How should Bangladesh deal with Islamism?
Professor James C. Scott of Yale established the notion of “public transcripts” and “hidden transcripts” in his study of how elites and their subordinates interact. “Public transcripts” are essentially all the information contained in the discourse between elites and subordinates in the public sphere. For instance, the deferential relationship ( “Ji sir! Na sir! Three bags full, sir!” ) between workers and their bosses in an office is the public transcript. “Hidden transcripts” are essentially what the subordinates say among themselves ( “Boss shobshomoy deri korey ashey, tobe amader boley time meney choltey!” ) or what elites/bosses are saying amongst themselves. Needless to say, the workers really NEED their conversation to be “hidden”!
The notion of hidden and public transcripts are becoming increasingly relevant nowadays, especially in the wake of Islamist terrorism and the ever-increasing popularity of Islamist political parties in some countries. Last week, I read an op-ed by one of the few Daily Star columnists I still read regularly and have a lot of respect for, Zafar Sobhan. As full of good sense as his columns usually are, this one nevertheless had these curious sentence in it:
“From time immemorial, non-elected regimes in the Muslim world have chosen to target secular opposition only.
Time and again, it is the Islamists who are left untouched and use the opportunity to strengthen and consolidate
Time and again it is the Islamists, who, by remaining untouched, rise to the fore-front of the democratic opposition.
Time and again, it is they, promising social justice and equality and freedom from corruption, who step authoritatively into the void created by non-democratic rule.” (emphasis added)
The notion of global and hidden transcripts came rushing back. It is hard to argue against the first half of this scenario with respect to Bangladesh, Pakistan and maybe Indonesia under Suharto. Non-elected regimes in these countries have targetted secular opposition and left religion based parties untouched. An exception is our dear friend ( “not master!” ) Ayub Khan who had a few tussles with Jamaat back in the day, as well. All these historical instances have firmly established the Bangladeshi public transcript/”common sense” that Islamists are beneficiaries of unelected regimes.
But as I emphasise above, Sobhan claims that this is the general case in “the Muslim world”. As almost any Bangladeshi Islamist can tell you, this is not the case at all. They can tell you this because they read from another transcript, hidden from the rest sometimes through their efforts and sometimes through our refusal to acknowledge it.
A short list of unelected regimes cracking down on Islamist parties since 1947 would include:
1. The Egyptian monarchy assassinating Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brothers. A failed assassination attempt on Nasser brought about another crackdown on them in the early 60s, as did the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1980. The Muslim Brothers are the most popular party in Egypt right now.
2. An Islamist takeover of the Syrian city of Hama in 1982 resulted in the unelected government of Hafez al-Assad simply demolishing the city, killing between 10,000-25,000. No Islamist uprising since then.
3. The unelected government of Algeria cracked down on the Front de Islamique Salut (FIS) after it had won the parliamentary elections. Some experts point to this as a “key event” for jihadist types.
(I’m sticking to Sunni Islamists to avoid going into unnecessary arguments. For those interested, Iran under the Shah is a great example of how state repression of both secular and religious groups (including Iranian Jews) led to Khomenei’s popularity.)
Why am I mentioning all this? Certainly not to show that force works or doesn’t work. (Just look at the difference between Syria and Egypt). Because as I said before, almost any Bangladeshi Islamist worth his salt will know at least some of these examples. Islamism after all has its own hidden transcript, its own mythos one might say. Claiming them to be a global beneficiary of unelected regimes is not only inaccurate, but bound to perpetually trap us in the highly unpalatable situation where Bangladeshi citizens are talking past rather than with each other, reading off two different transcripts. Until and unless we recognise that Islamists come in all shades and colours (from Refah with its pro-EU stance in Turkey to JIB with its Danish flag burning in Bangladesh, from parliamentarians in Cairo to Jihadists in Islamabad) and that they speak from a different historical experience/transcript than other parts of the intelligentsia, (exemplified here by Sobhan, with all due apologies to him) Bangladesh will continue to be divided along this religious-secular line. Not just politically, but socially and culturally as well. Coercion, arrests and prosecution does not work well in the social and cultural spheres.
Being overlooked or granted favours by unelected regimes, as has happened previously in Bangladesh and Pakistan, have not helped Islamist parties gain much popularity. The only Islamist parties that have so far (to my limited knowledge) come to power through elections are in Algeria (1990 and this led to the civil war), Turkey and limitedly in Egypt. In no case did Islamists enjoy good relations with the unelected regimes. Others that have, such as JI Pakistan or JI Bangladesh, have not outdone the “secular” parties in any elections after being relatively untouched by military regimes. Hardly “the forefront of the democratic opposition”.
None of this is to argue against arrests and prosecution of the kind of people holed up in an Islamabad mosque this past week. None of this is to argue for “forgiveness for past crimes” (read: 1971) as some would have us believe is pragmatic. This is simply to say that all violence against citizens must be punished regardless of who commits them, instead of singling out religion-inspired violence for special treatment: ie. prosecute Shibir/JMB law-breakers the same way you would prosecute lawbreakers from a “secular” student league. And by all means, let’s investigate their links with violent extremist groups.
If they move to the centre of the political spectrum from the extremes (e.g. recognition of equal rights for Hindu, Buddhist, Christians; equal rights and freedoms for women; condemnation of their stance in 1971; a firm commitment to the elections and the trappings of democracy; giving up ex-communicating people etc. etc.) and get elected, we should have nothing to complain about. If they remain at the extremes and get marginal votes, we should be happy. However, singling them out in practice, rhetoric or media attention is neither going to serve the cause of justice, democracy nor stop the extremists among these parties from taking them even further from centre. It might even push more of our people into thinking their ideology actually has some value. Instead of making martyrs and perpetual victims out of Islamists in their own narrative/transcript, let us engage with them and try to make them understand our reservations about their rhetoric, their tactics and their narratives. That is the only way to heal our growing secular-Islamist rift in my opinion.
That small quibble out of the way, I too have to ask: why are there so few Jamaatis in jail?
July 14th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Visit related link of Salim Samad
http://e-bangladesh.org/latest/former-bangladesh-prime-minister-slams-military-intelligence-for-interference-in-state-polity.html
July 14th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Approximately 90% of population of Bangladesh is Muslim as such Islam-ism is very much part of Bangladesh life. This Islam is a religion of peace that we are suppose to practice. Though many of our (World Muslim and not Bangladeshi Muslim) misdirected action is conveying the massage that Islam is rather synonymous to extremism, to the broader world. The general people from village are simple and plain hearted. As such, the correct question to pose would possibly be as follows:
“How to deal with fanaticism / exploitation of religion, Islam in our case, for political gain or social exploitation pretending to be in the name of Islam?”
But anyway that is my view.
To start with, the least we can do is avoid using the Islamic parties that has ulterior motive and harbor and preach wrong massage of vindicative Islam and going for peace-meal deal with them (Islamic Parties) by major political parties (BNP & AL) in order to achieve short term political gain at the cost of long term interest and possible destabilization.
The act that should have been avoided in the past and the likes that must be avoided in future are as follows:
1. No more deal or short term peace deal like the one between Hasina and Golam Azam, representing Jammat-e-Islami in 1996.
2. No more Ashirbad Prathi Meeting by the person seeking the post of presidency, possibly in 1991-1995 (The the then President candidate went to seek support from Golam Azam, if my memory doe not fail me).
2. No more formation of Government with the support of parties that use Islam as a political tool, like Jamaat-e-Islami. BNP did it in 2001.
3. No more deal by Sheikh Hasina with Khelafat - Mojlish decreeing 5 points deal.
4. No more patronization people like bangla Bhai.
On a strictly personal note, I am some times confused about the ’so-called’ secularism. Not that I am against secularism. Actually to me it is not a big deal at all as I am taught to respect people as they are, whatever background they belong to. For argument sake, if secularism means being tolerant of all religion, Islam teaches us that. That is my Islam, anyway. I also understand that possibly not everyone’s Islam means same thing.
Quote: - “All these historical instances have firmly established the Bangladeshi public transcript/”common sense” that Islamists are beneficiaries of unelected regimes.” - On a personal note, I believe, that for Bangladesh specially, the above statement does not represent the whole truth. For Bangladesh, Islamic parties had been beneficiaries of elected regime as well as the above examples show.
I guess, JI gained its highest social acceptance mostly through its public alliance with AL in 1996 and BNP, well obviously during 2001.
Disclaimer: I do not hate just any JI activist as I feel it is their right to choose under democracy what they want to choose, though I do not subscribe to JI politics. I hate the ones who collaborated with Occupation Force and helped them act against our people. I also do not contribute to the idea that today any JI means anti-Bangladesh (relating to their stand in 1971) as I can see many post 1971 babies are doing JI today and so under no circumstances can they be termed anti Bangladesh element. They may be termed religiously motivated. albeit in misdirected, most of the times. This is an opinion and not fact.
As for the question:
“That small quibble out of the way, I too have to ask: why are there so few Jamaatis in jail?”
What I believe is that JI did not get as big a chance for corruption as the ones of BNP/AL. Even for comparison sake, the minitries under Jammat Rep were possibly less corrupted than the ones led by oudud/Mannan/Forest /Biddut Bibhag etc. But eventually I hope the thief / corrupts will be put back behind bar including the ones from JI.
Even if we don’t like JI, the fact remains that this is possibly the only party that has apparently changed its leadership through a process of party mechanism. BNP / AL can learn from it.
Judging from success and failure, the leaders under whose governance Bangladesh became Corruption Champ in last years should have retired out of self respect accepting their failure, long time back. If not for that, they could have followed the example set by Democratic leaders in the developed world where leader voluntarily resigns if defeated even in an election. They could have created next generation leaders. They never did. They feel it is their divine right to lead Bangladesh and that they are indispensable. Alas! Nothing is indispensable on this God’s earth. Think a moment about this amazing truth: Possibly I can safely say that 120 years from now, not a single person alive today will be their living. A completely new generation will take over that have not yet born and learn every thing and even more that we learned so far.
Anyway, none of the Leaders of either BNP / AL / JP has learned this art of leadership, alas. What massage does it send? Deeds not word, matters most.
Thanks
July 15th, 2007 at 2:11 am
Thank AsifY for this very pertinent thread and good review of global context of Islamic politics and democracy.
Thank so much LTT because what I intended to comment on in the morning after my reading of the thread, you have already did it.
To AsifY and others, to me ISLAMISM is dangerous deadly word. As islamism is now frequenlty used by the ultra-secularists incriminating Islame as the breeder of terrorism. They overtly or covertly see Islam as synonymous of terrorism. The connotation of this term very negative and using this kind of word with hatred note, so called secular intellectuals, in essence are directly confronting the Islam which in fact revealed for and guarantees peace, prosperity, social justice and human dignity. And that really does emancipate people from all sorts of slaveries, evils and practices derogatory or abominiation to humanity. There fundamentalist group among muslims that can be better termed as religious militancy or fundamentalism. What the do is not Islamism. So religious militency shuold not be colesced with Islamism.
By using this kind of word in the evil word, knowningly or unknowingly secular fundamentalists hurt the feeling of moderate common muslims.
I see no distinction between religious fundamentalists and the secular fundamentalists. Both are evil fringe elements of the society and are competing forces. One encourages the other to grow and thrive. Both of them spread fear factors among the people of moderate and rational thinking. This two extreme groups works with the centrist moderate populace and instill pervading fear in them and thus able to recruit and brain wash the moderate people to become extremists. This is the game they play to get their group heavier and powerful to upperhand their opponents in the society with an intent dominance and power. This became a perpetuating vicious cycle of hatred, enmity and social infights. This kind fight is called “Fithna” social schism disrupting social peace and harmony. That’s why Al-Quran says “Al-Fithna Ashaddu Minal Ketal.” Meaning engaging in Fithna/infight is worse then killing.
To rid of this Fithna there’s an urgent need for dialogue among all people and make people understand the degree dangers of evil propaganda of two extremist groups and practice patience and tolerance and find ways to stop them hatching conspiracies one against other.
Very sadly, I observe in the name of moderating the religious belief especially the islam, the anti-islamic secularist group has been frantic to weaken and disfigure the beauty of Islam and snatch it’s soul and don it with attire of moderation wrappnig lifeless body of islam inside.
Thanks.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
It may sound unpleasant to many ‘Jamatis are less corrupt than the Jatiotabadis or shadinotar pokhyers.
Merged, submerged or emerged, cynicism against Islamists is a growing rhetoric. After the demise of cold war or collapse of other empire, terrorism become the visible enemy to fight and make the marketing agenda to sell weapons. That is one aspect of todays popular issue. One can be easily a millionaire taking up the issue effectively. Any political tyrant can bypass popular hardcore issues by raising or detonating few crackers or real bombs.
Mohammed Abdu, Hasan Al Banna, Shah Waliallah all wanted to change the political and economic system of Muslim societies elbeit with variety of strategies(right or wrong I am talking about it). Syed Ahmed was knighted others were put in jail. Many were brutally tortured and killed. In many CIS countries Imams are successfully hobnobbing with the rulers, in Turkey an elected MP has to resign for wearing Hijab.
In Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia long bearded Muslims are haunted and often picked up and tortured.
No where Islamic parties were groomed or left untouched either by the tyrant monarchs or secular democrats when they become a growing political force. When people fed up with the oppressed or inefficient regimes they opted for Islamists as a last resort and voted them to win. Then, what happen to them in Algeria, Pakistan, Palestine, Egypt is well known. Here the question arise, whether democracy can embrace Islam, not Islam can embrace democracy or not.
When the secular forces with great enthusiasm looted and stashed the property outside their (our) motherland, not only deprived but took away peace and freedom, we are not ready to fight them with full vigor, rather stashing energy squabbling to by pass the issue.
Millions of peasants at disarray, few gave life for a kilo of nitrogen or potash or a kilowatt of electricity, we mainly indulged in what Islamists are indulging or not indulging in. What is given to the poor or how many jobs prospect is created through the budget is less a dominant issue than fighting the so called growing Islamic forces.
Creating a job, adding a value to the economy, enhancing the traditional value and literature all become the less priority. My faith and my religion is within me, what is apparent is my culture, may be derived from my belief, but a society should be able to nourish the dynamic features of the humans living within it. Secular or non secular these are cheap issue created to by pass the main hardcore issue of the general populace. A profiteering and non tolerant society can not be good for any human creatures whether he worship one God or not.
It is also hard to make believe that Iran has more practicing democracy in the Muslim world, what is hidden here is ‘not to believe the Mollahs’.
Bangladesh should strike a deal with its resources to create jobs for 10 millions within 5 years, educate 50 millions youths within next five years, provide basic health care to 100 million within next 5 calendar years, no frustrated youths or mullahs will dare to bite our society than. Bangladesh should set it priority, either to fight poverty for millions or fight alien belief for handful.
Mr Asif thank you for this wonderful posting.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
thanks for raising the issue, asif. you raise some great points.
when i wrote that non-elected regimes in the muslim world are more hesitant to take on islamists, i was also thinking of the shah’s iran and the experience in the arab world from saudi arabia to egypt to jordan over the past half century.
it is true that there have been crackdowns on islamists in all these countries as well as syria, algeria, etc.
but i think the overall point is still correct: islamists are treated more carefully than non-islamist democratic opposition which is why they flourish and typically form the focal point for regime change (though they themselves may not be democrats).
take syria and egypt, for instance. yes, there have been many brutal crack-downs on islamists such as at hama, but that was only AFTER the islamists had succeeded in making themselves the main opposition. one reason that the muslim brotherhood rose to prominence was that so many of the secular democrats in egypt have been killed already. ditto saudi arabia. ditto syria.
yes, since hama, we see no islamist uprising; but when was the last time there was a non-islamist opposition movement in syria? the fact that islamists in syria were able to get so powerful to stage an uprising in the first place is testimony to the pre-eminenet position they had managed to attain. and even today, i would suggest that islamist opposition to the asad regime is stonger than non-islamist opposition.
but one thing that i am concerned about (and i wonder if it contradicts my article) is the danger in positing an elite/non-democratic/secular vs common people/democratic/non-secular narrative (this was the thesis of farhad mazhar in a piece he wrote for new age march 26 issue) which positions the army-backed government as a tool of the “secular elites” and the islamists as the “democrats” fighting for the rights of the common people.
this is a narrative that i find very worrisome, but it may come to pass sooner rather than later here in BD.
July 15th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Very good post AsifY. I have the same question, why CTG is not going after Jamat. Surely they can’t be ignorant of these facts, when Pakistan just dove virtually into civil war in the last few weeks.
For everyone who have crying against the secularist: Two wrong does not make it right.
If every time someone wronged me and I burned a car, BD would have been out of a car by now.
In the same way, just because some guy drew some cartoons, is no reason to call out jihad.
Democracy having been successful in many different countries with different social cultures, does not have to prove anything to Islam. It is duty of Islam/Islamist to accept democracy, human rights and tolerance.
There are valid ways to register your discomfort with a government without resorting to militancy and violence.
Even the end that these jihadist proclaim, does not have merit, and pose a dark future. It would do more harm to Islam and muslim then the greatest enemy of Islam can ever hope to inflict.
Thats why its better to follow Bengali/Bangladeshi nationalism for Bangladesh.
July 15th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
The article asks a strange question but then concludes in a bit of a liberal fudge darl, with no movement from the secularist establishment, let alone any fruitful creative, interesting engagement of ideology with the problems facing society.
The phrasing of how bangladesh should deal with islamism implies that theres a problem with the existance of islamism, that its alien, that people who hold an islamically flavoured ideology(3 of the foour main parties btw) are beyong the pale, something more fitting for bush or blairs press offices than a country with buddhist, hindu and muslim histories like Bangladesh.
Also there is the messy question of bangladeshis deep down not really being very secular at all, nor ‘communal’(whatever that means), something i will write on my blog in a while.
5)
“One reason that the muslim brotherhood rose to prominence was that so many of the secular democrats in egypt have been killed already. ditto saudi arabia. ditto syria.”
-Please list the secular democratic network organisations that you refer to(viable alternatives to the status quo?). Was that a common sense you yourself constructed or the reality of organisational history in the region. arent you conflating the hasan al banna-rashid rida based egyptian organisation with the very different ibn wahab based movement in saudi america?
When i hear the line, ‘oh you are attacking the 2 big parties but not those green serpants’… i reach for my laughing gas.
Is it inconceivable to the secular mind that Political Islam has popular, historically deeper rooted, refined, and ‘legitimate’ aspiration?
Religions like islam have some martial like qualities,eg. lining in ranks for ritual prayer, praying and fasting in synchrony. and ideas of Obedience, Duty, Sacrifice, Dignity and Discipline overlap more between religiously inteligent and the military-administrative complex, than bewteen said complex and whatever it is thats written on the other transcipt, which to be honest seems to be rendered in invisible ink and written in a strange language.
The hidden transcipt idea is an intriguing tool asify. thanks for sharing. In bangladesh there are layers and layers of these hidden transcripts, which keep people apart, but also inspire and switch them on.
Im not going to change my script on account of the actions of someone holding another. Scripts develop, some burn.
They are mutually exclusive on some matters, but curiously alike in others.(share the same problems of nepotism, parocialism, dependance on outside ideas and dosh)
The polarity will remain, but the manner in which different peoples cooperate should and can mature. As the mass citizenry becomes more discerning and able to refute and supercede the unsacred emnity sown by these political classes, it will sort itself out.
My answer to your question.
The developing countries enfooled by this divisive ‘catch the islamists’ hocus pocus should ponder on whether utter capitulation to trendy and western backed areligious political philosophy is actually in our long term interest.
The governments of bangladesh should seek to unite, rather than wound and kill their oppositions.
The different political cults would be wise to tweak their defintions of sustainable development to suit the acreage of land available.
July 15th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
This superb article in the New Statesmen by Shiraz Maher, ex-Hizbut Tahrir, makes some excellent points about benign extrmism and violent extremism amongst Muslim radicals. There is a growing consensus amongst Muslim groups in the UK that Islamist Terrorism is crime against humanity that has no relation with Islamic religious belief. With the growth of the Hizbut Tahrir in Bangladesh, I hope we can discern the threat that this bifurcation can be brought to public awareness.
Although groups like Hizb insist that their acti vities are merely intellectual, the movement is no paper tiger. It is an active revolutionary organisation with tentacles spread across the world. And its culpability in inspiring terrorists cannot be denied. Hizb has consistently raised the temperature of Islamist anger across Britain by issuing inflammatory leaflets aimed to agitate and provoke. One leaflet distributed at British mosques urged: “O Muslims! Hizb ut-Tahrir calls upon you to mobilise your forces to help and support it in its work to establish the [caliphate] state, by which you will restore your glory . . . and destroy your enemy . . . the enemies of Allah and His Messenger, namely America, Britain, the Jews and their allies.”
July 16th, 2007 at 1:36 am
All who have thanked me: thank YOU for your kinds words.
bitterboy,
Despite your reservations about the word “Islamism” and its abuses, my write-up does nothing of the kind. I define “Islamism” as the politics of mobilizing people using “Islamic symbols and rhetoric” and an overt attempt on the part of the political parties in question to associate themselves with Islam. This is how I’ve viewed it, and my focus has been on these political parties and not on doctrine.
So it is highly inaccurate to say: “As islamism is now frequenlty used by the ultra-secularists incriminating Islame as the breeder of terrorism. They overtly or covertly see Islam as synonymous of terrorism” No, the actions of terrorists and their rhetoric have made associations with violence and Islam. If you, like me, do not want to see that abuse of your religion, we should speak up every time the terrorists abuse our religion. Not when we are vilified by so-called “ultra-secularists”.
M. Haque,
Bearded Muslims are not harrassed in Saudi Arabia and UAE because they are bearded Muslims. Egypt might be a different story.
zafar,
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to respond. Let’s leave Saudi Arabia out of this, because that’s a great example of “Islamism” gone rampant, in which both parties - monarchies and ultra-orthodox - are trying to outdo each other in conservative interpretations of Islam.
Secondly, the lack of a viable secular alternative - as you point out in the Syrian case - was the basic point. As much as Islamists here in Bangladesh try to pretend that the same is true for them (there is hardly the counterpart of the AL/BNP in the Arab world), it’s not. Yet, they will believe it. That’s one transcript.
But this has little to do with secular opponents being wiped away by Syrian/Algerian regimes (the other transcript) and more to do with the fact that the undemocratic regimes ARE the secular option.
What I’d like to see and am hardly even capable of imagining is how people reading off such different historical experiences, with completely different milestones are going to start talking with each other.
“but one thing that i am concerned about (and i wonder if it contradicts my article) is the danger in positing an elite/non-democratic/secular vs common people/democratic/non-secular narrative (this was the thesis of farhad mazhar in a piece he wrote for new age march 26 issue) which positions the army-backed government as a tool of the “secular elites” and the islamists as the “democrats” fighting for the rights of the common people.” - rather than contradict your article, might it not actually answer why the CTG has not gone for a full-fledged arrest of Jamaatis?
And lastly fugstar, before you deplore my lack of “creative fruitful engagement” of ideology, let me just say that I believe in CRITICAL engagement of ALL ideologies. This piece wasn’t meant as a “oh-look-how-these-Islamists-are-victims-of-evil-secularists” piece, which is probably the only thing that will live up to your definition of creative engagement. I have a lot of issues with Islamist ideology itself.
You simply proved my point about the two different transcripts by saying that “Islamism” as practised by Jamaat is somehow rooted in our culture. Sorry, no. Islam is thus rooted along with other religions. But Islamism as practiced by Jamaat and the like with their intolerance, their violence and their complete lack of ethics is a recent phenomenon. That “Islamism” showed its “cultural” roots in 1971, which BTW you defended on DP not even a month ago on the Jahanara Imam thread. Just one request: if you use this “intriguing tool”, please note that nowhere do I argue over the validity of one transcript over another. Simply because one is hidden does not mean that it is right, just, humane or that I personally approve.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Hello Drishtipat participants. I am a new here. I thank everyone to address this important issue for Bangladesh. Here is my simple point of view:
Human animal as Homo Sapiens Sapiens is supposed to have rationality, but the rationality depends on individual members socio-economic evolutionary level. For example, an illiterate Bangladeshi peasant will not be as rational as an Investment Banker in New York or Tokyo, because of lack of nutrition, exposure etc. Humans within same socio-economic level, may also have different level of rationality, due to genetics and variation of general aptitude, intelligence and common sense.
From the age of civilization and empires when humans started creating great structures like bigger versions of ant hills or bee hives, religion was an organic development growing out of these human achievements, sometimes as reactions or other times as a necessity of the time. Eventually all world religions, including Islam has become a fabric of social cohesion and basis for morality and ethics that was inherited from great past civilizations. Even latest religions such as Communism/socialism and Ultra-secularist Atheism/humanism are attempts at new religions with necessary mythologies etc. and these have attempted to create their own versions of civilizations.
Religions and associated mythology are a human need that will evolve with time as human society evolves, regardless of absolute truths that philosophers vainly try to uncover in their arrogant efforts.
Islam came into Bengal and Eastern India around a 1000 years ago. It has been an integral part of the social evolution of Bengal so much so that today there are almost 180 million Bengali Muslims, the single largest homogeneous ethno-liguistic Muslim group in the world among 1.5 billion Muslims. Punjabi, Javan, Bedouin, Barber, Egyptian, Persian none come close. Like it or not, we are a sleeping giant in the Muslim world, and as and when our socio-economic situation changes, we will become more visible. What we are and what we do will have implications.
Our ancestors made a mistake in going for Partition and Pakistan as it has weakened the un-divided India and divided Indian Muslims in three equal parts:
Bangladesh 140 million
Pakistan 150 million
India 200 million (unofficial)
If there was no Pakistan or Bangladesh, today Hindutva and BJP would not rise and get a free hand with tacit state support as they do now and would not get the opportunity to be hijacked by external anti-muslim world players. Muslims in India would not languish and suffer, Pakistan would not be a vulnerable semi-failed state and Bangladesh would not be a somewhat similar failed state. Muslims were 25% of India’s population at the time of partition, but now we are 40% (500 million Muslims as opposed to 800 million Hindu). Our paranoid forefathers were afraid to live under Hindu majority rule, but in my opinion, over time we could easily overcome our problems. We would not have Farakka, river-linking, Kashmir and a myriad of other problems that we have now. But the Partition has happened and now we have a rising Hindutva and RSS that have joined hand with international anti-muslim forces. We have now a hostile, arrogant, rising Hindu India that wants to be a super power in near future and it stares down to Pakistan and Bangladesh. They hate us to the core because of history, it is a national shame for them, why they were ruled under Muslims for 800 years. They cannot accept and come to terms with this degrading fact. Urdu is replaced by Hindi, where the Arabic, Farsi and Turkic words are replaced by Sangskrit words, Mosques are razed, just to give a few examples. The point is that a beast has been unleashed and there is no one to control it, because of our ancestors mistake. What choice do we have in this situation - both Pakistan and Bangladesh now have no other option but to bring in another beast to balance the threat, ie China, the other regional hegemon aspiring to be a superpower.
Getting to the point, “Islamism” and Bangladesh. I gave a background picture, because Islam and our forefathers fear of living under dominant Hindu majority is the core reason why today we have a country called Bangladesh. (1971 happened because of racism and stupidity of the West Wing elites and it is a side note compared to the bigger picture). Does that mean we are “Islamist” and what really is “Islamism”?
Lets see now what is “Islamism”. “Islamism” or Political Islam is not traditional Islam that our forefathers knew and still majority of Muslims adhere to. This is a new phenomenon that has some historical roots, such as the Al Khawarij (Khariji sect) that defied Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) and Hazrat Ali (RA), ideas of Ibn Taymiya, in reaction to Timur Langs massacres and conquest of Muslim lands, while he himself was a Muslim. The latest incarnation of this trend was started by Ibn Abdul Wahhab from Najd, Eastern Arabia. Later we have Jamal-al-din Afghani, Moududi, Hassan Al Banna, Taqiuddin Nabhani, Syed Qutb et al. Compared to our sterile and unimaginative Ulema, these up and coming fire breathing new breed have caused quite a bit of stir in the Muslim world, but in essence, they are out of line with main-stream Islam. Today, they are the most visible face of Islam, the only Islam the west knows and identifies and hence declare war against it. So we have a difficult job, we know that we are not what we are perceived to be, but we have no way to prove otherwise.
Just as another side note, our Islam in Bengal, like other parts of India come from Turkic Central Asia. The rulers, preachers and Muslim immigrants in Medieval India mostly came from Turkic Central Asia, this is why Central Asia and South Asia both follow the most liberal Hanafi Majhab with underlying Sufi influence, that was instrumental in conversion in most parts of Muslim world.
So, we did not become Muslim out of a vacuum, we were in fact part of a phenomenon of the world wide spread of Islam and Islamic civilization. The linkage within the Muslim world was largely broken in the past 200-300 years due to colonial era, but it is just starting get back to some level after partition and to a larger extent after 1971, specially for Bengali Muslims. Unfortunately for us, our overseas migrant workers found jobs in Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and similarly conservatively oriented gulf countries and the Soviet Central Asian “stan’s”, which were our ancestral source of Islam, lost much of their Islamic civilizational capital due to Soviet Communist oppression and today, South Asian Muslims have little contact with Russian speaking muslims in these “stan’s”, who have for all practical purposes become half Russians and are trying to restore their former identity.
To counter the corrosive influence of “Islamism”, in my opinion, we need to see some dynamic leadership from the leaders of traditional Islam, such as the Ulema, we need good honest leadership in power and we need to avoid the secular versus “Islamist” debate and look for a middle ground.
In today’s world, we live in a “secular” capitalistic society, built on the foundation of the Mercantile empires and similar Communist empires. The empires are dead now, but their shadow remains and the value system remains. We live and breath in it, just like fishes in the ocean, we cannot escape it. But in our heart we cannot forget Islam, our very being is shaped by it. The logical conclusion is that we must learn to play by the rules of the game, just like the Chinese and Japanese have learnt, but at the same time we should not sell our soul like the Koreans and Philippinos have done. When we have sufficient resources, we will create a world of our own, slowly and surely that will correspond to our inner being. But we must not jump into fire like clueless insects that see something bright in a fire that shines in darkness.
In today’s Bangladesh and Pakistan, people do not support Islam based parties, because they are not from our core Islamic base, because they are mostly inspired by “Islamist” roots, which is diametrically opposite to our core Islamic character. Our secular political leaders need to keep this in mind that people do have a collective consciousness and anything against it, will not be accepted and discarded eventually. And outside forces that tries to impose some false image upon us, telling us what we are not and then try to change us based on this false image are not going to succeed, no matter how much power they have. “Islamists” are misguided, they need our guidance and nurturing, but they should not be massacred as they were in Lal Masjid, to score points with outside forces.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
“That “Islamism” showed its “cultural” roots in 1971, which BTW you defended on DP not even a month ago on the Jahanara Imam thread.”
*transcript muddle alert* didnt i simply make a standard muslim remark on the rememberance of somebodys death?
Anyway, as a political orphan, i think more about shah walillah and the various attempts to supercharge islamic education through the years in the indian subcontinent, and then the world, as my transcript, rather than political parties of one stripe or another. There is some necessary overlap in that regard.
And i feel no shame in complementing hard work organisation and discipline where i see it.
Is titu mir for you a peasant movement, or an islamic reformist (islamist for eases sake) movement. what about shah jalal, there were political, military as well as spiritual aspects to his actions… someone our transcripts should extent that far at least?
roots i guess are where you see them and make them, ancestry or history or transcript.
Dude, you arent responsible for fruitful engagement, or lack of it. its something for the future. Better politcies and standards, with the cumulative human wisdom at hand.
July 28th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
America’s experiment with blockhead military dictatorships not only split apart the two wings of Pakistan in 1971 and sowed the seeds of fundamentalism in Pakistan; it is now strengthening the hands of fanatic muslims there.
It seems the same old discredited ‘Pakistani’ experiment is being applied in Bangladesh by bringing in the army and ex officios of World Bank, IMF, UN, etc to run the government thru the barrel of gun. This will only speeden Bangladesh’s dive into a failed state and destabilize South Asia if a parliamentary democracy is no quickly restored. Otherwise opportunists and betrayers and infiltrators from the former BNP-Jamaat-e-Islami including friends and family members of Fakruddin, Enam, Faruk, Ishtiaque, Geeti Ara and many others will rip off Bangladesh in no time!