The other Bangladesh
Ziauddin Choudhury Photo: AFP In a short span of four weeks Dhaka was besieged twice by a hitherto less known organisation of seminaries that provide religious education on a syllabus dating back over a hundred years. These religious institutions known as Qawmi madrassas that were inspired and modeled after the iconic Deobond Madrassa in UP, India, had traditionally catered to the spiritual needs of Muslims in Bangladesh. The graduates of these institutions ordinarily performed as imams in mosques, provided religious services to village and urban societies, and some rose to fame as religious scholars with their oratory and religious knowledge. Very few indulged in politics, at least not directly. Those who did usually joined one or the other existing political parties of the country. It was a surprise, therefore, that a primarily non-political organisation of a motley group of very conservative religious institutions could muster hundreds of thousands of loyalists and descend upon the capital city in a long march covering hundreds of miles. The first long march was ostensibly organised to protest against an alleged insult to religion by some of the supporters and sponsors of the mass rally in Shahbagh square, the principal focus of which was demand for punishment of alleged war criminals. In an ironic twist of events a rally that espoused the very principles that had inspired our liberation struggle, some of the lead participants of the rally would later besmirched with accusations of anti-Islamic slur in their web logs. In a normal society such accusations would have been met with rational discussions and appropriate legal steps should such accusations warrant any. But we live in a society of least tolerance of opposing views, most of all if it touches religion. And we also live in a political world where no opportunity is lost to spite our opponents, and each such event is exploited to the party’s advantage. The smoldering issue of perceived insult to religion and prophet apparently sparked the counter reactionary movement and the long march that brought into the fray not only the pupils and teachers from the seminaries; it also incorporated elements that had always distanced themselves from the core values of our independence struggle, and had built a political platform for promoting their own brand of identity and ideology. This is an identity and an ideology that we thought we had put behind us when we gained our independence. The first rally in Shapla square ended peacefully, but the demands made by the organisers of the rally would show how wrong we had been in our assumptions. The demands forcefully reminded us that no matter how moderate and progressive we consider ourselves as a nation, there exists among us a sizeable section that would like to follow an ideal that is miles away from our line of thinking. The dead seriousness of the demands, and that these are not simply words written like graffiti on a wall, would be proved by the second march and rally that turned parts of Dhaka into a battleground last week. People world over watched in shock and awe a city besieged by hirsute men of all ages raising slogans and raiding and trashing vehicles, stores, and property–fighting law enforcers along the way. This was no different from the usual battles that other political parties staged in the past when enforcing strikes. A purported assembly of marchers from religious seminaries behaved no differently from trained political workers. In fact, from electronic documentation of the riot in the streets it seemed the combatants were more aggressive than the average political worker. The consequence of this mayhem after the second rally is heavy. Perhaps this has caused the worst damage in human lives and property in a political fight in recent years in Dhaka, with reverberations across the country. Lives have been lost, property damaged, and normal business transactions have ceased in many parts of the country, with fears of more damage to come. Should this have been allowed to happen? Could this have been stopped? How could a seemingly placid group of pupils and teachers of religious seminaries muster such strength and have such political muscle to bring a capital city to its knees? How could a confederation of religious institutes assume such power as to dictate what should be the guiding policies of the constitution, and what legislations need to be implemented? This is particularly so when the sponsors of the rally and major leaders have avowed no affiliation with any political party? Answers to these questions can be partly found in historic manipulation of religious seminaries and their leaders by our political leaders in the past and present, and partly in our deplorable inability to separate our national identity from religion alone. To this we can also add a resurgence of faith and religious practices among many Muslims to a noticeable level. From the days of Pakistan we witnessed time and again our military dictators using the madrassas as a launching pad for their career. This served two purposes. It allowed them to appear as pious leaders and appeal to religious sentiments of the majority. It also gave them access to a preformed social organisation of madrassa teachers and students that have a large presence in the rural society. President Ayub Khan and President Ziaul Haq of Pakistan used these platforms very effectively. In our time we would see both Gen. Ziaur Rahman and Gen. Ershad resort to such practices. The number of madrassas quadrupled in Pakistan during Ziaul Haq’s time, and in Bangladesh the number grew over three times from 1971 thanks to the patronage both from the rulers during the period, and from private donors. One expected that with demise of dictatorship buying support of religious groups and patronising them, and coddling them to that end would abate. But politics makes strange bedfellows as we would painfully learn from previous governments that were elected democratically. Our political leaders make compromises and have concordats with groups that may be ideologically in the other end of the spectrum for short term gains. In the long run it is the nation that will suffer for allowing growth of ideals and ideologies that are totally different from the ones that provided the very foundation of the country. The country is passing through a delicate stage of identity. On the one hand we have a group that believes firmly in the principles on which the country was founded. On the other we have a group that wants to reestablish an ideology that led to a failed nation. This is a threat not to be dismissed as a simple protest. This is a threat that needs to be met by all who have a stake in the future of our country. This should begin by calling an end to the current political impasse by a dialogue among the contending political parties, and recharging the next electoral process. This is audacious, but this could be a good way to end the new challenge to our identity. Rewards for Crime and Our Politics
--Ziauddin Choudhury Those of us who have grown up with the maxim that crime does not pay have to live with a new paradigm that crime does pay and pays handsomely in riches and political power. A time comes when old order and values are washed away by new realities and people who create these realities, and we have to get accustomed to these however repugnant these are. This is not the statement of a cynic, but of any realist who has watched how politics is slowly being subsumed by criminality in Bangladesh. The new realities of Bangladesh are hijacking of rule of law, societal norms, and politics of the country by a new group. This is the group that has made fortunes from rampant plunder of state assets by muscle power, hooliganism, or outright theft by leveraging their network of friends in high places. They built their wealth not by their own sweat but by active collaboration of their political patrons and beneficiaries in their criminal acts, be it land grabbing, stealing of state resources, or murder of their competitors and rivals. The wealth they have accumulated is being legitimized first by keeping them out of law’s reach by their political patrons, and then allowing them to channel this wealth through established businesses and industries. Their political patrons rely heavily on them for supply of muscle power to intimidate and suppress their opponents, to deliver favorable election results, and to exercise total control of the constituencies. In fact, these new owners of wealth have also become de facto political agents of the party. Money and muscle power are the main ingredients of political grease in the country now which these agents have in plenty. The crimes that have helped them to gather these are but essential means that the political leaders gladly condone because they get valuable returns from these scofflaws. Once we understand this phenomenon we can also understand why the spree of murders, abduction, and other incidents of lawlessness in several areas of the country in last few months have not been solved and all suspected criminals have not been apprehended and brought to justice. We can also understand why prominent political leaders in some places with known and proven association with the suspected criminals can remain above the reach of law. This is a quid pro quo situation. I protect your back, you protect my party. Unfortunately politics and crime have gone hand in hand in many countries including many western countries. But the essential difference from Bangladesh is that in other countries law ultimately gets the upper hand and criminals in these countries, how big or influential they are in politics, are prosecuted and convicted. In Italy a former Prime Minister went to jail for tax evasion. In US prosecution and conviction of politicians including Governors and Congressmen are legion. In India nearly one third of the members of Parliament have criminal charges against them, which if proven, will lead to their ouster not only from the Parliament, but also the party. I do not think there were any current or former members of the Parliament who were prosecuted and convicted on criminal charges (not taking into account cases during the last care-taker government). In fact, it will be a wonder of Police will be able to press charges against any given the environment of protection that they live in. It is not because the law is different for politicians and their protégés, but because they are sheltered by the people they work for. Impunity for law in our country travels from top to bottom in a hierarchical pattern. When protection of a criminal from top leadership of a political party occurs it travels down all the way from middle leadership to grassroots. In some cases this protection can be because of the perceived fealty of the protégé to the political overlord, or simply lack of knowledge on the part of the leader of the criminal conduct of the protégé. It is wrong in both cases. When leaders condone criminal behavior or trashing of law by their workers or underlings they set precedence for wider breakdown of rule of law, collapse of democratic institutions, and render law enforcing agencies completely helpless and ineffective. A common factor in the recurring incidents of politically motivated murders, abduction and other incidents of political hooliganism is the role of local political overlord in aiding and abetting of the criminals. A parallel element in all these is the ineffectiveness of law enforcing agencies either through inaction or obstruction from the political overlords. Neither of these would happen if our leadership from the top were guided by a commitment to rule of law and good governance instead of narrow party interests and protection of party workers. Respect for rule of law and regard for the institutions that uphold the law are essential elements for functioning of democracy. Rewards for criminal behavior and criminals in society and politics will only stop if our leaders rise above narrow platform of political loyalty to national loyalty and cease to patronize the criminals. Of Agitators and Administrators
--Ziauddin Choudhury From street agitation to seat of administration can be a long road, it may not happen in most cases, but when it happens there are only two consequences. One is a miraculous change, and the other is chaos. The first can happen when the agitators are people who have had the experience of running a government or an institution in the past or they are people with a vision and gifted with skills. The second can happen when street agitators with no previous experience of running an administration find power thrust upon them because people find them an attractive alternative to the authority in place. When politicians agitate in the street they do it with an ulterior motive, which is to topple the government in place. When common people agitate they do it to vent their grievances against authority and bring about an end to their complaints. Normally in both cases politicians take over when the agitations succeed in toppling a government; the agitators move away and allow a new set of rulers or administrators run the affairs for them. An exception to this norm happened last year in India, more precisely within limits of national capital territory of Delhi. Created in 1991 as a self-governing federal territory Delhi has its legislative assembly and a chief minister like all other Indian states and federal territories. What made Delhi capture news headlines last year was not the likely change of government of the country in the next national elections, nor likely induction of Narendra Modi as the next Prime Minister of India, but one Arvind Kejriwal who was kicking up quite a storm with his protests and hunger strikes over a series of social and economic issues close to the heart of Delhi common people. He was carrying out these protests under the banner of his newly Aam Aadmi Party (Common Man’s Party) that he had formed with a band of followers in 2012 breaking away from a broader Anti-Corruption Movement led by Anna Hazare, a social activist. Among his captivating protests last year one was an indefinite fast to mobilize people against inflated power and electricity bills at a house in a low-income group resettlement colony in North-East Delhi. The other was supporting the agitation of Delhi auto rickshaw drivers, who were protesting the Delhi government's ban on advertisements on auto rickshaws. Kejriwal claimed that auto rickshaw drivers supported his party and they carried AAP's advertisements on their auto rickshaws and this is the reason for Delhi Government's ban and he challenged that volunteers of AAP will put 10,000 advertisements on auto rickshaws as a protest. The net result of his tenacious and somewhat dramatic protests against corruption, government apathy, and ineffectiveness was that Kejriwal was able to grow his support base among common people to a level where he could field enough candidates in the legislative assembly elections in 2013. His ultimate success was when his fledgling party fought the Delhi Legislative Assembly elections in November 2013 and won 28 of 70 seats. Kejriwal was transformed from a street agitator to administrator when his party was asked to form the government with support from the Congress Party and he became the seventh Chief Minister of Delhi. But Kejriwal had new forces to deal with besides dealing with his new role as an administrator. He would face institutions and people who had deeper roots and more experience in handling elected personnel than he had with them. In this battle his experience of working as a mid- level government official in the country’s tax department early in his career was not enough. So he took resort to his agitator role once again when he failed to persuade the central Home Ministry to fire the officer in charge of a Delhi Police Station for its inaction in a case of rape of a foreigner in Delhi. On 20 January 2014, Kejriwal and his ministers staged protests against the Home Ministry in Delhi streets after the police refused entry to his cavalcade to the North Block, near the Home Minister's office. In the same dramatic way that Kejriwal held his other protests in the past; he took his protest to the streets against the Home Minister, but this time along with fellow Ministers. He not only held sit down protests even more dramatically to the delight of his supporters and to the chagrin of some others but he also carried out his office work from the street. It was quite a sight to see a State Chief Minister to stage a sit down strike against an arm of the national government, carrying out the age old tradition of agitation. He later claimed that it was the first time in Indian political history that a Chief Minister had protested on the streets to raise his Government's demands for a fair inquiry. After two days, he ended his fast when the Lieutenant Governor intervened by sending two policemen on leave and setting up a judicial enquiry. Was Kejriwal right in doing what he did? It would have been seemly if he were the activist that he had always been. But should the head of a government resort to his same role that he had in the past to vent his protests? When Gandhi took to his usual protest of hunger strike even in an independent India he had not taken up the mantle of government head, not even in a state. When Maulana Bhashani in Bangladesh resorted to his agitator role in independent Bangladesh, he was as removed from government as he was some fifty years before. The role of an agitator does not behoove an administrator. In Bangladesh we have some examples of agitators turning into administrators, but most of these persons rode in the coat tails of an established political party. In the past we have seen rise and fall of many such people who shot into lime light through agitation, but their ultimate anchor had been a well-established political party with deep organizational roots. There had been some political aspirants who had been inspired by people’s frustrations with known faces. But these aspirations have been ephemeral since they lacked the systemic support from organized political parties. We are not sure which way Kejriwal and his new party will be headed to. His supporters and the people who always hope for an alternative to established political parties will no doubt hope for his success. But in a system that has been nurtured by a political network of money, power, and muscle it will be a difficult road for sovereign existence of a band of street warriors bereft of blessings from the wealthy, political power houses, and highly organized political groups. It may be that Kejriwal will be able to ride over his difficulties for his current term, but to take it to the next level he will need to make compromises, compromises that probably his agitator self will not approve of. It is sad but it is true, politics in our part of the world has been made difficult by the same people who want to serve people. Our Foreign Advisors and Their Domestic Clients
--Ziauddin Choudhury The feverish activity in the diplomatic circles in Dhaka that provided a lot of fuel to the political debates prior to and after the elections seems to have lost its steam somewhat now. A couple of months before the January elections, Dhaka was abuzz with speculations of many kinds that ranged from having the elections under a hybrid of interim government to none at all. The speculations were based on who among our foreign protagonists were more credible in their public utterances and who they conferred with on the day of such public pronouncement. The news commentators and analysts weighed their analysis more on the perceived strength of the foreign protagonist than on the probability of the statement actually taking effect. Sometimes the statement, particularly after this was made by a foreign dignitary following meeting with any political leader, assumed greater significance and was often referred to by the analysts as an indicator of our political future. Curiously in most such meetings there would be no third party observer, leaving us only statements by the foreign protagonist (an ambassador, or a visiting foreign official) on the situation. Our credence of the statement and subsequent speculation on what will happen next would give most of us a feeling that we are guided by not our political leaders but by their foreign advisors. One wonders whether the current pause in the flurry of diplomatic parlaying in domestic politics is due to the resignation of the foreign protagonists to the new reality or the growing sense of futility among the domestic clients of foreign advice in solving their own problems. This pause may be temporary only to be ignited by some other event, but this should give us an opportunity to look back at our history and see how such interventions in domestic matters gained prominence in our country with conscious and voluntary lobbying by our political leaders. Foreign intervention in our domestic political affair is not new. In a sense one can say we owe our birth as a nation due to such intervention. Our freedom struggle was sustained by our neighbor India, and immediately after liberation. Our initial recognition as an independent country by a handful of foreign countries was also made possible due to India’s lobbying. We also showed our gratitude by leaning toward India in choosing our allies in our foreign policy in the initial years. India in its turn showed its respect to us as a sovereign country starting with the withdrawal of its army as early as March 1972. The Friendship Treaty with India in 1972 reaffirmed lasting peace and friendship between the countries. There is a big distinction, however, between intervention and interference. In 1971 our political leaders sought foreign support for a cause, preventing suppression of human rights, stopping genocide, and liberating a land that had declared independence from an occupying force. This was intervention to prevent a population from becoming extinct. This was intervention that gave us our freedom. But what followed next in our history cannot be called intervention for a cause, but foreign interference in our own affairs. Sadly this interference was not always at the initiative of our foreign advisors, but our own leaders who could not settle their disputes among themselves. From the beginning of our history we had seen significant foreign interest in our affairs. In the beginning our international allies worried that an economically weak and politically unstable Bangladesh could become a permanent ward of the international donor community. In subsequent years when our dependence on foreign doles began to decrease as our economy grew, the foreign countries became concerned with our political uncertainties. They worried that a politically weak and unstable country could succumb to chaos and it could become a hub of extremism. For India, our big neighbor, a politically unstable Bangladesh would bring the threats were nearer to its door, and hence it required more active intervention. These are understandable concerns. While this partly explains the degree or level of foreign interest particularly that of India, in our domestic politics, it does not wholly explain why foreign ambassadors and other plenipotentiaries play such a big role in the country’s politics. A simple answer is because our politicians invite them to do so. This happened in every election cycle. From the day our parliamentary democracy was reborn in early 1990s every election has been turned down as fraudulent by the losers and the winning party Hs been labeled as manipulative interlopers. The result has been accusations and counteraccusations, street protests, boycott of parliament, and public venting of frustrations. What was not achieved by election was attempted to be gained by agitation, and threats of riots and mayhem. To that was added a shameless appeal to foreign countries and their ambassadors to advocate their grievance against the ruling party and seek their intervention. We had seen this conduct make its public appearance in 1992 in egregious ways and since then this became the tactics of choice of the opposition parties before or after the elections. Our political leaders in their roles in the opposition thought it proper to approach foreign representatives to vent their grievances to the extent that the foreign representatives would consult their home offices and give advice as they were told. Culmination of such foreign intervention came in 2006 in the form of a troika of foreign ambassadors along with local UN representative who assumed a major role in the changes that came to our political scene and occupied it for two years. Of late it has been fashionable in many quarters to question why the representatives of foreign countries have assumed an oversized role beyond sometimes diplomatic protocol to delve in our domestic politics. A foreign magazine even remarked last year that the emissary of a certain big country had become a de facto member of a political party by his public leaning toward to the party. Another envoy was termed a de facto advisor to the other party. These unflattering comments may be totally unfounded, but they resonate among the public when they see the indirect effect of these parlays on our domestic politics, and read about recurring conferences of the emissaries with domestic solicitors of advice from foreign countries. Sovereignty of a country does not depend simply on its separate geographic and political identity. It depends on the ability of its rulers and political leaders to rely on their integrity, strength of their conviction, and support from their own constituents. Real strength comes from support of the people who the leaders claim to be serving, not from foreign powers who they may turn to time to time to boost their fragile base. Our continued freedom forty three years after independence has been possible because our people saw to it their hard earned freedom should last. Our politicians need to adhere to lessons of history. Bartering national sovereignty for partisan power has never worked. Ziauddin Choudhury is a US based political commentator and analyst. |