Liberation War25 Feb 2007 01:16 pm
Humayun Ahmed once had a TV serial where a parrot was taught to say thui rajakar. These days, secular arguments that invoke 1971 feel like that — pretty to look at, easy to ignore. http://thedailystar.net/2007/02/26/d702261501123.htm
February 25th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
You are absolutely right that secularism has to be defended for its own sake. But the War of 1971 can never be irrelevant in this context. The history of that war is nothing but a lesson of what happens when non-secular, or anti-secular powers take hold (either of our govt machinery, or of our psyche).
You are also right that over the past 35 years or so we have failed to articulate the case for secularism (like any other progressive idea, this needed to be continuously and relentlessly nurtured and promoted). But you forgot to mention that it’s only a part of a much greater Failure: the Failure to condemn and eradicate Corruption. Of course, here I mean Corruption of all types and magnitudes, Intellectual as well as Financial, as practiced by our own kind (class-wise or any otherwise). Corruption that has become socially acceptable. Especially by that part of the society also known as “Educated” (lately self-billed as the Sushil Samaj). The moral and ethical bankruptcy of the “progressive” politicians is just a natural consequence of this Failure.
February 25th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Excellent write up naeem bhai. Unfortunately I don think our youth aligns themselves with secularism anymore. The secularist intellectuals have little impact on us. I don see a revival of secularism in BD in the near future.
Globalization on the other hand, may face a strong opposition in BD. The Asia Energy incident reflects that perfectly. In future, we may see a strong anti globalization nationalist stand from our people. The reason is purely ecnomical. In 1971, the main reason we fought was to establish our economic and political freedom. Secularism was one of the reasons, not the main reason. Now due to our education system flaw, the ppl of BD have gone further away from secularist principles. So if a govt wants to establish secularism, they have to do it gradually, possibly through a change in education system, not by suddenly imposing it on the nation. Otherwise it cannot sustain the counter attack of our communal quarters. The only other way to establish it will be thru the army (as in Turkey). But our army is not secular at all. So the gradual strategy may be more effective.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Ikramuddi, yes 1971 is very relevant. One reason I attacked the “1971 rationale” so strongly is that it has become a dangerously seductive and tactically ineffective slogan. We need other arguments for secularism. If you talk to people under 20, 1971 really is not a emotive motif. It’s not enough to say “era eethihash jane na keno.”
February 25th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
http://addafication.com/2007/02/25/on-the-casual-throwing-around-of-terms/
Naeem Mohaimen at Drishtipat Blog has an op-ed in Daily Star today that’s very interesting, and quite well-written. I agree with Naeem that the issues that he raises need a much more serious and substantive discussion and debate in our political space than we have seen so far. And Naeem rightly puts blame on the rank dishonesty, open greed and short-sighted lust for power of our political elite and the emptiness of the platitudes put forward by their partners and dupes in the intelligentsia for the rise of Jamaat. I am, however, concerned about the casualness with which Naeem throws around key terms in the debate. I actually stopped reading and scratched my head in puzzlement when he conflated Arabist and Islamist. Naeem bhai, they really are very different things…
February 25th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Did not get the “ek shagoro” reference in your sentence below. Care to illuminate?
“Time to imagine a completely different movement, one that is for class politics that also incorporates secularism within a Muslim identity, not the inadequate, irreligious fig leaf of “ek shagoro” brand pseudo-secularism (easily bought off with a parliament seat and Pajero).”
February 26th, 2007 at 4:57 am
“Ek Shagoro”=”Ek Shagoro Rokther Binimoye/Bangla r Shadhinotha Anlo Jara”
Meaning the idea that just singing these songs is a sufficient defense of secularism.
By Arabist, I was referring to Arab money. Islamist, I was thinking of the political ideology.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
What is the ‘problem’ with secular politics in Bangladesh, a predominantly Muslim nation with a very religious populace ? It is a fact that in 1971 the principle of secularism had overwhelming popular support, which by itself was an anomaly of sorts, considering the history of most Muslim nations over the last few centuries, and indeed of Bangladesh itself which broke away from India in 1947 as East Pakistan on the basis of religion. It would be quite interesting to note what was so different then (in 1971) than it is now.
It is my view that secularism cannot sit in the abstract. For it to be a leading principle for a large community of people it has to have some practical meaning. I believe that is what had happened in 1971 in Bangladesh. Secularism at that time sat among other principles of social and economic emancipation, equity and justice, and promised a change for the positive. Unfortunately for us, more than three decades since independence, that promise did not materialize. Cut away from its natural moorings, secularism was abandoned by the general population, and only remained as an esoteric ‘idea’ for the intellectual elite.
A silent war is now being waged in Bangladesh. What it means to be a Bangladeshi is not very clear. What are the values we believe in was never much dwelt on. Our political leaders have failed miserably in delivering the goods. Political role models are virtually non-existent. On the other hand, religion provides strong symbols and a coherent ideology. It appeals to the disfranchised. On the global stage, the Muslim Ummah represents a far more potent, visible and dynamic identity than any form of Bengali Nationalism could ever aspire to be. It makes sense to the people as a nation to progressively associate themselves with this broader identity. Secularism, stripped of any equivalent underpinnings, can easily be abandoned, with the exception of a few very select and increasingly elitist intellectual class.
We need a new direction, but its guiding principle cannot be secularism in isolation. Today people are more interested in security of their livelihood amongst a decorum of social justice. To browbeat in an ideology that has no resonance with their immediate need will not speak to them any more.
For the diehard secularist this is now truly a battle for the hearts and mind of a much neglected population. If they can’t win this battle, the Islamists surely will.
Farhad
February 27th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Well written piece, Naeem.
In bringing home the dangers of toxic mix of religion in politics, the 1971 experience is most relevant, no matter how far back in the past this event happened. It is important that the evidence against Jamaatis are preserved for posterity; it should be more than what Jamaat leaders said during March-Dec. 1971. A thorough job involving interviews of eyewitnesses and confronting alleged perpetrators with these evidences, like the British Channel 4 piece some 15 years back, would be most desirable. These evidences have to be preserved on the internet so that it can be readily accessed by anyone. Perhaps, some one can load the Channel 4 piece on a website.
Further, what needs to be impressed upon the younger generation is that these are not stories of a few wayward individuals, but a natural product of an activist ideology (a la Maudoodi) where people believe they are acting out God’s will by eliminating those they believe are against God.
Of course, 1971 is not the only experience that speaks for secularist principles. The collective experience in Islamic history as well as the recent history of Pakistan is also relevant. In the latter case, Islamization process did not stop with almost all nonmuslims leaving the country; Kadianis became the next targets, followed by progression to Shia-Sunni sectarian battles and increased Talibanization of society. The inherent totalitarian nature of political Islam that claims authority from “God’s rule on earth”, as interpreted by a few Mollahs, needs to be exposed more forcefully.
Younger people need to understand that secularist principles do not stand alone on its own, but as an innoculation against the dangers of mixing religion with politics.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Saleh, good comments. By the way “Kadiani” is what their opponents call them. The community calls themselves “Ahmadiya”.