Earlier tonight I attended a talk by Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury, the Foreign Adviser in the current government. The talk, titled ‘Evolving Challenges for Bangladesh in South Asia’, was held at the Australian National University, Dr Chowdhury’s alma mater. The audience included academics, Australian government officials and members of the local Bangladeshi community.

I’m going to narrate what he said at the talk first, finishing with some personal observation. As usual, looking forward to a lively discussion.

The Talk

Dr Chowdhury started with the history of Bengal and South Asia. He noted the 19th century Bengal renaissance and the rise of the ‘bhadralok’ class. He quoted JH Broomfield’s study of pre-partition Bengal, noting the intellectual accomplishments of the bhadralok from Tagore to Dr Yunus.

Then he stated that the current government is the result of today’s bhadralok class asserting its power. According to him, this bhadralok class is composed of professionals and academics, the large NGO sector, and an army that is thoroughly imbibed in the ‘UN values’.

Dr Chowdhury noted how Bangladesh has developed against the odds since liberation, and particularly in the 1990s, in most fields, with the exception of politics. He blamed both the last government and the opposition for the political impasse. He stated that the impasse was broken only when a fed-up bhadralok class stepped in to restore order.

He noted the government’s programmes, achievements and challenges — election reforms, anti-corruption drives, depoliticising the bureaucracy and judiciary, inflation. He unequivocally reiterated the government’s commitment to hold election before the end of 2008.

He did touch on the need for political reforms. He noted that the reason politics turned sour was because of the ‘winner takes all’ nature of the system. He accepted that unless ‘the cost of losing’ is reduced, there is every possibility that politics will revert to the old pattern. But he also noted that the government will not step beyond the bounds set by the constitution. His examples of ‘political understandings’ within the constitution were elected and strong local governments and a ‘national accord’ among the politicians.

He finished his talk with Bangladesh’s commitment to the SAARC and a South Asian identity.

The talk was followed by a series of questions. There were some perceptive and penetrating questions (one specifically asked about the army’s role, another about mixed and sometimes contradictory messages by some advisors). Other questions probably would have been better suited at the Paltan Maidan.

Dr Chowdhury reiterated that the bhadralok-backed government is committed to the ‘UN values’ and the army is very much subservient to the government. At the same time, he accepted that the events of 1/11 could not have happened without the active support of the army. He accepted that there have been human rights violations and lapses of due process, but he argued that the government is acting on good faith and is working towards rectifying mistakes. He stressed the government’s commitment to the constitution, noting that, and I quote directly, ‘even if constitutional proprieties are somewhat of a myth, it is vital that they are maintained, and we are absolutely committed to them’.

Observations

It has been a decade since I read Broomfield’s ‘Elite politics in a plural society’, so some reader can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Broomfield’s thesis was that the predominantly Hindu bhadralok class of Calcutta was opposed to majoritarian democracy in pre-partition Bengal, and this opposition to majority rule was what led to Muslim separatism and partition. Whatever the intellectual accomplishments of individual bhadraloks were, the bhadralok class was portrayed as an anti-democratic force in that narrative. Was Dr Chowdhury aware of the irony in choosing the intellectual roots of his government?

Dr Chowdhury’s repeated stressing of the ‘UN values’ reminded me of AsifY’s piece.

The repeated mention of constitutional proprieties, even if ‘somewhat of a myth’, was also revealing. This indicates that the government is not considering, or at least publicly floating, any reforms that would require amending the constitution — no increase in the president’s power for example.