Has Bangladesh lost to Islamism?
Bangladesh may not be a big country, either geographically, economically or politically, but it is strategically a significant country as far as religiosity is concerned. It is significant because it sits more or less in the moderate section of the Islamic religiosity, maintaining its own culture, language and tradition, away from the Arab Bedouin culture and tradition. If it verges into the ultra-religious section of Islamism, then the hope of salvaging the country having a vast, mostly illiterate population from the depth of Wahhabism would be very difficult indeed. As things stand at the moment, Bangladesh is showing all the signs of gradually and irretrievably sliding into Islamic fundamentalism.
The Slow Demise of Democracy?
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." – Samuel Johnson If it is introduced in the Parliament, the proposed legislation to ban criticism of the Liberation War, the martyrs, etc., will be yet another sign that democracy is marching towards slow death in Bangladesh. Both issues are of great emotional interest to most people in Bangladesh and some seem to feel the need to protect (from questioning) these emblems of the struggle for the freedom as patriotic. The irony seem to be lost on folks: it was for democracy all that sacrifice was made, and now we turn around and limit democracy by taking away freedom of speech. Under the most generous assumption, it exposes, as it has done on many occasions in the past, the ambiguous relations Bangladeshis seem to have with democracy: we demand it, fight for it, sacrifice for it, but often don't like its implications. We seem to be fearful of the freedom democracy is supposed to bring. This is not a psychological assessment, but there might be a link between elements of our culture that contributes to what appears to be a propensity to seek the 'comfort' of authoritarian 'protection'. Let me be clear: I am an unconditional defender of the creation of Bangladesh, a historical necessity; the so called two nation theory (TNT) originated in quintessential false ideology. I am convinced that the division of the subcontinent was a grave mistake, and as a community Muslims of the subcontinent lost the most); in the sixties, I have argued with communist party leaders to adopt a proactive policy for independence from West Pakistani proto-colonial economic exploitation and political repression. During the Liberation War, I was outside the country, still, I worked hard along with many Americans to generate public and Congressional support for the emerging country (see: Fighting for homeland away from home; The New Age, December 16, 2006, Op-Ed page). But, just because of that, am I justified in shutting someone up if they believe it was all 'India's doing'? And even if I am able to ban such criticism, can I stop a person from thinking as he/she pleases? One can walk away from such inane characterization of the epochal transformation from 1947 to 1971, but cannot condone suppression of fundamental democratic rights, excluding citizens from participating in the democratic process. You cannot 'like' democracy only when you win; for it to work, you have to do so even when you do not win, as long as the right and opportunity to gain back support is not denied. But that means a political system with freedom of speech, of press. Essential also is regular elections that are fair, open and polling stations are not forcibly occupied by the ruling party, oppositions are not hounded and assaulted to ensure the ruling party wins power and without even a parliamentary opposition! Indeed, a political party that actually cares about the country over and above its narrow self-interest would do everything possible to make the agency responsible for conducting the election as non-partisan as humanly possible. Whenever a political system enables a party to remain in power term after term, that system is nothing but an autocracy, giving the ruling party absolute power. Treating the country like one's zamindary is a far cry from a society that is democratic. Isn't undermining democracy a more egregious offense against the Liberation War and the Martyrs? Our difficulty with democracy is reflected in our history, in the opportunism of our attitude that democracy is possible only when our community is in the majority, the subtext of TNT. Underlying all of these is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of democracy as a system and why it is desired by almost everyone for managing our collective affairs in-spite of many of its imperfections. Even a cursory survey of the origins of formal democracy in Greek society would reveal that it emerged as the better of available alternatives to manage our collective existence given the inherent heterogeneity of all human societies (as opposed to assumed homogeneity based on faith subsumed in TNT), for facing seemingly irreconcilable contradiction: one the one hand ensuring our existence and security requires living in some form of collective, yet the same need compels us to pursue our individual interests at the expense of the collective. Without getting into an elaborate discussion, suffice it to say that the underlying drive – 'ensuring our existence & security' has been a concern because of inadequacy of the necessities for existence & security – i.e., insufficiency of the mode of production that would provide for our necessities. Making some adjustment to the consumerist habit we have acquired, if we are able to produce sufficiently for our collective needs, i.e., existence and security are guaranteed, this fundamental contradiction can be resolved. There are indications already that it might be achievable in practice as well (compare, for example world's population and global food production – see World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics, World Hunger Education Service, available on the internet). It should be clear that in the prospectus of 'communist society', 'class contradiction' is expected to be eliminated, but not all human foibles; 'democracy' practiced in an environment free of want of necessities and insecurity will allow us to overcome the limitations of democracy of class divided society, and enable us to live collectively more harmoniously in spite of our imperfections. The arguments against prohibition of criticism of the Liberation War are simply inane. Just because someone (probably with hostile intentions) tries to refute the magnitude of the atrocities committed by the enemy does not make it true nor does it diminish the sacrifices required to free the country, and definitely does not negate the need for liberation from Pakistan. Simply because in 1952 (only) four people died in the protest demanding Bengali to be accepted as one of the national languages of Pakistan surely did not stop it from being the revolutionary event that changed the direction of this country. The 'argument' that ours is a new democracy and 'it will take time for our people to get used to democracy', has gotten stale; we have been at it nearly seven decades; let us stop making excuses. It is also a fact that a lot of people did not like the idea of 'breaking up Pakistan;' and that was made clear by their presence in huge numbers to receive Bhutto when he showed up after the liberation. Their minds can be changed, if at all, through education and persuasion; and some will remain unchanged. Society is never free of those with false ideology; let them speak but not act. Criticism allowed in a democracy is not a rational reason to outlaw democracy of criticism. The progressive community in Bangladesh must not subscribe to the fear of democracy, while they legitimately criticize the regime in power for being anti-democratic. I am not advocating absolute freedom; but it is more protective of democracy if the democratic process itself is able to confront lies and falsehoods in a legitimate battle for the heart & truth conducted openly and freely. The entire premise of human progress is imbedded in the conviction that people will (ultimately) choose correctly, and those who are leaders among us can lead the fight for truth the best only in a democracy. The draconian measures being contemplated are indication of the mistrust of the voters, unspoken assumption that people are dumb, while politicians, even though many of them display more Neanderthal than human attributes, know 'what is good for the people' – in typical feudal arrogance. Voters do make 'bad' choices (e.g., electing in US George W. Bush twice), but if they are allowed to do so freely as is promised, people will make corrections if it is in their interest (electing an African-American as the President of the USA). If Left are true to democracy, they ought to declare that they will not restrict people's freedom of speech when in power; that they do not assume they will be in power forever once/if they get there; they will ensure free and fair election even if they are projected to lose the election; that people have the right to disagree, yet they can agree on a set of terms and conditions that makes collective, social life possible. Especially those who claim to represent the working class, it often falls upon the vanguard to pick up the mantel of democracy. And it is essential to understand that democracy is a process, and only way to improve democracy is to practice it, not make excuses to prevent its continued improvement, as did the military dictators and some civilian leaders in Pakistan, West & East. 'Development before democracy' is just as lousy an excuse to stifle democracy, just as naked an attempt at hang on to power, and as obvious an indication of insecurity of the regime as has been in the case of Pakistani dictators who tried the same trick again and again. Scoundrels in the end do pay a price for their skullduggery!
Bangladesh's existential threat
It is a matter of supreme irony that almost to the day 45 years ago when Pakistan unleashed the most barbaric and vicious attack on unarmed civilians of the then East Pakistan, now Bangladesh would have to endure a body blow to its existence from its own judiciary system. Islamisation of Bangladesh has become so deep rooted that even the present progressive government of Bangladesh and the judicial system are scared to antagonise the rampant mullahs of the country. That the government had caved in to appease the mullahs even at the expense of country's constitution indicates a serious existential threat to the country.
Regressive Islam
The Muslim world is now in utter chaotic and fragmented state both economically and politically after nearly 1400 years of its existence. The cause of its problem lies not so much in its disharmony with the present world but in the very modality of its existence. As the last of the three monotheistic religions (Judaism and Christianity being the other two), it came into existence as the last and final religion proclaiming the ultimate truth from the Creator, the Almighty God. The message was final and nothing could replace it. Whereas other religions kept pace with time and space and evolved (albeit reluctantly) with scientific development and knowledge, Islam steadfastly refused to reform itself. It is indeed utterly constrained by its own proclamation of finality and thereby invariant to changes.
Supreme Court to Decide Whether Islam Should Remain as the State Religion in Bangladesh While Government Plays Safe
A few days ago, the Daily Mail (UK) published a news item entitled "Bangladesh Considering Abandoning Islam as Its Official Religion Following Wake of Extremist Attacks." While it reflects the fact that there will be a hearing in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh on the 27th of March to decide whether Islam should remain as Bangladesh's state religion, the heading gives a false hope of solving a major problem. This hearing is not in motion because of the recent rise of Islamic extremism, killing and violence towards the minority. It is not a step taken by the government to fight Islamism, but rather a decision taken by the Supreme Court to look at a petition that was filed 28 years ago.
War dead has became a political game
It is extremely sad and distressing to observe that the liberation war fatality figure has become a political ping-pong game between the two political parties. It had been purposely turned by the vested interests into a test of patriotism! If anyone expresses any scepticism on the fatality figure of three million, then he or she is scorned as anti-Bangladeshi, pro-Pakistani, pro-BNP etc. person and even as a traitor by the ruling party propagandists. On the other hand, even politely listening to 3 million fatality figure in an objective fashion is considered as irrational kowtowing by the vested interests.
Is America Unfair to Muslims?
Recently there has been a lot of media uproar on the claim that the United States of America was unfair to the Muslims and discriminated against them. It is also claimed that the USA hated Muslims.
Bangladesh must shun the religious proxy war
[fusion_text]It may be very tempting and, indeed, flattering when a super rich country like Saudi Arabia requests a country like Bangladesh to participate, almost as equal, in the Islamic coalition against terrorism to fight the menace of the Islamic State (IS). Bangladesh may be painted by the vested quarters as a strong and sufficiently grown up in stature among the Islamic nations to be part of a collective action against the evil outfit of IS (also known as ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)). But this image of empowerment is illusory, misleading and could be potentially harmful.