The Sound of Me Pulling Out My Hair One at a Time Because People Partisan Hacks Live Down to My Expectations

AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

As requested by my loyal(?), patient readers, a critique/list in no order whatsoever. (For the handful of readers who have visited since this post was up, there's an update on #7):

1. From his writings, it seems to me that SBA is an intelligent man and therefore it pains me to see him involved in what is essentially the politics of whose-picture-is-on-the-wall, which I thought would be beneath him. What's worse, he's simply indulging in politics by crying out "history": a false position. If he seriously thinks that "history" is dictated from the top by governments, debates about history are settled by picture-hanging or that hanging a picture is NOT about today's politics but rather about consensus on past history, he is seriously mistaken. Since I don't believe him to be a fool, I must believe him to be a partisan.

2. Let me first state that I agree with him wholeheartedly: there is no equal to Mujib in Bangladesh's history. The man is unique. I don't think I need to prove my genuine respect for Mujib after writing generally favourably about him on this blog for the past few months. But let me say this: as long as Mujib remains the most potent AL symbol rather than the most important historical figure AND as long as AL remains a viable party within the system, there is no separating him from current politics. We blame Khaleda Zia for desecrating his memory (someone from BNP should seriously have rebuked her for her birthday shenanigans), but we should also blame the AL (if not in equal measure) for trying to capitalise on it instead of leaving him for the historians.

3. Having said all that, let me begin dissecting. I am all for accurate history, but my historical understanding is more in terms of systemic movements rather than important individuals. Making over-reaching statements about Mujib's greatness does not exactly serve the goal of accuracy. Case in point:

When you think back on the long, concerted story of the growth of Bengali nationalism, you realise only too well that Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was the man behind it all.

and

To argue again and again that Mujib is the single most important individual in the growth and sustenance of the Bengali nationalist movement would be to state, repeatedly, the obvious. To suggest, however, that there are other men who must be permitted to share that glory with him runs counter to political morality.

Now what if I were to say that he rode the wave of that nationalism rather than instigate it and that is why we call him (rightly) Bongobondhu? If you were to tell me that a single man was behind the "growth and sustenance" of what was essentially a new mass consciousness for the Bangalis east of Benapole, I'd have to say that he must have been a mind-controlling wizard of some sort. Since he was clearly human and not a wizard, I'll have to say that he was simply a great leader when the time came, but giving him credit for the GROWTH of "Bengali nationalism" is too much.

4. "Bengali nationalism" - I had no idea that the "Bengalis" of West Bengal were also part of this new-found consciousess. Did Mujib want them to achieve independence/autonomy from Delhi too? As soon as you hear him say this, you know he's a partisan hack. And if you look through the archives (too lazy to link right now), you will find me using him as an example of why Bengali nationalism is simply a partisan term with no real-world meaning for anyone except hallucinating dinosaurs like him. (I also advocate that we save "Bangladeshi nationalism" from the partisan/chauvinistic/bigoted hands of the BNP).

5. He uses different measuring sticks to measure Suhrawardy and Bhashani. Suhrawary was not pro-Bangali and his loyalties were more to what SBA calls "Pakistan", but what I'd call the Punjabi-Urdu-speakers' alliance. Bhashani on the other hand, he concludes, was too pro-Bangali-autonomy:

A good deal has been made of Bhashani's role in the making of Bangladesh. There certainly were fireworks in his personality. When he told us, three days before the general elections of December 1970, that East Pakistan should declare itself an independent country, quite a few people felt exuberance re-igniting their spirits.

But sit back and reflect on whether or not Bhashani's precipitate move was a dangerous form of adventurism.

Basically, damn you if you do, damn you if you don't. The only way not to be damned is if you've declared your goal for autonomy on the 7th (or 25th night in written form: take your pick, I'm least interested). Surprise surprise, guess who's done that? Now I can say that Sheikh Shaheb made a mistake not announcing it sooner before the Pakistani military build-up. If he had, maybe we could have had less loss of life. But he did what he did, and I have no criticisms based on what didn't happen rather than what did. Unlike SBA who criticises Bhashani because he may have precipitated a crisis but didn't! Real historians deal with what happened, rather than judge people on counterfactuals.

6. Nothing is more ridiculous, more deceptive than his ramblings about Sher-e-Bangla A.K. Fazlul Huq:

Huq moved the Pakistan Resolution in 1940; and when he took charge as chief minister of East Bengal in 1954, at the head of a Jugto Front administration, he did so not as a Bengali nationalist but as part of a team engaged in the noble, necessary job of sending the communal Muslim League dispensation packing.


Huq later became Pakistan's interior minister, before taking charge as governor of East Pakistan. Nothing in his entire career suggests that he dreamed of a sovereign Bangladesh supplanting East Pakistan someday. Must it be our job to give him a place he did not work for, and would surely not have wanted? To convince ourselves that Huq was a forerunner of Bengali political freedom would be launching a grave assault on his political beliefs.

If guilt by association is a problem, then let it be remembered that Sheikh Shaheb was a Muslim Leaguer too at one point (check out Wiki or simply ask the next hardcore AL-er you meet). That does not "implicate" him, but shows that he had his hand on the people's pulse as he did almost to the end of his life. If it doesn't implicate him, it doesn't implicate Fazlul Huq. Moreover, the Lahore Resolution he moved called for two autonomous states on two sides of the subcontinent, not the state of Pakistan as it was born in 1947. For that little piece of deception - in which he tries to prove the greatness of Mujib by misleading his audience about the nature of the Resolution - SBA has pretty much earned my eternal disdain. Surely Mujib deserves more honest defenders than this!

And yeah, Sheikh Shaheb too once served as a minister in an East Pakistan government. Oh the horrors!

7. Take this particular gem about Bhashani:

Reflect, too, on the political position he began to adopt soon after liberation, when the leftist in him suddenly began to spot the beauty of rightwing politics.

His advocacy of a Muslim Bangla was a clear assault on the secular statehood of Bangladesh. His criticism of the Mujib government followed by his acceptance of Baksal, followed by his obvious relief at the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman are quirky as well as disturbing episodes in Bangladesh's history.

Ummm... was BAKSAL not a u-turn for Mujib? Rather than hold the creation of BAKSAL against Mujib, he holds Bhashani culpable for supporting it! SBA's categories of left and right are laughably based on the binary of religion/secularism (which I don't think he understands at all), rather than on the binaries of inclusive/exclusive or on private property/state-control. I'm yet to be convinced that the religion binary is the most important. Fact: no one on the political spectrum trumpeted about "democracy" at that point, simply misguided notions of "left-right-Islamic". *Shakes head at the Decade of Dinosaurs*

Update: Take a look at the circular logic he uses: it was Mujib/Tajuddin/AL's vision of a secular Bangladesh that Bhashani contested. In SBA's argument, this opposition to Mujib makes Bhashani less than Mujib. So we when we ask, "Why is Sheikh Shaheb the greatest?" SBA's answer is, "Because the ones who opposed him were not as great as he is". "How do we know that the others are lesser?" SBA's answer is, "Because they opposed him". "How does that make them lesser than he was?", SBA's implication, "Well, you have to be to oppose the greatest. After all, Sheikh Shaheb never opposed himself."

Wonderful logic. Stephen Colbert's gut rests easy with SBA's balmy words. Remember, you've got more nerve endings in your gut than anywhere else!

8. I'm not even going to say anything about his complete lack of review of Zia's legacy (arguably more pervasive to post-Independence Bangladesh than Bhashani's or Huq's). It speaks volumes about the audience he is writing for, one that sees Bhashani/Huq as having more of an impact (positive/negative) than Zia. For all his flaws, Zia remains the Deng Xiaopeng to Mujib's Mao in our (Generation 71) consciousness *. Good luck fighting that battle Mr. Ahsan! And no I don't think that Zia's picture should be put up in any government building either, simply because it's another political symbol rather than a historical tribute.

9. The only place I agree with him comes too late and offers too little:

If you have no place for Tajuddin Ahmad, Syed Nazrul Islam, M. Mansur Ali and A.H.M. Quamruzzaman in your assessment of national history, everything else you do is rendered meaningless

The enormous gaps in his narrative are ok, but the enormous gaps in others' narratives are not. Even when I agree with him, I can't stand it.

Lastly, let me just say this. His is as biased a view of history as those of the new party or Qureshi. What's worse is that his is biased in favour of an existing political party. If there's one thing about him that does not indicate that he has been stuck in Awami League circles for too long, let me know. If he's a bit more honest and admits that he is simply pushing that version of history that aligns with a certain power centre, then I'll have a bit more respect for him. However, I find it hard to respect anyone whose views of history (an academic matter) is shaped by power. It's a hard struggle for many people to separate history from power. SBA isn't even trying.

Bangali vs. Bangladeshi nationalism

In an earlier post, I had referred to the debate about Bangali vs. Bangladeshi nationalism. Syed Badrul Ahsan writing in today's Daily Star recounts how it all started:

The first, tentative steps toward a formalisation of historical mutilation came when the journalist Khondokar Abdul Hamid told a surprised Ekushey crowd at the Bangla Academy in February 1976 (the country had conveniently been placed under a state of martial law) that "Bangladeshi nationalism" would serve as the underpinning of the state. The only brave soul at that gathering was Professor Kabir Chowdhury. It was he who spoke, however briefly, of the role of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in Bangladesh's history

Now, Mr. Ahsan's writings have never fallen far from the partisan tree. Which is highly infuriating since his writings betray him now and then to be a man capable of original thought, not simply seeing our history through partisan eyes (which, ironically and correctly, is what he accuses his opponents of doing).

Let us dissect the above quote. " "Bangladeshi nationalism" would serve as the underpinning of the state": to this day, I have not come across a single reason why the Bangali nationalism based on ethno-linguistic differences should underpin a state that does not encompass a large group of Bangalis, and moreover includes non-Bangalis within its borders.

Nor have I come across any reason why a territorial definition of nationalism - which Bangladeshi nationalism purports to be even though some of its supporters give it a religious-communal hue - should not underpin a territorial state.

The very next sentence lauds the renowned Professor Kabir Chowdhury's remembrance of Mujib's vital role in Bangladeshi history. Other than BNP's appropriated version of Bangladeshi nationalism (and how many people really BELIEVE in that?), who else denies this? Is it impossible to believe both in Bangladesh as a territorial state and in Mujib as the leader who led us to it? What kind of a Bangladeshi nationalism would we have that did not include his vital role in our history? The BNP's version of course. But why give any importance to what the political parties say about history when you know it's untrue? And why battle one political party's line with another's?

More importantly, Mr. Ahsan never tells us why we need Bangali nationalism to recognise Mujib as the founding father of the state. I don't recall him calling on all Bangalis, East and West of Benapole, to unite. Yes, yes, I know "Bangladeshi nationalism" is the BNP's term, but is it not time we saw the merits of the term - in my mind, the territorial nature of our nation regardless of religion, race or gender - and corrected the demerits, namely the erasure of Mujib from our history? Thus, and only thus, can we appropriate the term from the BNP and make it ours, the people's. (And in a similar way, it would be nice to appropriate Mujib from being "head of the Awami League" or "Jatir Jonok" to being plain, simple and dignified "Bongobondhu", ours, the people's once again!) But in trying to fight for Mujib with Bangali nationalism in hand is throwing out the baby with the bathwater!

But of course Mr. Ahsan does not do this, even as he purports to educate the new generation. For the last five years, to our great shame, our PM would celebrate her (fake) birthday on the day Mujib was killed. And what does Mr. Ahsan offer to absolve us of that shame? More of the same I'm afraid: one historical fallacy for another. To paraphrase T.S. Eliot, whom Mr. Ahsan himself likes to quote now and then, the choice we seem to have is between pyre and pyre.

(PS. My non-use of the term "Bongobondhu" when referring to Mujib is deliberate. I believe that titles simply obscure a man's greatness. Nothing is more fitting than one's own name.)

Unworthy of Mujib's Legacy

Despite my recent admiration for the party chief's politicking abilities and my everlasting admiration for Mujib (I repeat: the Greatest Bangali in written history!) I still contend that AL supporters, their tactics and beliefs little befits the party of Suhrawardy, Mujib and Tajuddin.

Only a commendable few on the blogosphere are talking about the continuity of the party. Most seem to equate Mrs. Hasina with the Awami League, the very anti-thesis of INTERNAL reform that they have been supporting as opposed to reform forced from the outside. The lowest point of the discourse (online anyway) has been commenting on the weight and girth of one of the reformist leaders. Hmmmm... now why does this ring a bell?

(No, I'm not linking to the comments, because I respect most of the rest of what I've heard these people say.)

Forum does an April fool piece in March

Do you pick a fight with a helpless beggar on the street for swearing at you because you didn’t give him/her any money?

No? Then why pick one with Henry Kissinger?

I was annoyed when some Bangladeshi journalist thought it worth his while to ask Kissinger about the “bottomless basket”/ “international basketcase” remark. But when I saw this article in March’s Forum, my annoyance turned to utter astonishment! I urge every reader to read the article for themselves before reading my blog post.

Surely Forum is trying to promote itself as a publication that carries thoughtful, high-end political, economic and social commentary. In which case, what is it doing running an article that would fit better into a rag like Amader Shomoy?

The entire point of this article seems to be that some anti-Bangladesh and anti-Mujib quarter has amplified the importance of the “bottomless basket” phrase to hurt “Bangladesh’s image abroad” (Mrs. Zia, Mr. Babar, Mr. Nizami, meet your soulmate!). How have they amplified this? By asserting that the phrase was uttered by Kissinger himself when in reality it was made by some career diplomat that no one has heard of.

Oh brilliant! Simply bloody brilliant!

There is one big, glaring problem within the article, and some larger, more ironic meta-problems.
The BIG GLARING problem

I have just finished reading the article twice. I read it the second time because I could not quite believe what was going through my head, so decided to duck back and re-read the entire thing more carefully. And here is what I found: there is one single sentence that talks about the U.S. administration’s “tilt” towards Pakistan in 1971. There is no background given for this, which would explain that Kissinger was the architect of that infamous “tilt”. There is no mention of the fact that Kissinger deliberately turned a blind eye to the atrocities carried out by the barbaric Pakistani army, and that made him anti-Bangladesh more than any throw-away remark.
Sticks and stones actually break bones; words… not so much!

I repeat: there is NO mention of this not-unimportant detail; not a little mention, not an understated mention, not a footnote even. NO mention of this easily verifiable historical fact. A Bangladeshi writes about Henry Kissinger’s relationship to Bangladesh (if only tangentially) and does not mention this historical detail at all: what do you call that? Astounding.

Reminds me that when Sharmila Bose was publishing her drivel, there was talk about who was backing her. Some said the U.S. foreign policy establishment was trying to get her to re-write their dirty role during our war and its attendant atrocities. At a time like this when the historical record is under attack, surely the editors at Forum can take a closer look at the impact of what they are publishing. Especially when the article in question focuses on words that Kissinger may or may not have uttered, and NOT on his egotistical backing of Pakistan against us, just so that the little f***er could score a deal with China and feel like a real man!

Let me illustrate all this by way of a parable. Mr. X is accused of murdering his neighbour. Mr. X is also accused of calling his neighbor “a man of loose morals”. Mr. X’s lawyer gathers about witnesses, documents and testimonies from those in the know to prove that not only did Mr. X not say anything, but furthermore he cannot even pronounce the words “loose” or “moral”, and moreover Mr. X has philosophical doubts about the very worth of morals themselves. Indeed, all this proves what a “heavyweight” Mr. X is therefore absolved of never having said any of this, and therefore his neighbor has nothing to be unhappy about! Take the focus away from the murder and onto the insult.

This article is – deliberately or inadvertently – Mr. X’s lawyer.

Meta-problems

And this leads us to several meta-problems.

1) I quote from the article:

“ Now, more than ever, is the time to de-link Kissinger from the “international basket case” as its real history intimates, and correct ourselves and leave our younger generation free from false context and wrong historical perspective.”

The phrase “right perspective” also crops up twice in the introductory paragraphs.

The irony is that this article itself seems to be perpetuating the very “false context and wrong historical perspective” that it decries. To repeat ad nauseum: the problem with Kissinger was not this remark, but his material support for the Pakistani army!!!

That’s the right perspective and it is not represented here!

2) But wait, there’s more. The writer and editors might argue that this was not an article about Kissinger’s foreign policy, but only about his “bottomless basket” remark. Which of course poses a larger meta-problem. Because the article says clearly:

“It was this propaganda that had been carried out in the world to unmake Bangladesh -- to prove that breaking up with Pakistan wasn’t a viable alternative in the first place. And unfortunately, knowingly or unknowingly, we are participating and/or contributing to that propaganda today.”

And asks desperately:

“Why do we continue with the legacy of erroneous information and flawed interpretation and be a part of the anti-Bangladesh propaganda?”

Why indeed? Propaganda does not work without our consent. By focusing on just the “bottomless basket” remark, we have once again given it undue importance and thus “participating and/or contributing to that propaganda today” by consenting not only to propagating it, but also to say that it is actually important enough to refute. As I’ve asked before, do you pick fights with a helpless beggar who says something awful about you? Why or why not?

Frankly, this borders on the ridiculousness of CNN decrying the cable news coverage of the latest Britney Spears breakdown… which of course is their way of covering the latest Britney Spears breakdown! I say “borders” because our genocide actually matters!

3) Nothing though beats the extreme irony of what this article teaches us. It teaches us that Kissinger is “a heavy weight”. It says things like “Bangladesh did not get even a year to prove the American diplomat Ural Alexis Johnson wrong!” and lastly, with a truly ironic attempt at irony, “Let us recognize Ural Alexis Johnson ….and work in unison to prove his prediction wrong…”

Firstly, “development” is not – or at any rate, should not be - about trying to prove the NYT or Americans wrong, and even less about trying to live up to the expectations of Westerners. That entire “proving” business is the worst thing about our little obsession over Kissinger’s comments.
Secondly, since when does an admirer of Mujib have to acknowledge Kissinger as anything other than the slimy rat he was? We, who love Mujib, love him regardless of something that Henry Kissinger (of all people!) said. Is Forum’s audience now reduced to fringe Jamaati elements and Muslim League remnants that they are publishing this drivel? They’re about the only Bangladeshis elements in Bangladesh, who think Kissinger’s some sort of a “heavyweight”. At least, I used to think so until I saw this article!

Lastly, let me just nitpick a bit about the picture that accompanies this piece. It shows men – some with beards, some in punjabis and almost all wearing prayer caps – burning an American flag.

If the photo editor wanted to compare BANGLADESHI critics of Kissinger to knee-jerk anti-American, flag-burning Islamists, then that is the highest insult towards us that I can imagine!
If on the other hand, s/he wanted to compare the magnified importance that these Islamists give American gestures and political figures to the magnified importance that the author of the piece gave to Mr. Kissinger, then I am fully behind him.

Forum, save the April Fool jokes for the April issue!

Pilger-Moudud Controversy

Background here

Mr. Moudud is a snake no one likes but every politician wants on their team.

Mr. Moudud is also incarcerated on ridiculously trivial charges.

The “controversy” over at UV is starting to border on the Gulliverian debate of which side to break an egg on. It pretty much boils down to this: when advocating for due process in Bangladesh, should we or should we not note that some of the most ill-reputed people are on trial. That’s really all there is to it folks! Otherwise, I think it’s safe to say that everyone arguing there is for fair trials and fair convictions/acquittals, instead of kangaroo courts and rubber-stamped verdicts.

So what’s interesting here and why am I writing about this?

I think the debate is a preview of what promises to be the next major cleavage in Bangladeshi politics, assuming we continue down the path we are on: minus-2 version-2, candidates barred from contesting polls based on speedy trials, the neutering of the AL and the hijacking of the BNP. As each side’s position hardens and moves away from the other’s, two camps will emerge among the chatterati: the Daily Star-CTG camp and the BNP (mainstream/Khaleda-ponthi… is there any other kind?) camp, for lack of better terms. The DS-CTG camp will keep reminding people of all the bad things that “these politicians” did. The BNP camp will simply say that this is undemocratic, unconstitutional and against the fundamental rights of our people.

Squeezed in between will be genuine human rights activists like those at UV – and I want to draw a distinction here between those truly committed to human rights above partisanship like the good people at Drishtipat, and those who use “human rights” to further their own agenda, from the left or the right or simply out of a commitment to “journalism without fear or favour”!

Now please note that both camps will be right. Factually correct, if only partial in their reporting. If I had to choose sides – and I hate choosing sides that are partial in their acknowledgement of the truth – I would choose the BNP side over the other any day. Not because I think the crimes of the 4-party government were small (they weren’t), but because the BNP-camp addresses concerns more dear to my heart.

Politicians make mistakes. To repeat an old cliché, these must be dealt with politically: i.e. through the political process as outlined in the constitution. Reminding us constantly that Moudud reaped what he sowed is unfortunately a bit too much like the tastelessness of certain remarks made against both Mujib and (at times more so) against Zia. And equally wrong-headed!

Yes, incarceration is not assassination. But – this might come as a shock to some - the land and its underestimated people recognize two ways of dealing with errant political leaders: constitutionally and unconstitutionally. It doesn’t matter to the law - and, I argue, to the people - whether the unconstitutionality involves brutality and murders of the past. Or the hostage-taking and torture of politicians by holier-than-thou bureaucrats of the present. Mujib and Zia were dealt with unconstitutionally and I doubt the good people of the DS-CTG camp applaud that or the resultant complications that haunt us to this day. Bloggers like Mash have been pointing this out since January 12th, and I confess that it took some time before I came to a similar realization.

So why are they silent, complicit or active at further unconstitutionality?

It’s a fallacy of bhodrolokes in the DS-CTG camp that they underestimate the “ordinary people”. They think that our people see only the surface of events without noting their deeper significance. They have no idea about such difficult phrases/ideas as “due process” and “constitutionality”. Inherently, we all have an idea about these things. In the long run, only those who advocate (or are seen to advocate) fairness and consistency who are going to win out. The BNP-camp is the one that’s doing it right now. Not their opponents.

Which is a pity, for the Daily Star was a good paper for a while there while Moudud ran amok. As a friend of mine far, far more experienced in the ways of Bangladeshi politics said soon after 1/11: “Where you stand today will determine how you’re perceived for the next decade or so.” The Daily Star people seem to be standing on the wrong side of history after getting it more or less right on a host of key issues for more than ten years.

A pity really.

Awami Forces vs. the Army League ... Completely Pointless

An army must need be hierarchical. In a high-tension situation, you have to shove independent thinking behind and follow orders. Just make sure that you don't do the same in low-tension situations.

And most importantly, let us treat our soldiers as citizens first, soldiers second. And may they live up to such treatment. Yes, I mean "up"!

Why do political parties or political cultures need to be hierarchical? Political parties are civilian institutes that should foster independence of mind, not similarity of thought.

Why then can't partisan writers, in the mainstream media or in the blogosphere, simply ditch their party's grand narrative and start thinking afresh? Why do they keep repeating the same cliched lies that serve no one's interest, except some political big wigs?

Take this gem I came across today. An obviously emotional and ill-informed blogger ranting about the armed forces' recent homage to Sheikh Mujib:

"Yes, this is the Bangladesh Army who killed the father of Nation Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on August 15, 1975. After 32 years, have they realized that it's their unruly officers who killed the Father of Nation? Haven't the Army destroyed democracy over and over by putting military dictatorships of General Zia and Ershad? Now, they are paying tribute to the Father of Nation Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Are they really paying respect to Bangabandhu from their heart? Or, they're simply trying to exploit common people's love for Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman? How will this army pay this nation back what it took from all of us?"

What is this?

No seriously, what the **** is this?

This is from a group blog that advertises with pride that it is pro-71! Three cheers, bloggers, so am I. Exactly what does it mean to be pro-71 when we're busy putting down the very institution founded by freedom fighters such as MAG Osmany, Ziaur Rahman, Khaled Mosharraf, Colonel Taher and others? What does it mean to be pro-71 when we're busy equating our current professionalised army with the bunch of hot-headed butchers who gunned down an entire family? Since when is being pro-71 more about being stupid and blind like Tikka Khan, instead of being analytical like Tajuddin and magnanimous like Mujib?

When did that happen?

And pardon my probing/amateurish questions, but who exactly is the "they" in "their unruly officers"? The current generals? The army chief of back in the day? Under BAKSAL, didn't final say rest with the President, who would also then be CinC? So if anyone ELSE is ultimately responsible for those "unruly officers" other than they themselves, - and trust me, I feel really bad pointing out something so tragically absurd as this - your logic requires that we assign the dead leader the blame for his family's and his own death!

What empty logic propaganda rests on.

Also, not to put too fine a point on it: exactly how much collective responsibility do you wish to assign any institution in the land when neither Mrs. Hasina nor Mrs. Zia nor the BNP nor the AL have ever compensated anyone for property damage caused by "their unruly officers" during hartals?

And not for one minute do I blame solely Awami Leaguers for the current sorry state of our national debate. For behold, the other side in this meaningless debate can be gleaned here. Go look at the comments section, for seriously the article says nothing new. The comments make clear that some think that saying anything against the army equals saying something against Bangladesh.

And when did that happen?

For the benefit of the Awami Forces, here's the LOC country study page for Bangladesh. Go look up Chapter 5 and read it thoroughly to know the complicated birth of the Bangladesh Armed Forces. After that, please come back and explain to me what exactly you find in common with the Army of today and the Army of 1975, other than the word "Army".

For the benefit of the Army League online chapter (whose members I doubt serve in the Armed Forces) forever questioning other Bangladeshis' loyalty, I have nothing to offer other than your own brains and common sense. And maybe my post from DP last week to show you what REALLY hurts national security more than mere words. Enjoy, and don't get so paranoid about Bangladeshi citizens. We love our country as much as you do.

Syed Badrul Ahsan Loses It In the Wake of Mrs. Hasina's Arrest

This is getting embarrassingly easy. In his latest pronouncements from the Heights of Editorial Eloquence, Mr. Ahsan has sacrificed truth, perspective and unbiased judgement on the Altar of Hyperobolic Partisanship.

Of the many people he compares Sheikh Hasina to, let me pick out three:

1) Aug San Suu Kyi, two simple points:

Non-violence. Compared with this, this and this.

Real fearlessness. After all, it was Suu Kyi who said:

"It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it."

Hasina participated in elections under Ershad. Does that show fearlessness, if a Moudud or a Mushahid's collusion with autocratic regimes show cowardice? But Mr. Ahsan no doubt suffers from selective amnesia. I urge you all not to show him this particular blog that is so critical of him since that might result in the worst form of cognitive dissonance possible.

2) Nelson Mandela. Excuse me while I take a laughing fit break.

3) Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

Astounding.

On what grounds?

Because she had ALL her people's welfare at heart? (Whatever his mistakes with the CHT, Sheikh Shaheb never made minority religious groups uncomfortable.)

Because she was such a democrat whose credentials never shone brighter than when he said: "Jodi keu najjyo kotha boley, amra shonkhaye beshi thaakleo, shei najjyo kotha meney nebo?"

Because she never came to understandings with people who had opposed Bangladesh's independence?

Give me ONE meaningful criteria, Mr. Ahsan, by which Sheikh Hasina's career is fit to be compared to that of Sheikh Mujib's. Just ONE meaningful criteria.

From the moment I heard about the crying lawyer, I knew that a large emotional shock had befallen Awami League supporters everywhere. This is entirely understandable and my sympathies are with them. Over the last 20 or so years, these political parties have increasingly come to resemble personality cults, with rituals that are better suited for American Guru Culture than the political culture of Mujib and Tajuddin. Hasina = Awami League is embedded within their psychology, so needless to say this has come as a shock to many. The same happened for BNP supporters when Tareq Zia was taken in, and might become even more acute if Mrs. Zia is arrested.

So out of sympathy let me advise Mr. Ahsan to stop making a fool of himself. If he does want to see Mrs. Hasina out, he should support the legal battle instead of making ludicrous comparisons between the Awami League "Guru" and other more notable figures that do not stand up to the cold light of logic, but make sense only in the minds of the "shishyas".

(Readers may notice that I've put in a new label, "Badruliana" to collect all my "Syed Badrul Ahsan" stories. To prevent any confusion, let me say that I have nothing against the man personally, but love using him as an example of "blind followers"/"partisan"/"biased" types. Why him in particular? Maybe because I admire his writing skills, which are immaculate, and wish that his pen could be put to the service of the nation rather than to a political party. Alas, the pen is only as strong as the brain behind it, and the brain is devoted only for one party. Other than that I really have no reason to use him as an example. "Badruliana" may as well be called "AL fallacy", but it just sounds funnier. No personal insult is intended.)

Ramblings on 1/11 anniversary

An entire generation has been lost thanks to the meaningless arguments they have had to witness in that most sacred of our political places, Jatiyo Shongshod Bhobon.

Those arguments were petty, but dangerous.

Petty because, when your country's highest decision-makers debate most passionately over "Who's the father of the nation/declarer of independence", you know there is something rotten in the state of Bangladesh.

Dangerous because they effectively tainted the meaning of the word "politics" for an entire generation. Much needed discussions on a variety of issues from hereonin will be stopped by using a simple formula: "Bangali shobhaab hochchey shob kichu niye politics kora" or a variation thereof. Which is a pity, because politics is the norm, such as being right-handed. Lack of politics is the exception - sometimes enforced abnormally - or being left-handed. Dirty politics is a disease afflicting the right-hand for which being left-handed is not the answer.

Then came 1/11. I too had hopes during those heady days of January when a disgraceful scholar-president was being neutralised and the overnight millionaires were getting locked up. The rumours were shadowy, so one did not know what to believe. For the sake of one's sanity, one believed the best. The lists were long, so one did not quite notice that a few odd-ones-out had slipped in. Yet, one believed the best.

I too had hopes on 1/11. As part of the generation fed up with Mujib VERSUS Zia, crooks versus thiefs and brothers versus brothers, I had hopes that day. Naive? Perhaps, but no regrets as always.

Bit by bit over the summer, I have lost those hopes. I have become gradually disillusioned with the military-backed-and/or-led-and-maybe-civilian-controlled-caretaker-no!-national-unity-ok-maybe-not government, often fondly, wistfully, almost nostalgically abbreviated to "CTG".

Any criticism of this government is usually countered with the question (or accusation), "Would you rather there be corruption in your country?" or some variation of it. My answer is a humble no. I'm however yet to see any sound reason as to why people think that the CTG's actions will reduce corruption.

Criticism more strident might lead to censorship, perhaps even jail. Thankfully I write online and the majority of Bangladeshis do not read this language anyway. Even more importantly, I do not reside in Dhaka. There used to be a time when I would inevitably add "unfortunately" to that last statement. Nowadays I'm not so sure.

Without further ceremony let me walk you through the milestones I've constructed marking out my journey from hope to disillusionment over the course of 4 months of summer. Please remember, these are entirely my personal reactions. Yours will be different. The time frame represents the free time I had to concentrate on Bangladeshi politics on a day-to-day basis. No doubt the warning signs were already there before summer (that call to Mahfuz Anam, MK Alamgir's arrest, the unequal application of the law, Choles Ritchil's death at the hands of army personnel), but I was either too dumb, too naive or too busy to pay attention.

Milestone 1: The arrest of journalist Tasneem Khalil - May 10th in the Western Hemisphere.

My first inkling that the "revolution" had lived up to the Shavian view of revolutions. It was becoming business as usual for this government as it had become of every other "revolutionary" government. On that evening, as the sun was starting its habit of setting late in the western sky, I could have written the entire script for the farce to follow the arrest of a journalist critical of the regime made by plain clothes men without warrants: follow it up with an unproven, unprovable, reputation-damaging, we-have-evidence-you-cannot-see sort of accusation of "anti-state activities", then either keep him/her in custody indefinitely or hound the accused into exile. If you know your Kafka or recent (2001-present) American history, then you know this script. Who says we don't embrace American ideas enough?

Oh and before the usual doubters start formulating their conspiracy theories about how all of us bloggers simply echo each others' views (or are in the pay of political parties or whatever), let me be very clear in saying once again: in defending him, I stood up for one of my core principles: "I might disagree with what you say but I will defend till death your right to say it". Sadly, no government of Bangladesh has embraced that principle till this day.

In conclusion, though Mr. Khalil was thankfully released within 24 hours (though not without some "forget-me-nots" from his detainers), the incident had laid bare how similar this regime was to the ones it had followed. That he was later hounded into exile like many a dissident before him simply confirmed it.

Milestone 2: The Jute Mills Fiasco at Khalishpur - July-August.

Once again, the indications were there from the start. Poor people getting beaten up for asking their due wages.

But what unfolded in Khalishpur went far beyond the shutting down of factories, that tragic end of the miguided ethos of state capitalism. What happened in Khalishpur signalled that the old ways were definitely not gone. I speak of the constant suspicion in which every organ of this and all previous governments regard the citizen. This is Dr. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal on his experiences there as part of a citizens' initiative to help the jute workers:

"When we arrived in Khalishpur, we started noticing something odd. Police, NSI, DGFI - all of them were acting harshly. It seemed that they had started smelling some whiffs of conspiracy in what was a completely humanitarian effort. This plan had been made after everyone had been informed and all sorts of permissions had been sought and granted. One cannot know a catastrophe by reading a newspaper but rather by observing through humane eyes. We had gone only to do that humane deed.

...... After returning from Khalishpur, an odd thing began to happen. Some of the local workers at the gruel-kitchen had ropes tied around their waists and were paraded through the workers colony by the police, who also tried to scare them by making noises about "crossfire". They were evicted from the place where they were supposed to be cooking. After a lot of thought I could only find one plausible explanation: the government must think that this gruel-kitchen is damaging their image. (Do you remember "image"? How the 4-party government also worried about their image? If one word was said about JMB-Jamaat, they were quick to proclaim that their "image" was being spoiled!) Now I see the same dymanic. If feeding unemployed workers khichuri for one day destroys the government's image, then why doesn't the government take up the responsibility?..."

(Section 3 on Page 3. Translation and emphasis mine.)

And this from Dr. Hameeda Hossain:

"The distribution took place outside three of the mills. The manager in one of the mills had told the Committee that there was no crisis, and workers were doing well! Yet it was from this mill that workers brought their vessels for food. Before the distribution started, personnel claiming to represent intelligence agencies did the rounds of the Committee in Dhaka and Khulna to find out the purpose of the distribution.

Justice Rabbani, too, was telephoned by the BJMC chief. The Committee had collected sufficient funds to keep the distribution going for about 5 days, but at the end of the first day, the local organisers were told to remove their cooking vessels and stop distribution. Four workers were roughly handled, allegedly by the police, and told to stop their voluntary work.

When the police commissioner was asked, he claimed he had given no such orders. So who had, and why was it necessary to stop this support?

(Emphasis mine)

Why indeed? Nothing, except that the traditional bureaucratic (and I count security agencies among the bureaucracy) stance has been to look down upon the very people they ruled over with suspicion, an attitude inherited I suspect from the ex-colonial power. Can a small ethnic minority dominating a much larger ethnic majority look at them with anything other than constant suspicion? South Asia with its high population density has thus inherited a tradition of intense bureaucratic suspicion and hostility towards their very people. An intensity without too any counterparts in the rest of the post-colonial world. (And yes, the link is deliberately to Mr. Khalil's superb op-ed on Kansat, to show that even when I disagree with someone on one particular issue, I do not start discounting the good things they have said!)

1/11 did not change that. And class really has little to do with it: everyone's a suspect. A farmer or a blue-collar worker is as much a suspect as elites such as Drs. Iqbal and Hossain. The only difference is in the way they are treated. And sometimes, as in the case of Tasneem Khalil, even class privilege cannot save you.

Which brings us to....

Milestone 3: The Dhaka University Riots and Curfew. Also called "that week in August". Also known as the straw that broke the camels back. Known aliases include "THAT week". August 20th-August 27th.

This is such a hard topic to write about that I have been stuck at this point for the last two days. I will not recount the events for the regular readers of this blog know it only too intimately. The irregular ones can find out from other sources. Just one request: please look at a source that presents facts, not baseless opinions.

I will not even attempt to present a chronological list of how events unfolded. That is left for another time far from August, and perhaps for another person. Instead let me guide you through a very subjective recollection of matters. (Once again, my own impressions, so please don't come back and tell me that I'm "editorialising" the facts. That is exactly what an opinion piece is for!)

What I remember vividly was well-educated NRBs calling for the blood of Dhaka University students in the name of law and order. If you don't believe me, go and read Unheard Voices' August archives for a sampling. Trust me, it only gets worse in other forums. I refuse to link to any of the comments on UV, except one I found particularly telling.

I understand the need to maintain law and order. I understand the sanctity of public and private property. And I condemn, utterly and unequivocally, the destruction of public and private property that was carried out in the name of "protests" by the students, despite the fact that the avenues for protest are rapidly shrinking nowadays.

However, the key is the maintaining of LAW and order, not simply order. A godfather keeps as much order within his gang as a judge does within his court's jurisdiction. I don't need to tell the reader which one is more lawful. By the same token therefore, the LAW-enforcement agencies have to work within the stipulations of the very law they seek to uphold. (Some other time as to why the "law" component of law and order leads to prosperity - I refuse to use the word "development".)

The evidence suggests they didn't. This BBC interview with an eye-witness is the most damning evidence I know.

The August riots of Dhaka University had an amazingly polarising effect on the Bangladeshi blogosphere, and I'd venture to say, on Bangladeshis everywhere. As an example, I present this one comment left by a cheerleader for the CTG's repressive actions that August, a commenter named Boishakhi who said the following:

"We have two choices either we want things to be cleaned up or maintain the status quo. It’s time we take a side."

And here I was thinking that all Bangladeshis were on the same side! It is highly ironic that the same people who draw these arbitrary lines dividing "us" from "them" were/are also the ones worried most about "civil war" and "failed state" status. Clearly George Bush's Manichean view of the world has conquered further and wider than his armies. An embarrassingly childish statement at a critical time. Yet, who else would egg on the government to baton-charge and tear-gas its own (admittedly rowdy) citizens except children who didn't have to face the consequences themselves?

There really is nothing more I want to say about those ten awful days of August. I believe that nothing more needs be said.

Milestone 4: The arrest of cartoonist Arifur Rahman.

No other single event (this was written before the Rangs Bhobon collapse) has shows the moral bankruptcy of this government than the imprisonment of one of our young citizens for the politicking of the decrepit, elite oldies. I have written enough on this topic, I cannot write anymore. I want to thank bloggers - Addafication and Shadakalo come to mind - for not letting this issue die just yet.

We were supposed to create a state where the strong would take care of the weak, the destitute, the young and others who cannot (yet) take care of themselves. Instead, we have come to this: the weak subsidising the strong, the destitute being made more so by the bulldozers of the strong, and the young being sacrificed to please the old and cynical.

Remember, Remember Those Bloody Days of November

"I think I must talk to you on some important matters. You are encircled by some people in your office in a way that I would not have opportunity to talk to you there, and the environment there is also not congenial. That is why I am using this red telephone for the purpose. You are going to establish a one-party rule, but I told you many times about my reservation. Today I am registering my conclusive opinion. I do not agree to your one-party system. Please tell me why you should go this way.

"First, I am not convinced by your logic. Secondly, this is not my question. This is my statement. As the prime minister, you have enough power in your hands, and I think that you don't need to have a one-party system, or any other change like that. Thirdly, you and I together traversed the country for long 25-30 years, and there is no field or place where we did not go. There we delivered speeches hoping for a happy and prosperous country based on democracy. The democracy for which we talked so much will end through a single stroke of your pen, establishing a one-party system. I am very strongly disagreeing to your decision.

"By taking this step you are closing all the doors to remove you peacefully from your position. Mujib Bhai, the most unfortunate event will be that the bullet will not hit you alone. We shall also be killed and the nation will plunge into danger."

(A few days late I know, but it was that sort of a weekend. I got the following from this article. I cannot verify whether this conversation actually took place or not, but I'd like to believe that at least one of our founding fathers had a completely unstinting faith in the power of democracy to bring prosperity and happiness to our people. God bless his soul.)

Contribution, Extortion, Corruption

Dr. Mozammel H. Khan wrote a very confused and confusing article about what distinguishes "extortion" from "contribution", dealing exclusively with the charges brought against Mrs. Sheikh Hasina Wazed. He points out four things that make it difficult to distinguish between extortion and donation in Bangladesh:

1. Lack of legislation regulating funds of the parties.

2. Lack of independent auditing process by the parties themselves.

3. Lack of funding from the state.

4. The fact that the chief executive and the chief of party are the same.

Unfortunately, all these points could be used to partially exonerate Tareq himself (#4 especially) should he simply play the semantic trick of calling everything a "contribution" from now on. Nobody wants that to happen. Of course, in his case there's a LOT to be re-labelled.

Two questions: why doesn't the Awami League audit independently already? This isn't rhetorical, I'm sure there is a good answer and I want to know. Secondly, why didn't it push forward such legislative measures when it was in power (surely their need wasn't that much harder to see in 1999/2000)? This one's rhetorical. When legislation curtails one's own majoritarian powers, it is effectively not pursued.

This is simply another instance of how much damage Awami League supporters can do to their cause with such logic. Earlier, when the party chief spoke to the Daily Star, she came across for the most part as an honest politician who genuinely believes in her innocence in these cases. Reading this article totally ruined that image.

But the article did serve to remind me of King Henry's "Have I no friend will rid me of this living fear?" in Shakespeare's Richard II. The "living fear" is Henry's rival Richard II, and a nobleman interprets Henry's words as an indirect command and assassinates Richard. Henry ends up denying issuing any such order and exiles the nobleman.

Just goes to show that the serious student of politics must always start with Shakespeare as her/his guide. After all, Henry argues, it was merely a wish, not a command. The nobleman committed the crime of his own free will. Yet, academics have pointed out ever since, what would have happened to the nobleman had he not committed the crime? And the answer to that defines Henry's guilt or innocence as king.

Instead of blaming the system for not being helping us distinguish between what is legally considered a contribution and what is considered an extortion, let me propose a simpler benchmark: "aapon ichcha" or "one's own will" or "lack of coercion". When Mujib gave out his clarion call on that fateful day at Suhrawardy Uddyan in 1971, he noted: "Aapon ichchay manush raastay beriye porlo". The most powerful leader in the country noted the importance of adding "aapon ichchay" or in other words "of our own free will" and "without coercion".

The difference between a contribution and an extortion is simply that: contributions are made out of one's own free will while extortion implies force or coercion.

Since the 90s, what have we the people done "aapon ichchay", without coercion?

If we have ventured out on the streets or opened our businesses during general strikes, we have been COERCED into our homes and FORCED to shut down our businesses.

If we have ventured out in support of strikes, of our right to protest, we have been COERCED into staying silent and into retreating back home, black and blue from the baton.

If we have expressed opinions that did not fall into the party line at what should have been the most tolerant place in all of Dhaka - the University Campus - we have been FORCED to face the consequences, at times in terms of violence.

If we expressed criticism of our leaders in print or on air, we were FORCED into silence, exile or worse.

And this has been true of all political parties. So when they suddenly start talking about VOLUNTARY contributions as opposed to extortion, one has to ask:

Why not VOLUNTARY strikes as opposed to the bus/car-smashing, "picketing" and businesses-closing that took place during hartals for 15 years?

Why not respect our right to VOLTUNARILY protest on the streets instead of treating us like criminals when we do?

Why not foster a culture where students VOLUNTARILY come to embrace your party's views instead of threatening opposing students with the loss of residence and perhaps even of their lives?

Why not allow the press to write what it wants, the television channels to say what they want, so that they VOLUNTARILY praise you when you deserve it?

None of this sort of voluntary activity was present for the last 15 years. So, needless to say, I find it somewhat hard to digest that businessmen voluntarily gave money to these parties. If they're not giving of their own free will, by definition those funds are being extorted.

Of course, those funds could always have been contributed in order to get some political favour in return. There's a word for that last one however, and it's really popular back home at the moment: corruption.

Note to CTG: stop coming up with semi-bogus cases and investigate the frigate purchase already. Foreigners "contributing" funds to political parties is a shady enough fact by itself.

Fear and Loathing at Nagorik Shokti - or why I supported Yunus and now am terribly disappointed

(Funny update below)

And so it ends not with a whimper, but a bang. Eliot's poetry holds no metaphor that can capture the enormous amount of pessimism with which I regard the immediate short-run in Bangladesh. Yes, you heard me right: the author of the Wasteland has failed to match my mood.

I woke up this morning to find that Yunus has decided not to float his party after all. It's a true testament to the times that I got the news first off Drishtipat, then off the Daily Star. Because with the press restrictions in place, the media has become increasingly worthless as a source of REAL news.

Full disclosure: I am not related to him, nor have I ever been an employee or intern at Grameen organizations. I have met him once. I got a photo and an autograph out of it, neither of which I really wanted at the time but was pushed into by my parents. And no, my parents are not the Dhaka "secular humanist", "ekatturer chetona"-types. In fact, they are highly skeptical of this whole "NGO-thing" as they call it.

No I came to respect Yunus later on, in college, in a land far, far away from the humidly green Delta. And then too, only for his creativity. That a man at the height of the "Cold War" ("an ethnocentric term" - Naveed Sheikh) could rise above the two petty ideologies - which had needlessly polarized Bangladesh as well as the rest of the world where the war was anything but "Cold" - and do something different for the "Third World" came as a nice little surprise. That he was from Bangladesh filled my heart with joy. The only thing that could have been more perfect was if he had been from my beloved Dhaka, but alas....

So when he announced his political ambitions, I hoped again that he would be able to overcome the AL-BNP political polarizations and the whole secular-Islam social polarization: both needless, both meaningless, both absolutely artificial. After all, this was the man who had overcome that other spectacular piece of binary thinking - market vs. central planning. After all, he was neither KZ or SH, not even loosely related. After all, he had declared proudly that he had gone and prayed after winning the Nobel Prize. I didn't think he would make all this change immediately, but in the long-term through example.

I remained skeptical of his short-term goals, especially as any news of his policies were not forthcoming. I remained skeptical too of his conflict of interest with being both in government and still regarded as being part of "civil society". You are either one or the other, no exceptions. Yet, one remained optimistic.

I heard criticisms of him. Most were irrelevant to say the least. Let me just reproduce some major strands of argument:

1)Don't come into politics. It's not for clean people. And oh yes, we need reform.: I don't think refuting this is worth my time or effort.

2)He's a market-centric bastard in the pocket of MNCs: Yes. He is market-centric. And he does deal with MNCs. Fortunately, unlike most of us, he became a master of the market system and an almost-equal partner of MNCs, instead of remaining their snivelling or frightful slave like the rest of us. This one came mostly from ex-communists and the odd conformist-non-conformists who did not like all the hype surrounding Yunus.

3)Grameen doesn't really work. Yunus is a sham: SH is nothing like Mujib (indisputably the Greatest son/daughter of this Soil in known history) and KZ or TR is nothing like president Zia. The day you call them "shams" to their face, I'll believe you're not a partisan hack.

3)Just because he made a poverty-reduction scheme work doesn't mean that he knows how to run government: Oh yeah? Then what ensures that you know how to run government? Degrees from American colleges with no practical experience? Practical experience in siphoning off cash to INVEST in other countries (no degree required)? Being someone's widow or daughter or son or grandson? Being convicted of running ethnic-cleansing hit-squads in '71? Being an accountant, a lawyer who has found more loopholes in the constitution than he has fixed, a general who wrote poetry and made a mockery of his own religion and country? This list is seriously endless. So why are people so ready to dismiss him without giving him a chance when we've given every third-rate BCL/BCD "cadre"-leader a try without asking for his resume? Or is that an uncomfortable question?

Then there was 1/11. Rumour flew that he had been approached to become Chief Advisor. Rumour also had it that he turned it down. Well, good job I said. Who wants to be a figurehead anyway? I mean, look at Fakru! And Iajuddin before that. (And on the topic of Iajuddin, has a scholar ever harmed his country more?)

And now of course he's decided to call it quits. People suspect the AL's rhethoric but that's probably giving the AL too much credit at this point. More likely (and this is PURE SPECULATION), he did not want to get involved in the only party that will probably have power over the next five years: a sort of hegemonic party like the NDP in Egypt, the Baath in Syria or the JP under Ershad. Our way or the highway seems to be the rule from hereonin. He chose the highway.

Yet... yet... if had stood up to the powers that be at this point, formed his party and called for elections, he would have been the hero of the people. He decided to take the quiet route, Lord knows under what sort of pressure. Another high, followed by yet another low. Goodbye Nagorik Shokti and hello Vegas. My friend, I missed you.

Update: Best reaction to this news comes from shadakalo's blog: "OK, its official. Worldwide poverty alleviation is easier than leading Bangladesh." Even at the worst of times, our sense of humour has rescued us.

Sheikh Rehana Effectively Exiled

I think we can for the moment lay to rest all speculations about an AL-CTG deal. The Daily Star and bdnews24 is reporting that an arrest warrant went out for Mrs. Hasina's sister Sheikh Rehana, who lives in England and visits Bangladesh very infrequently. Why this would be a priority case for ACC is beyond me given that he accused doesn't even live here.

Good night and good luck.

Update: Via Third Eye @ Sachalayatan, Sheikh Rehana's interview with Channel S. More than anything else, this will give greater relevance to the Mujib family as a political dynasty, the very thing that the CTG wanted to avoid. As she says, she has been out of the country for most of the years since 1975 and I have it from very good sources that her political ambitions are nil.

As the Dust Settles.....

(A little later than promised. The "real" world is not punctual and neither am I. My apologies)

The day after the arrest the entire Bangladeshi community in the 'desh and spread across the world seems to be holding its collective breath. "What will happen from here?" is the million dollar question. A clue to the answer lies in the reactions.

First, the reaction of the "masses". Apart from sporadic crashes between AL workers and police in Dhaka, Khulna and Mymensingh there really is nothing much to report. As a friend commented, six months ago, they shut down the entire country and now there is no sign of the concerted, organized movement that we know the AL is capable of. This either means that the CTG really has things under control by judicious use of the security forces (improbable), and/or the army spectre is weighing heavily on the AL grassroots' minds (bit more probable) and/or the reformists have managed to successfully get some grassroots support and control them (most likely). I think it is safe to say that the Awami League is split and the reformists have the upper hand for now.

I say for now because Bangladesh Chattra League, the AL-affiliated students' union, has called for a day-wide strike at all educational centres and the Jubo League will protest the arrest. These constituencies might win out just yet. As a rule students don't like being dictated to, but student politics nowadays is hardly the same as those of the 70s. Instead of peaceful, principled dissidents we have violent, unprincipled crooks running around. And AL has had quite a hand (though not the entire hand) in that transformation. Read about it here and do scroll down to the end for a good laugh. Someone is quoted as saying that the arrest might put "secular politics" at risk. Just provides me with more ammo to show people that "secular politics" means jackshit to Awami Leaguers. I await news of the strike with much interest and apprehension.

One last point about the protests. Property damage. Two years ago, during the grenade attack I could understand how people faced with that level of terrorism can respond violently. So I excused, in my head, AL activists setting fire to a train carriage. Today, their leader was arrested allegedly under the law of the land. What is their excuse today to resort to violence?

Which brings me to the "elite" reaction. Two of them stand out. Mrs. Hasina's son Sajeeb Wazed has given his reaction on television channels, as the DS reports. He has also given an exclusive interview to e-bangladesh, an online forum managed by fellow blogger Sushanta Das Gupta. What comes out in both is his attempt at trying to put this latest event into an easy mould for everyone: namely, his attempts at comparing this to 1971. It's a viable strategy only for the AL base, an attempt I feel at luring AL activists away from the reformists. What this sort of rhetoric will do with the rest of the nation is best left unanswered. People might buy it, they might be revulsed by it. Just one thought: if Mrs. Hasina comes back to power, or one day even Mr. Wazed comes to power, will they be able to get along with the same group of people they've compared to the heinous Hanadars of 1971? Just a simple thought that shows the futility, the parochialism and the short-term thinking behind adopting these simple slogans to sell people stuff we know is not true.

Mr. Wazed's laughable attempt at stepping into his grandfather's shoes is another thing altogether. Addafication reports on it thus:

"Of course, the coat tails of history weren’t far and Joy tugged on them best he could.

Ebarer shongram desher bhobishoter shongram

Ebarer shongram gonotontrer shongram "

Ahhh the coat-tails of history. I couldn't have put it better myself. One famous slogan did not make Mujib who he was in 1971. He was reduced to a simple slogan after 1975. Something to think about. By the way, if Zillur Rahman is the president and Mr. Wazed is not formally part of the Awami League and is thus a simple activist, do we know for sure who is taking orders from whom at this point? AL critics of the Zia dynasty, let us hear from you on this.

The second "elite" reaction was the more exciting. As I said earlier today, Mr. Mahfuz ("Ma Man") Anam doing what I've known him to do all my teenage life: telling Truth to Power. It's a risky job, cause Power can come back to bite. But if no one does it, Power runs rampant and destroys itself along with Truth. So please, agree with him or disagree with him, love him or loathe him, a round of applause for the man.

He takes the CTG to task for its arbitrariness, for its own opacity, for its own flouting of the very rules it says it wants to see, and lastly, almost subtly, for press censorship. I'm not going to quote anything from it because I want everyone to read it fully. My respect for him has never been higher.

This is real civil society, our much maligned "shushil shomaj", the way I personally would like to see it: a check against the arbitrariness of power instead of being in bed with it. Those who denounce the entire concept of "Shushil Shomaj" and favour a sort of fake populism instead (I say "fake", because most anti-"shushils" themselves live in Dhanmondi, Gulshan, if not the US and the UK itself), please explain yourself today. When this man criticised the BNP, BNP-ites said he was "just another big talking Shushil". When this man aligned himself temporarily with the CTG, "Down with Shushil Shomaj" became the cri de jour among AL-ers. What now folks? Seems like Anam's still gunning for Power, but when he comes gunning for your favourite political party you don't say "Aim somewhere else fool!" or give him any reason to. You simply seem to say "What right do you have to shoot?" If you contest his right to speak to a political party, what are you doing to your own right to do so? *shakes head* End of this mini-rant.

What does this mean for the coalition of "bhodrolokes" who brought about 1/11? Given the opacity of the situation, hard to tell. Anam and Debapriya seem to have split off, given what the former sees as "command politics" and the latter as "kowtowing to the IMF". But it's shown them to be less the intiators of 1/11 and more "intellectual footsoldiers" (h/t J.R). They are increasingly not getting along with dissimilar ideological elements who are increasingly calling most of the shots. My personal worry is that the CTG has indeed crossed the Rubicon. I.e. no turning back. If there's no turning back, most people do not like the arrest (but are staying mum) and the press are critical, what's the solution? Gagging the press of course. So I'm expecting some censorship attempts, some media harrassment and hoping against it.

A trivial observation to sign off: I do not know if this is irony or poetic justice, but Mrs. Hasina, who once refused of her own free will to sit in our National Assembly as Leader of the Opposition, is now forced to remain inside Louis Kahn's ode to Democracy as prisoner of state. If there is poetry there, be sure it's tragic.

Busting some national myths

Today seems to be a good day to bust a few national myths. So here goes, in no particular order:

Myth: “Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia are the root of all our troubles. Minus-2 will solve all our problems”
Fact: While these two have definitely contributed a lot to our woes with their personal animosity, their support for corrupt elements and their exclusionary politics, they are by no means solely to blame. Bangladesh has severe structural problems, not least of which is the fact that the judiciary is not independent enough to tackle corruption and the law is not clear enough to draw the line between corruption and legal behaviour.

Myth:“I am the daughter of the father of the nation. I should be allowed back into my country”
Fact: It is about time that Mrs. Sheikh Hasina Wajed stopped using her father’s name for anything. The only reason I support her right to return is because she is a citizen of Bangladesh. We all know who your father was, we respect him and pray for his departed soul. What have you done to deserve our respect? Besides, is being a citizen of our country not privilege enough?

Myth: "Like father, like son".
Fact: A theory disproven since the Prophet Ibrahim! Bangladeshis, please, PLEASE, stop believing in it and voting accordingly. And yes, feel free to substitute the words “daughter” where appropriate!

Myth: "BNP is the enemy of democracy and introduced dictatorship in Bangladesh."
Fact: As much as I admire Mujib, it was unfortunately his move to create BAKSAL that destroyed all semblances of democracy in our country. Democracies need a minimum of two sides. One-party states are thus inherently undemocratic.

Myth: "BNP will protect us from India, AL won’t."
Fact: Neither party has a coherent, intelligent foreign or international trade policy, not just with India but with any country. BNP-sympathisers complains about India turning Bangladesh into a “captive market”, but when India cuts off food exports, we complain loudly! Either we trade with India or we don’t, no one is forcing us to keep our borders open!
Here’s something to think about: non-tariff barriers. These are the single biggest impediments towards increasing our trade with India. Can’t we make moves on the diplomatic front at all to get India to reduce these? Do we not hold any of the cards? Answer is of course we do! But who’s using them? Instead of linking things like Tata’s investment to reducing tariff barriers, what our bureaucrats would rather do is milk the deal for all it’s worth. If you could get these non-tariff barriers down, we could get to the Indian market. Which by the way is what every American and European company has been dying to get into!

Myth: "Only politicians are corrupt."
Fact: Corruption in a significant part of society forces other parts to become corrupt as well. If a policeman needs to pay one lakh to get a job, s/he will definitely try to make it back. Similarly if a politician asks for money to not hinder even the simplest of business deals, then the entrepreneur must make it back somehow. If a professor needs to toe the party line to get appointed in state-run universities, s/he will expect students to do the same. Corruption breeds corruption. Let’s face facts: we have all gone through a terrible time in our history where people had to do what they did to survive. Should we punish them all? Or only the biggest offenders?

Myth: "1/11 changed everything"
Fact: While evidence is still pending, the post-emergency CTG so far has not acted in fundamentally different ways than its predecessors - except perhaps on the above point where it has tried to get a coherent foreign and international trade policy going. The CTG is plagued with the same insularity (they are hostile to every other power centre), lack of transparency (we have no idea who is taking the decisions and who is enforcing those decisions) and accountability (if decisions are successful, who do we reward? If not, who do we ask to step down?). Until these three problems are solved, I’m afraid it’s just another false dawn for Bangladesh.

Foot in Mouth of (back in) the Day

Our winner today: the Sandhurst-"educated" Mr. Ayub Khan, once the most powerful man in Bangladesh.



Recently, his diaries have been published which really does not contain any surprises for any Bangali (not "Bengali", you Urdu-speaking, North Indian, colonised piece of ****) who has read the relevant parts of his autobiography "Friends not Masters". Not to give any more circulation to this sort of colonial, Orientalist crap peddling itself as scholarship simply because a powerful man wrote it, but my "favourite" quote has to be Ayub on the Bangalis he so despised (and therefore was the BEST person to judge impassionately): "they have no culture and language of their own, nor have they been able to assimilate the culture of the Muslims of the sub-continent, by turning their back on Urdu."

Yes. Last time I checked, both the Quran and the Hadith emphasised a good Urdu education for all Muslims. Ayub Khan wouldn't know a real Muslim if he got hit by one. Which is why he didn't see Mujib and his millions coming straight at him. His legacy to Pakistan was this enormous amount of institutional blindness that he left behind. Which is why they didn't see us either, and still don't get us.

Foot firmly in Mouth for the last 60 years and counting till your "country" breaks up into four ethnic fiefdoms. We'll see how "Muslim" Urdu is at that point.

Joy Bangla!

(PS. To those who are curious: I deliberately do not consider our two leaders for this prize because I do not want to hand this out every single day. And no, saying "Joy Bangla" does not make me an Awami League supporter. And yes, I do consider Bangla to be a Muslim language. Hindu, Christian and Buddhist too.)

The State of the Revolution - Part 2

Part 1

Part 3


6) Right-wing intellectuals - The mirror-image of the Shushils, I refer of course to the Naya Diganta types, specifically Farhad Mazhar and Mahbubur Rahman (of ex-BOI and CPD-suing fame). Now a lot of people might point out that this is by no means new. Well, yes nothing is completely new under the sun true. But my rationale is that they represent a new strand in right-wing support for unelected governments: previous right-wing intellectuals were usually BCS people (e.g. AMA Muhith) or no-brainers. An interesting case is that of Enayetullah Khan, the late editor of Holiday whose family now owns the New Age. Left-wing intellectual, so far to the left that he has extended his support to every right-wing government in power to get even with the Awami League for the early 70s. Farhad Mazhar might just be doing the same with his latest shenanigans. (I'm indebted to the numerous discussions I've had with people on Rumi bhai's blog for this section. They really got me thinking seriously about the Naya Diganta clique.)

Now that we've got 1-6 somewhat differentiated from one another, let's look at their aims.

1 and 2 have the same aims: greater bureaucratic control over politicians in the long run and a clean exit. I do not doubt their patriotism: they genuinely want good things for the country. I doubt their ability to listen to the very people they are supposed to lead. Top-down modes of governance do not work in the long-run without extreme coercion. Get a book on Soviet history and see if I'm wrong. Unelected government officials become ready to seek out "conspiracies" if ELECTED political masters are not present: elected people are conscious of the people below them even in a flawed democratic state like Bangladesh. Bureaucrats and military people are more apt to find conspiracies or somehow or the other blame the public for policy failures. Don't believe me? Look at the fixed price market fiasco. (Free economics 101 lesson for any BDR personnel who wants it. Just leave a comment on this blog!)

3 is not really much of a mystery. These are people who have decided that they want power no matter who they have to serve, no matter how much of their previous statements they will have to disavow. Mr. Moudud is the epitome of this class, but in the context of the current CTG, the poster-boy of this faction is none other than a newspaper magnate cum barrister cum advisor cum conspiracy theorist. I refer of course to someone who once resigned from BAKSAL (h/t shadakalo), not because it was undemocratic (how "naive and idealistic" that would have been) but because his illustrious father's newspapers had been confiscated. Like father, like son? Hah!

4 is not a mystery either. By hook or by crook, they want Shahriah law in Bangladesh. That Shahriah itself outlaws the hook against other Muslims (which most of us are) is not something that bothers them. That there are different interpretations of the Shahriah and the Quran (and have been since time immemorial) is also not something that bothers them. More than anything that a cartoonist could draw, these living beings are an insult to the Islam I know and practise. Let's ban them from politics using their own logic. That some of them acted against us in 1971 simply lends more credence to the call. Seriously, this is the only time I'm going to echo Kader Siddiky. (Btw, Mr. Siddiky, I second your opinion as given to the EC that all rajakars should be banned. What's your take on pro-Mujib guerrillas who fought OUR army with Indian help? Somehow less treacherous? Jackass!)

That faction 6 is allied with Islamists is a tragedy, which we've been trying to fathom on several threads on this blog and Rumi bhai's. Neither Farhad Mazhar nor Mahbubur Rahman nor most of the other right-wing ideologues are Islamists or even particularly religious. The consensus among the bloggers is that it reflects the failure of a centre-right BNP to find any meaningful outlet to their voices: after all, the BNP has valued loyalty over dissent in its 2nd term. And dissent is the one thing you cannot take away from people who think for themselves.

5 was of course the big surprise this coup round. Their participations spoke of a society in which power had been devolving to hostile civilians slightly, with the liberalization of the economy and the media. What was their interest in supporting an undemocratic procedure? Surely these were "liberals" who believe in democracy right? Get ready for a rant.

We had two political parties families personalities... let me start again. We have had two powerful political ideologies differentiating themselves on paper only through this: "socialism and secularism" and "capitalism and the state's supreme faith in Allah". Both ideologies are willing to sacrifice "democracy" to get to these supposed utopian goals from what I've seen and read (BAKSAL and Jamaat's Roadmap are two sides of the same coin). Democracy therefore clearly has no advocate in Bangladesh, the first Bangladeshi politician on the blogosphere notwithstanding.

The dependency school of political economy in its typically post-Marxist way tells us that economic "exploitation" (read: relations) did not end with colonialism. What happened was that the "white masters" were replaced with brown/black ones. These new masters were comprador elites, serving the needs of the old colonial power at the expense of the development of their own newly independent countries. Their consciousness were therefore elsewhere, in the lands of those who held the purse-strings. (Full disclosure: Dependency theory has been partially discredited, so Islamist readers, please don't go on a rant about how "secular liberals" serve the "Empire". I don't subscribe to such facile theories myself.)

Like economic elites, our liberals too are comprador, not in an economic sense but in an ideological sense. We all remember the old saying, "These people hold up umbrellas when its raining in Moscow" (which btw can be modified slightly to fit the Islamist condition, "These people take shelter when a sandstorm bursts forth in Riyadh, Jeddah, Gaza City, Damascus, Ankara etc etc"... anywhere except my beloved Dhaka of course!). Our liberals are painfully short of original ideas. Yunus was of course the exception to this in that microlending really is original in breaking free of Cold War shackles of thought. His tragedy lies elsewhere.

The lack of original ideas is reflected:

1. in their avowal of "secularism", borne out of the experience of the Inquisition in Europe and superimposed on Bangladesh's '71 experience;

2. in their avowal of "Communism", borne out of the experience of Industrialisation which Bangladesh did not go through;

3. in their 180 degrees digbaaji following Berlin '89 and their avowal of "the Market and Industrialization", without letting go of their hostility towards entrepreneurs or calling for a strong legal basis without which the Market cannot function;

4. in their avowal of "civil society" narrowly defined to include themselves and only themselves at the expense of other ideologies;

5. and finally in their full-fledged support for the CTG's policies (especially their censorship and self-censorship) as a "national government" following the Communist models they once aspired to.

Democracy remained something elusive (usually dismissed as a buzzword by the ignorant), something for the naive to shout about, people like me who thought that "over"-populated, "under"-educated Bangladesh could cope with the democracy it had fought for in 1971.

Our Real National Shame

For those who need more confirmation that our political parties do not care about our religious minorities, here is Professor Abul Barkat’s study on the Vested Property Act.

Following the 1965 war with India, the Ayub government in its infinite wisdom decided to constitute something called the "Enemy Property Act". It allowed them to declare any citizen an "enemy" and confiscate their property. How, when and why Hindus became enemies after living in Pakistan as citizens for 17 years was never really clarified. But then again, this was our thick-headed, Sandhurst educated friend (not master!) Ayub, so logic took a backseat as was usual.

Following Bangladesh’s independence, Mujib’s Awami League government- the Epitome of "Dhormoniropekhkhota", the Protector of the "Minorities" - reconstituted the act in 1974 calling it the Vested Property Act. Bravo! Needless to say political-economists would have had a lot to say about the reasons behind such a move. But also needless to mention, not many political economists among the Dhaka intelligentsia have bothered to investigate these reasons.

So the epithet (good to some, bad to others) of being "minority-friendly" stuck. Everything was fine and dandy till our villainous friend and master Zia came along, rehabilitated Jamaat and inserted "Bismillah" into the constitution. After that the REAL persecution of Hindus started. Or so goes the tale.

Yet, as Barkat shows, who the beneficiaries of such confiscations ("legal" till 2001) were depended solely on who was in power. During 2001-2006:

45% of the land grabbers were affiliated with the BNP,
31 % with the Awami League,
8% with Jamaat-e-Islami
6% with the Jatiya Party and other political organisations.

His ‘97 study showed the opposite trend:

44% with the Awami League
32 % with the BNP

(figures for Jamaat and JP not given)

And did I mention that the Awami League government repealed the act in 2001? Yeah, even New Age calls it an "act of tokenism". And rightly so! After all, they had 5 years to do so but chose to do it only right before elections, after five years of allowing supporters to plunder the property of the citizens of Bangladesh by labelling them "the enemy".

And before you BNP-supporters get too excited, let me point out that the study also finds that the violence faced by minority religious communities increased under the BNP-Jamaat government. After all, if the law was repealed but the confiscation still went on, it had to be done somehow right? Who’s on for a good old-fashioned pogrom to seize their property?

This brings me to the point I’ve been trying to make over and over again on these pages: that religious identity politics are driven more by the political-economy of control over scarce resources than by religion. But hey, who’s listening? Certainly not "secularists" who think that taking "Bismillah" out of the constitution is going to magically empower our Hindu citizens. And since most of our intelligentsia falls into this category, that should answer our question as to why they haven’t really looked into the reasons behind the Vested Property Act being instituted in the first place in 1974 in a Bangladesh supposedly built on a secular Bangali nationalism.

In conclusion, both parties stink. Jamaat would stink if it had more power as would JP. And because of them, we as a nation should hang our heads in shame. Because we stink too.

Oh and while we do that, the Indian media covers the story with its usual neutrality and balance, quoting only the 2001-2006 figures and not the 1997 figures. Kudos gentlemen, kudos! And you wonder why we don’t get along…

Sheikh Hasina Arrested

(Updating as long as I'm awake)

Other blogs covering this story:

Drishtipat

Mash

Addafication

Update 9 (or the "DS, don't be a rag" rant): While Star's breaking news link says that AL activists have gone on a "rampage", reports from Dhaka indicate sporadic incidents as reported below. Reports from the rest of the country talk about small-scale protests. Nothing that can qualify as a "rampage". I would also like to note that for the first hour, the report about Hasina referred to AL "henchmen". It has since been corrected changed to "supporters". Daily Star, stick to the neutral line. Misinformation and exaggeration has never done any paper any good.

Update 8: The reuters story that BBC is quoting from. Interesting details including reactions from lawyers and Sajeeb Wazed, who calls it a "deep-rooted conspiracy" remaining true to post-Mujib Awami League rhetoric. Given his mother is in jail, this blog will not hold this against him.

Update 7: A twist in the tale. Addafication writes and some sources back home confirm that Mrs. Zia has been asked to appear before court (the exact date is uncertain). Till date, she hasn't. Rumours are flying around that "they" are going to arrest her tonight.

Check out Addafication for more news, plus Sajeeb Wazed's reaction.

At this point, Dhaka is more a city of rumours than anything else. My friends describe the mood as "grim", "thom thom ey" but "no genjaam". Let's hope it stays that way.

Dhaka Shohor's biggest existential question: Will we be talking about 7/16 the way we talk about 1/11?


Update 6: Scuffles between AL workers and police. Two people in hospital according to TV channels. Police have fired rubber bullets and tear gas on demonstrators in front of the courts. Dozens injured according to DS.

Update 5: BBC has it up as the lead to their South Asia News page. Apparently she's been produced in front of the CMM and they are not sure about the specific charges. bdnews24 however is reporting that she's being charged with extortion under the case filed against her by the East Trading Co. Chairman. Conflicting reports to say the least.

BBC also says:

"She was later brought to the court, but officials are preventing any reporters from entering the courtroom, our correspondent says."

Conflicting reports are also coming in about the supposed rampage. The DS is reporting on it, but my "sources" are saying that nothing like this is happening and that security is very tight.

Finally, Mrs. Hasina has been sent to the deputy speaker's house which is serving as a temporary "jail".

Update 4: Daily Star reporting that AL activists have gone on a "rampage across the country" to protest the arrests. Small processions were also brought out inside Dhaka University and near the CMM. My "sources" tell me that SMSs were flying around Dhaka last night with rumours of police on the streets and possible "genjaam" ("trouble" for my Bangla-challenged readers.)

Update 3: Apparently the last person Mrs. Hasina was talking to before her arrest was the correspondent from bdnews24. They're reporting that she was on the phone with them, and knocking could be heard on the doors, voices saying "They've come and want to get in". In response, she said that she would go along them after her (dawn) prayers.

She was taken away in a Nissan Patrol with tinted glasses. She could be seen smiling and waving at people from inside.

At the courthouse a lawyer was apparently crying and after telling him/her not to cry, she simply said that "they" don't want her to take part in elections.

Law adviser Mainul Hosein's (DD) reaction:”I heard about her arrest. She has been facing a number of cases. Awami League leaders and activists also backed the cases against her.”

Motia Chowdhury's reaction: “Nobody will accept it. It’s political harassment.”

Update 2: The only other blog post I could find dealing with the news at this hour. (Since then, people have commented on it. They're not to my taste is all I'll say.)

The News

Sheikh Hasina arrested and taken to court.


I really don't know what to think, even less on how to feel. This is unprecedented territory for Bangladesh, and it sure is for mere mortals like me.

If anyone's interested (and most if not all of you probably know this already), this is her son's blog which will probably have more detailed news and his views on it soon. I know I'm checking it regularly.

CTG, this is an ex-Prime Minister. Respect and dignity are key words here.