deadly mudslides, severe droughts, bone-chilling Arctic blasts followed by lethal heatwaves and the melting of Arctic ice at a rate never before seen are effects of a sub-one degree rise in global temperature since 1880. Heaven only knows what will happen if we, as agreed upon by the 2016 Paris Agreement’s stakeholders, take the free pass of heating up our planet by two degrees before the end of this century.

Even a two-degree rise in global temperature would most likely set the stage for the greenhouse effect to spin out of control, eventually triggering a runaway greenhouse effect whose impacts would be cataclysmic, to say the least. Nevertheless, scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that there is virtually no chance of a runaway greenhouse effect being induced by human activities, despite the fact that greenhouse gas emissions are still moving in the wrong direction.

What triggers a runaway greenhouse effect? The increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapour, two of the dominant greenhouse gases, would raise the global temperature which, in turn, would cause more water from the oceans to evaporate and carbon dioxide stored in the soil and oceans to bake out. This would be in addition to the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels. The positive feedback of continued emission of these greenhouse gases would ultimately snare our planet into a vicious cycle of a runaway greenhouse effect, which was responsible for raising the surface temperature of Venus to a blistering 480 degrees Celsius—hot enough to melt lead.

One of the countries that is already paying a hefty price for the climate sins of industrial nations is Bangladesh. It is predicted that the two-degree boost in temperature and the subsequent rise of sea levels would sink the coastal areas of Bangladesh, thereby resulting in an unprecedented human tragedy. Already, the intruding sea has contaminated groundwater which supplies drinking water for coastal regions and degraded farmlands, rendering them less fertile and at places completely barren.

Although engineering adaptations to climate change have been successful in other countries, such as the dikes constructed in the Netherlands, they won’t work in Bangladesh because the soils are sandy and constantly shifting. Thus, if the country does not want to see millions of her climate refugees migrating inland and ending up in decrepit slums, then the government should take a serious look at the “Dream House”—a flood-resistant floating house—built by a team of BRAC University students.

The concept of floating houses and floating villages is not new. There are many such villages in the world. They are communities with houses and other amenities of a town built on top of large raft-like structures or on stilts, as in the Tonlé Sap Lake in Siem Reap in Cambodia.

Floating houses in Bangladesh’s coastal areas could save the lives and livelihoods of millions from the catastrophic effects of anthropogenic climate change. Bangladeshi farmers have already developed techniques for building floating farms, known as “dhaps,” with duck coops, fish enclosures and vegetable gardens anchored by ropes to the riverbanks where the water rises at least three metres during the monsoon season.
The arduous life of the people living in the floating dwellings that would gently rock and roll with the ebb and flow of the Bay of Bengal would not only be a paragon of adapting to climate change but also a modern-day example of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest.”

 

The author, Quamrul Haider, is a Professor of Physics at Fordham University, New York.