This was the one sector of our industry that had so far been spared the turmoil of labour-management rift and, in spite of the doomsday scenario painted about the post-MFA period, had gone on to belie the dismal predictions made about it. In fact, what is impressive about the RMG performance is the almost twenty percent jump in our earnings from this sector since the MFA regime came into effect. Although there are contributory factors that helped us to achieve this rate of growth, situation in Sri Lanka, and China's shifting to the upper and more sophisticated spectrum of the RMG sector, to cite a few, it still required the diligence and commitment of our entrepreneurs and the sweat and toil and in some cases blood of the workers, to exploit the gap.

Not unusually, some senior ministers of the government including the home minister smelled rat in the whole affair and a foreign hand was blamed for orchestrating the destruction of the industry. Some owners came out with their own rationale for our neighbour's attempt to destroy it.

The hyper activity of the owners was also very noticeable, quite justifiably so, in that they took to the streets in a sit down demonstration, the day after the incidents. This was in stark contrast to their very muted reaction after collapse of garment factory buildings that killed scores or the many instances of factory fire over the last decade that have taken the lives of hundreds more.

There are several interesting features of the entire episode that capture our attention. First, the abruptness, some might like to call it spontaneity, with which the matter flared up, and the equal rapidity with which it subsided, after taking a severe toll, the monetary loss that some estimate to run into several hundred million dollars. Secondly, it is difficult to accept that such an upheaval would have been possible without there being an underlying cause, as a cinder that was stoked by whoever one deems it convenient to put the blame on.

Thus there are several questions that we cannot help but ask. First, in so far as the workers' demands are concerned, those were longstanding and indeed genuine also, but never have the workers gone berserk over their demands and resorted to such violent acts against the very factories that were providing them with livelihood. What had happened that changed their psyche almost overnight and compelled them resort to such an aggressive posture? Further more, how does one explain why the wraths of the workers were vented on those factories that were not related to garment manufacturing? Is there an indication of premeditation in the way the so-called workers set upon the garment factories?

However, if it was a premeditated action one finds it difficult to accept that nobody got the wind of things to come. If there was a simmering discontent, as indeed there was, why the agencies and the owners failed to pick up the signs. Or did they? One of the advisers to the government unsuccessfully tried to make a scapegoat of the intelligence agencies. The home minister himself has acknowledged that he had been tipped off about the impending problems but failed to provide proper security measures for lack of adequate force, an excuse that cannot hold, and one that is least expected of a minister. When the agencies were deployed in force the next day the damage had already been done. In any other country that has the tradition of holding its public servants to account, heads would have rolled. Not in Bangladesh.

That leads us to the conspiracy theory. How valid is the theory linked to foreign connection? It was not only the government but the owners also who in unison flaunted the theory of a conspiracy against our garment industry.

Theories are very convenient shields to hide behind and keep one's weaknesses from public glare. There was no talk of the workers' grievances, no talk of the pay and working conditions, but only of a foreign complicity behind the wanton destructions. To back up their arguments it was said that the workers did not participate in the attacks on the factories, outsiders did it. It may be that outsiders were involved in the attacks but were there not enough ground conditions that allowed the outsiders to exploit the situation? And if everything was hunky-dory in this sector why did the BGMEA office bearers, both past and present, unhesitatingly acknowledge that there were indeed genuine grievances of the workers particularly on their pay. Why did it take such a major disturbance for them to not only acknowledge the problems but also make public commitment to address those through a committee to be set up by the government?

Therefore, coming back to the question of sabotage or workers' revolt, the truth perhaps lies somewhere in between. There are about three thousand five hundred RMG factories in Bangladesh of which three thousand are in operation, the rest, having failed the compliance criteria, ceased production. The buyers ascertain that all the stipulations are followed before placing orders. However, some factories have managed to circumvent the rules. To say that in some factories labour was exploited would not be an exaggeration. Poor working conditions, irregular payments, longer working hours than what the law stipulates were the causative factors that led to the outbursts. We made ourselves vulnerable by being weak within. And this may well have been exploited by some quarters.

However, it is for the government to get to the bottom of the issue and unearth the truth / prove its claim of foreign complicity. It is important to determine whether, if it was sabotage, it was not internally generated.

At the same time it would be my entreaty to the owners and the government not to make our labour any more 'cheap.' The word'cheap' is a denigrating term when related to a human being; it dehumanises a person and reduces him or her to the state of a commodity. And regrettably that is how some of the owners have treated them, and that is what the buyers have exploited -- the margin of their profit is unbelievable. Surely we can employ other measures that would give us a comparative advantage over others, other than the 'cheap' labour.

While it is true that most of the workers would be on the streets if the factories were to close down, where will the owners be without the workers?

The author is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star