Fri 7 Sep 2007
The Islamist Challenge
Posted by Eyshob_Dinratri under Religious doctrine , Religious minority , jamaat-e-islamiNicholas Schmidle in Boston Review
“The Islamist Challenge to Secular Bangladesh”
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.3/schmidle.html
The usual refried text, but is there any substance to any of these scenarios? The challenge for us is to see past the overheated rhetoric and uncover the reality.
…Islamist parties have multiplied over the past decade and public support for them has grown. Yet Bangladeshi society remains overwhelmingly secular, even militantly secular. And while the Islamists have grabbed headlines, the secularists are holding their own in an intense power struggle. Bangladesh has a long history of civil activism, and people are passionate and eager to voice their opinions in the streets. The secularists may not have the finances and weapons that the Islamist groups have access to. But the same leaders who fought against the imposition of Islamic politics in the Liberation War of 1971 are not about to hand the country over to men like Mufti Shahidul Islam. And he knows it.
September 7th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Here we go again…..
September 7th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Bangladesh, once again, going to face image crisis with this sort of report. Interesting to see whose agenda are being reflected-India, US or else?
September 8th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Perhaps Mr Schmidle should be looking at the secular/religious conflict in his own country (USA) before lecturing to others abuout secularism. This is John Gray [Black Mass (2007)]:
Like some other European countries Britain has an established Church; but organised religion has far less political influence than in the supposedly secular United States. The contrast is not only with the post-Christian countries of Europe but also with some Muslim countries. Judged by almost any standard the US is a less secular country than Turkey. In no other highly industrialized country is there widespread popular belief in Satan or a powerful movement contesting Darwinian theory. Nowhere else does a large segment of the population believe that the events of 9/11 were predicted in the Bible, as did a quarter of Americans polled in 2002. There is no other advanced country of which it could be observed that a theological dispute between pre-millenial and post-millenial Christians has ‘had profound implications for [American] politics’
September 8th, 2007 at 12:04 am
It not just a refry, some salt was added, namely secular paranoia, dogmatism and the social engineering aspect of the Nirmul Libraries.
The parties involved were only to happy to provide the author with the material and their insecurities. Perhaps they are too used to uncritical adulation from development tourists and fellow travellers.
The splits in khilafatul majlis aren’t dwelt upon, something which reduces the articles credibility and its contribution. A lot of smoke is blown up jamats bum, both by the author and Abul Barkat. Pencils sharpened and ready to take notes, ye right!
The article is bifurcating, i reckon thats because of the chaps background in spending time in pak. The vast space of joint action and ideologically mixed up families is left out. It would have been nice to see more of that, but he was only there for a few months or weeks i guess and portraying stagnancy probably was not in his breif.
I found it a lot more interesting to read and well humoured than the weird think tank fodder posted about this issue and fawned over several months ago. My favourite parts were the rather endearing portrayals of Dr Kamal and the Mufti treating him to western fast food.
It is a US flavoured view, but then again the US speaks with different voices, this was to its literary community not its security establishment.
September 8th, 2007 at 4:21 am
I quoted the term “militant secuarist” from this article a while back and it got me in trouble with one person who objected vociferously to it.
The article itself is quite old: it says it was published in the May/June issue. It’s also old in that it adds nothing to our understanding of Islamist politics at all. Just the same old paranoia I’m afraid.
September 8th, 2007 at 4:38 am
Can someone explain why a country needs to be secular? What is the problem if you get an “ideal” Islamic country in a country with 85% Muslim?
What will be the difference of rights of people between an ideal Islamic country and an ideal secular country? Or secular vs Christian country?
– May be answering these will help people understand the modern world concept of so-called “secular country”.
– Layek
September 8th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Fugstar,
Thanks for bringing up the think tank fodder. You have a long memory
I’m assuming you mean Maneeza Hossain’s steaming pi– I mean ‘research paper’. It was third-rate neoconservative propaganda from top to bottom, peddling the same old Islamist-bogeyman cliches that we have been hearing ad nauseam since 9-11. How many more times do we have to hear these people cry wolf before we get tired of their intellectual dishonesty? Maneeza was writing on behalf, we may recall, of that august conservative body, the Hudson Institute, on whose board serves such luminaries of the neocon scene as Richard Perle and Donald Kagan. Not to mention good old Danforth ‘Potatoe’ Quayle, who will be remembered less as the former Veep, more as the failed faux-Kennedy. But I digress. Coming back to Maneeza Hossain, we still have to figure out whose water she was actually carrying - dark words naturally come to mind like ‘Cheney’, ‘Blackwater’, ‘Halliburton’ and ‘Pentagon’. Just because it came from the pen of a Bengali writer doesn’t make her research any more honest or believable than Herr Schmidle’s hatchet job.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Hi fugstar, I don’t know what you mean by saying the Maneeza Hossain’s piece was “fawned over” in the comments thread when it was last discussed here on UV. I seem to remember that many pro-secularists criticised the paper far more effectively than pro-fundamentalists like yourself.
We are awaiting your own fawning puff-piece on Mufti Shaidul of the Al-Markazul Islami sometime soon.
September 8th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
When Ershad went to ‘Aatrosi‘, many of us were ashamed about the quality of our president. Now when US presidents, one after another, counsel Billy Graham in policy making … don’t know what to say. I see the church based parallel school system pretty much like madrasas all over US, only wrapped in shinier, modern package. I see the funding for science and technology spent for faith based initiatives.
Given all these, the US does not have the moral right to criticize the similar events in other countries. I would be cautious not to justify the journey toward the same path in our country by citing US examples. If there is a cankerous sore, hiding it does not improve our national interest. Talking about it does not harm the national image either. This is just a general opinion neither against nor in favor of this particular article.
September 9th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Zubaer,
Where is the good work? Between the hired guns of the think tank world and the roving foreign journalists. There is little space and will to systematically study our social and institutional characteristics as far as i can see. I would love to take Abul Barkat(i have reservations of the depth of his empirical data collection all the time, but thats our national problem) on a road trip and show him some things, but i know he has a thing for the secularisation of all education, so maybe he is already ideologically committed to some kind of epistemicide. such poor people sweat their guts out to build their institutions, and they need support and cooperation (they are ours after all) i wish he wouldn’t mistakenly assume strange things about their funding and purpose.
Me fawning over mufti shahidul,
Militancy or secularisation of learning isn’t my core interest when poking around education systems of religious rooting, thats why anything i eventually write about wont really be speaking to that interest group.
I would like to find out more about what happened to the afghan veterans , who reintegrated back into society harmlessly, who went nuts, how people came to take the JMB route, who changed their views after being enlightened by liberal education, how many people died on battle fields being used as cannon fodder, how their families are coping without their breadwinners, what do bangladeshis REALLY thing about people who fought (minus post 9/11 induced fear and noise), do our lefty comrades hold a grudge about the ‘annoying the soviets’ aspect.
But how can one even explore and share findings in that area in such a weird environment, where our teachers don’t want to know and lots of others (at least officially) just want to have an infantile view.
I remember when robert fisk got lynched in afghanistan and was saved by some bangladeshi Tablighis. Were you chaps not proud and thankful for that? (remember that ‘ i totally understand why they did this to me’ front page?)
sid, prosecularists i feel get less filtered here than others, and i wasn’t accusing you of fawning. must we get petty?
I for one don’t think that the ‘muslim world’ engagement with communist occupied afghanistan at the behest of the US was a terribly good idea. I am not responsible for the terrible things that creation does and peoples hangups. pro fundo doesnt fit me, i just don’t beleive in secularism in the same way you may do, i feel that its a bit of a cop out and frankly quite wrongheaded for believers. laqumdinakum waliyadeen is our overlap methinks. and no ‘islamism’ as is, does not rest easy on my skull.
Talking about ershad, theres a good policy from his time~84 that we should take into consideration, i doubt it was his idea though. Its the integration of religious schools with primary schooling through the creation of the ebtadai class of primaries. Everything you get in an ordinary primary plus some islamic subjects. Personally id prefer our citizenry to know the rules of things like muslim burial, manners and the basics in case i die in their arms.
Its hard work running local institutions, and local communities fund them and work hard to organise them as best they can, in the most soul crunching physical environments. Their growth is less to do with petrodhormo than with gradual economic upliftment, institutional growth and willpower of our religious people. they express their will through their joint action.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:09 am
We shoudn’t forget that Bangladesh emerged as a nation state, solely based on religion. Secularism was Bangabandhu and AL’s vision for the nation and not it’s citizens. It we wanted secularism, remaining as a part of India would have made more sense.
I don’t think the amendment made to the constitution making Islam the state religion has had any impact on the way Bangladeshi muslims treat our fellow citizens of different faith. Those who are prejudice continue to be so but IMO majority of Bangladeshis view our non-muslim countrymen as equals.
I don’t think there is any possibility of Islamists taking over our country through proper elections. But I would not rule out fundamentalist elements using guerilla and violent tactics to destabilize the nation using terror as their weapon. But post 9/11 the flow of islamist money has been severly disrupted, so I doubt the hardcore elements will have sufficeint funding to launch and sustain such movements.
Also unlike Pakistan, Bangladeshi army does not have a history of backing islamist movements, so I am sure they will crack down on any such attemps by fringe islamist elements. Even with Jamaat being in government the islamist had a hard time confronting the Ahmadiyas.
The issue of Jamat’s crime, committed during our war of liberation, is a hot topic for those who lost loved ones or suffered as a result of Razakar activities. This issue must be addressed and laid to rest once and for all. If anyone has specific allegation of a Jamaat member being involved in a specific crime, they should pursue the charges through the legal system.
Media is also an important factor in dealing with the islamic fundamentalist. Bangla Bhai’s atrocities were highlighted by the media and was condemned by every news outlet, the media kept the pressure on the BNP/Jamaat government to address the issue, which they did after denying the existence of BB.
The best news is I have yet to meet anyone who has expressed any sympathy for BB or his cohorts, which reinforces my belief that Bangladeshis will never accept islamic fundamentalists to undermine our secural and democratic values.
September 9th, 2007 at 4:43 am
fugstar correctly points out that Schmidle is no propagandist, not in the traditional sense at least. I went through all his articles and found that to be true:
http://www.nicholasschmidle.com/articles.htm
The organization funding him:
http://www.icwa.org/index.asp
was started in 1925 and does not seem to be tied with any political or partisan organization. Its goal seems to be the following:
“Since its founding in 1925, the Institute of Current World Affairs has provided more than 150 young men and women with long-term fellowships in countries throughout the world. They have immersed themselves in foreign cultures, mastered languages, and gained deep national and regional understanding, while pursuing study programs of their own design for at least two years. The Institute aims to foster the growth of such world citizens, who return to the United States to share what they have learned.”
This is exactly what Schmidle is doing, he has immersed in 3/4 cultures so far - Iran, Soviet Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan), Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Schmidle’s first hand accounts are sometimes quite revealing and have elements of truth, but his pictures usually give a small part of a jigsaw puzzle, although he tries to give the very broad outlines and background history of country or regional situations in many of his articles. I think he does a good job of giving the uninitiated Western audience a good sense of being physically there in many places, without actually being there, and gives a good first introduction of strange unknown fantastic places of the planet, so it is not bad reporting. But his understanding of any particular situation lacks depth. This is my impression from his articles on Bangladesh and Kyrgyzstan, as being from Bangladesh I can judge his observations from the eye of a local with some level of understanding and living for extended periods in Kyrgyzstan gave me a sufficient feel for that country as well.
Two of his articles I liked better than the others:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070122_nicholas_schmidle_reforming_pakistans_dens_of_terror/
I think the above has lessons for our situation as well, education, enlightenment and knowledge has no substitute.
http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2007/spring/schmidle-waiting-for-worst/
The Baluch situation reminds us of pre 1971 East Pakistan, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the future. My guess is that Baluchistan will be inundated with Punjabi, Mohajer, Pashtun and Sindhi ethnicities, as soon as more jobs and opportunities open up in Gwador deep sea port, as it happened in Xinjiang and Tibet with Han Chinese migration and in CHT with Bengali migration there, a classic anti seperation technique. The challenge would be to manage the conflicts and hostilities between invading settler ethnicities and native host ethnic group.
It was interesting to find out about the leftist militant secular groups in Bangladesh from the article. I am no political expert on Bangladesh, so my knowledge is quite limited, but I had no idea that there are so many leftist groups in Bangladesh:
http://www.broadleft.org/bd.htm
Swapan Bhuiyan and Mushrefa Mishu’s Revolutionary Unity Front is a new one among these groups. I think this group uses some cloaks such as anti-globalization, as it is now quite fashionable world wide, but it also gets involved in agitation of garment workers:
http://inpeg.ecn.cz/frames/english/contact.html
Please read under Bangladesh heading in above page, I wonder what is in it for these individuals, who organize such parties and events, is it money, fame or real activist zeal. Here is an article by Mushrefa Mishu describing his parties activity and goal:
http://www.rosalux.de/cms/index.php?id=4035
-by Mushrefa Mishu, Convenor Revolutionary Unity Front & President. Garments Workers Unity Forum.
It is entertaining to see entrepreneurial Bangladeshi’s making their niche in different areas, perhaps sometimes not exactly understanding their foot soldier roles in the big picture.
The issue of secularism versus religiosity is large and complex. While many of you are familiar with neo-cons and some are familiar with its founding philosopher Leo Strauss, few I believe know the underlying principles behind this concept and philosophy. Wikipedia has a good summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss
Shadia B. Drury has a more comprehensive criticism, though the tone is hostile:
http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/112.html
In my personal opinion, Strauss rightly recognizes that too much liberal freedom give license to debauchery and dilutes social cohesion, which weakens the bedrock of civilizations and bring their demise, a phenomenon first observed and recorded by Ibn Khaldun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun
In his Muqaddimah he explains in detail how the fighting bedouin arabs from the desert settle down in cities and become complacent and decadent in course of a few centuries:
“Concerning the discipline of sociology it is interesting to note that he conceived of a theory of social conflict. He developed the dichotomy of “town” versus “desert,” as well as the concept of a “generation,” and the inevitable loss of power that occurs when desert warriors conquer a city. Following a contemporary Arab scholar, Sati’ al-Husri, it can be suggested that the Muqaddimah is essentially a sociological work; six books of general sociology. Included topics include politics, urban life, economics, and knowledge. The work is based around Ibn Khaldun’s central concept of ‘asabiyah, which has been translated as “social cohesion”, “group solidarity”, “blood ties,” or “tribalism.” This social cohesion arises spontaneously in tribes and other small kinship groups; and it can be intensified and enlarged by a religious ideology. Ibn Khaldun’s analysis looks at how this cohesion carries groups to power but contains within itself the seeds - psychological, sociological, economic, political - of the group’s downfall, to be replaced by a new group, dynasty or empire bound by a stronger (or at least younger and more vigorous) cohesion.
Perhaps the most frequently cited observation drawn from Ibn Khaldun’s work is the notion that when a society becomes a great civilization (and, presumably, the dominant culture in its region), its high point is followed by a period of decay. This means that the next cohesive group that conquers the diminished civilization is, by comparison, a group of barbarians. Once the barbarians solidify their control over the conquered society, however, they become attracted to its more refined aspects, such as literacy and arts, and either assimilate into or appropriate such cultural practices. Then, eventually, the former barbarians will be conquered by a new set of barbarians, who will repeat the process. Some contemporary readers of Khaldun have read this as an early business cycle theory, though set in the historical circumstances of the mature Islamic empire.
Interesting also is the precursor to Marx’s labour theory of value in Ibn Khaldun’s work. Ibn Khaldun puts forward the insight that all value (profit) comes from labour as Marx was later to write. He outlines an early (possibly even the earliest) example of political economy. He describes the economy as being composed of value adding processes, that is labour is added to techniques and crafts and the product is sold at a higher value. This is a powerful insight as one can construct an entire theory of the economy from this fundamental process and inform government policy. He also made the distinction between “profit” and “sustenance”, in modern political economy terms, surplus and that required for the reproduction of classes respectively. He also calls for the creation of a science to explain society and goes on to outline these ideas in his major work the Muqaddimah.”
The “barbarian” conquering arabs were replaced by the new set of “barbarian” Turks and Mongols (Mughal in persian language) who eventually became the rulers of Islamic world. A similar phenomenon was also observed in Europe and China. In Europe the germanic tribes were hired as mercenary soldiers and eventually they deposed the last Western Roman Emperor. As for China, they have been often ruled by “barbarian” outsiders:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1266506
“Outside of China, and even within China itself, it is common to conceive of Chinese culture and government as running back to remote antiquity in an unbroken line. Although there is a certain continuity, it is a fact that Chinese culture has been continuously recrudescing, assimilating influences from many non-Chinese civilizations, especially those of Central and West Asia. It comes as an especial surprise for people to realize that for almost half of the life of the Chinese Empire, the land that we call China was wholly or partially ruled by people who were ethnically and politically non-Chinese.
In all, in the 2131 years of Chinese dynastic rule (221 B.C.E - 1911 C.E.), there have been 951 years (45%) when all or part of China was ruled by non-Chinese from Central and North-east Asia:
386- 581 Northern dynasties(chiefly Xianbei and Xiongnu or Hun peoples)
907-1125 Liao (Khitan people)
1115-1234 Jin1 (Jurchen people)
1206-1368 Yuan (Mongol people)
1616-1911 Qing (Manchu people)
In addition, the nobility of the Sui and Tang were largely ethnic Xianbei and other Central Asians.”
The Straussians, concerned by the onslaught of liberalism and subsequent weakening of core values, promote two goals:
- going back to religion for Western civilization to increase social cohesion, discipline and reduce the weakening vices
- create perpetual wars to prevent decadence and complacence
As a logical consequence, for the other competing or existing contemporary civilizations, the Straussians try to weaken them by attacking their core values. So the attack against Islam (the sole remaining relatively undiluted civilizational ideology that refuses to die off) and secularism used as a tool is consistent in this effort. The evangelical tradition to spread the gospel in every part of the world, has also become a convenient ally of this effort to weaken the core ideology of other civilizations, in the guise of helping the poor and vulnerable under cover of many NGOs:
http://www.joshuaproject.net/
In the homepage, please note that in the world map the red portion is marked as the most unreached, and it is largely the Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist countries. This is a treasure trove of information if you know how to navigate this website and find out how they label each ethnic group in every country of the world and divide them into sub-groups and target them.
The Straussian neocons were successful and effective in the first part of their effort. A matter of possibly no consequence is that Leo Strauss was from a conservative/orthodox Jewish background from Germany. Many but not all of his followers also happened to be of Jewish extraction. It is well known that this neocon clique was able to join and move to key positions in the Republican party establishment and become specially close with evangelical far right and bring in an evangelical such as Bush as the President. Also religion and conservative values seems to have made a come back in North America and the process is continuing in EU, a reflection of which is in the result of the latest French election. So it might be safe to say that the first part of the goal to bring back religion and conservative values for the masses is well on its way with good success.
But difficulty came in with neocon’s engagement with the outside world. First of all, their strategists seem to have far lower caliber than what is required to operate in a complex global arena with multiple three dimensional forces at work. Instead of making their own mark, it seems their entire strategy has been torpedoed and used as a pawn by Al Queada strategists. The Al Queada strategists wanted to provoke the US, first with USS Nicole bombing, but there was no response, then comes 9/11. The initial response in Afghanistan is a overwhelming success for the US as it successfully used Northern Alliance to route the Taleban, but the job was abandoned before it was completed. Then the War on Iraq came into forefront as a direct policy priority of the neocon strategy. This gave Al Queda a gift from God, a change of fortune that made them a winner from a sure loosing postion. This miscalculation, not just in going into Iraq, but large mistakes such as dissolution of Bath party and Iraqi Army, shows the ineptitude of the people behind the current administration that knows little of complex international situations and are not even willing to listen to sane individuals with proper expertise.
I digress, going back to the idea of secularism, it has two different versions, hard and soft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
“The term “secularism” was first used by the British writer George Holyoake in 1846.[5] Although the term was new, the general notions of freethought on which it was based had existed throughout history. In particular, early secular ideas involving the separation of philosophy and religion can be traced back to Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and the Averroism school of philosophy.[6][7] Holyoake invented the term “secularism” to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief. An agnostic himself, Holyoake argued that “Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others.”
“Barry Kosmin of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture breaks modern secularism into two types: hard and soft secularism. According to Kosmin, “the hard secularist considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate, warranted by neither religion nor experience.” However, in the view of soft secularism, “the attainment of absolute truth was impossible and therefore skepticism and tolerance should be the principle and overriding values in the discussion of science and religion.”"
“George Holyoake’s 1896 publication English Secularism defines secularism as follows:
Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.[17]
Holyoake held that secularism and secular ethics should take no interest at all in religious questions (as they were irrelevant), and was thus to be distinguished from strong freethought and atheism. In this he disagreed with Charles Bradlaugh, and the disagreement split the secularist movement between those who argued that anti-religious movements and activism was not necessary or desirable and those who argued that it was.”
“Soft secularism” is acceptable by many religious groups and is widely in practice in many nation states, but “hard secularism” pretty much died with the failure of communism and marxism, for the time being at least, although some pockets of defiance are still remaining. The influence of this atheistic secularism never took hold in a overwhelmingly relgious sub-continent, but recently it has been seeing some success among rural untouchables in the form of naxalites, in their fight against privileged caste Hindus. As soon as India is able to get some share of the global manufacturing market from China and rural unemloyment is reduced, it will cast the final death knell for the naxalites there.
In Bangladesh, I do not know the current situation well, but I can imagine that it is not a very friendly environment for this atheistic hard secular type, except among the religious minority fighting for survival and against marginalization by a dominant majority. There might also be a quarter interested in creating divisions within majority Bengali Muslim body in the form of secular Bengali’s versus Islamist Bengali’s, but it is very hard to do, as majority Bengali Muslims are simply Muslims, with a tradition of Hanafi Sunni Islam. It is fortunate that we have one ethnicity (98% Bengali) and majority (90%, http://www.banbeis.gov.bd/bd_pro.htm) belonging to one religion of one historical variety (Sunni Hanafi, with small Shia percentage), so even though there are a lot of external players working in this area, it is quite hard to make any major divisions of lasting impact (like it kind of happened in Ottoman Turkey because of Europes close proximity, but currently loosing ground), except in the minds of some confused and self-serving individuals whose goals and intentions are questionable. And as any nation, population group and community, we need to be cognizant of devisive forces among us and work against them so that we can have a united and cohesive society, a pre-condition for reaching consensus and making meaningful efforts towards development.
A note of explanation about Islamism and political Islam, Islam from its beginning was very much an ideology that was an inseparable part and parcel of state craft. As Muslim states lost their sovereignty in the past 300 years at various stages, Islam has gradually lost its position as state ideology. Attempts has been and are being made by various revivalist and innovative groups since then to put Islam back in the previous position, with various innovations in interpretations and various levels of involvment in violence, but mostly these efforts moved away from the core principles such as patience, tolerance, empathy for fellow human beings and rule of law. And also according to my own theory they have violated the principle of “historical continuity” by moving away from classical and traditional Islam that continue to be the core value of todays Muslims, despite attempts at adulteration by targetting the poor and vulnerable. The bulk of the Muslim world, just as in Bangladesh, remain unmoved and unimpressed by these groups, although at times the suffering muslims of the world does strike a chord of empathy among all muslims, a phenomenon not unlike a human being empathizing for another suffering human being. Instead of engaging in physical violence, more efforts and resources need to be spent on education, health, enlightenment, empowerment, more contact, business and trade among diverse groups and more effort to integrate with greater global economy to improve the livelihood and overall HDI level of the population. An ideology cannot become dominant in the world, if it is pushed by marginalized substandard human beings of low HDI, just based on a claimed superiority of the faith and ideology, it also must be demonstrated in the modern world to show that it can provide the path to greatness, this fact is food for thought for the Islamic strategists, specially the ones that have access to vast resources.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Boishakhi #10, your comment is all kinds of wrong I’m afraid. Do you seriously think that Partition and our Independence had everything to do with religion and secularism, and not with power, politics and the control of resources?
What does it even mean when you say a country is born “based on religion”? Leaving aside the hollowness of that statement, quick history lesson:
1) Bangladesh came out of what used to be Pakistan, so “remaining within India” was actually never an option.
2) Secularism as envisioned by Bangladesh’s founding fathers has little in common with secularism as practised in India.
3) Please let us keep in mind that some of the same people who were PRO-partition in 1947 were also PRO-Bangladesh and pro-secularism in 1971. Clearly their secular beliefs were not enough to make them even think of becoming a part of India to enjoy all its self- advertised secular “benefits”. And do you know why? Because religion or secularism has nothing to do with wanting your own country. Power, politics and control over resources does!
Also what is this?
“Also unlike Pakistan, Bangladeshi army does not have a history of backing islamist movements, so I am sure they will crack down on any such attemps by fringe islamist elements. Even with Jamaat being in government the islamist had a hard time confronting the Ahmadiyas.”
Jamaat IS Islamist. There’s no getting round that. I think you are trying to equate “Islamist” with “violent militancy in the name of Islam”. The intelligent people here (some of whom are ideologically anti-Islamist) are not making that connection between Islamism and violence you seem to be making.
September 10th, 2007 at 3:17 am
AsifY,
Bangladesh’s border was drawn by Cyril Radcliffe mainly based on religious consideration. You can make all sorts of “intelligent” assertations but that is the historical fact.
Our war of independence had nothing to do with religion it happened due to policial,cultural and economic expoliltation of Bengalis by West Pakistan.
You are taking my Jamaat comment out of context. Jamaat is a legitimate political party and they have every right to participate in the political countries demcrotatic political process. Jamaat’s ideology is based on Islamic values which they have every right to campaign for within a legal and democratic framework. If “intelligent ideological anti-islamists” don’t like their message they have every right to reject them at the polls.
My other point was that majority of Bangladeshi people (IMO) will never support violent Islamist movements and the only way they can ever take over the country is through violence and terror.
September 10th, 2007 at 4:57 am
Radcliffe drew East Pakistan’s borders, not Bangladesh’s. As I said before, your assertion that “if we wanted secularism, we would have remained with India” was all kinds of wrong.
I didn’t say that Jamaat was illegal or anti-democratic. I think they’re both. Neither did you talk about the “majority of Bangladeshi people” in your last comment. You specifically mentioned the armed forces were never allied with Islamists. President Zia was allied with Islamists during his reign, specifically Jamaat.
And I’m sorry if I came across as doubting your intelligence in my last comment. I personally have found your comments on DP very well-put and well-thought out even when I’ve disagreed with them wholeheartedly. If we personally met, I would probably even agree with a lot of things ou say. But this time round your comment was just plain short of facts.
September 10th, 2007 at 4:59 am
correction: I think they’re both legal and democratic.
September 10th, 2007 at 5:52 am
AsifY,
President Zia was not allied with Jamaat. When political parties were allowed to operate from 1976 on, Jamaat decided to operate under the banner of Islamic Democratic League. IDL included Jamaat plus a few individuals including SQ Chowdhury.
At that time, Pakistani Jamaat’s official line still was to reclaim East Pakistan. Bangladeshi Jamaat leaders were told that until that line was dropped, it would be impossible to operate in Bangladesh under Jamaat’s banner. Pak Jamaat dropped that in the early 1980s, at the intervention of Zia-ul-Huq, who wanted to cultivate better relationship with Bangladesh. Jamaat started operating under its own name from 1983, when Ershad allowed indoor politics.
If Zia can be blamed for any Jamaat link then that would be to allow Ghulam Azam to return. However, since the Supreme Court decided that cancellation of his citizenship was illegal, this is at best an academic debate.
September 10th, 2007 at 6:15 am
A colleague of mine commented a while ago: “This government is anti-HAWA.” At the time I thought it was funnier than serious, but I think it does have some substance in it when put into the right context:
The comment had two meanings…
1. First one refers to the obvious… that it was anti-HAWA Bhaban politics. People related to the politics of HAWA Bhaban, with their chief Tarek acting as the Don, fell off the grace of cantonment-centered politicians and the like-minded generals.
2. The second is anti HAsina (HA) WAzed (WA)… This government seemed to have a plan from the get go to destroy awami politics by completely destroying the influence of Hasina (or the Shiekh family). Bringing in Sheikh Selim along with Hasina, implicating the other cousin, setting up charges against Rehana and possibly Joy (Rehana and Joy would have been the next persons to join in AL political parlance - as some would argue)… all of this speaks to the truth of the comment.
Discussion:
I have always held that the big brothers could have served their purposes nicely with the BNP government in place rather than AL, but due to reckless ways of Tarek, things got a bit out of hand for them. They had to concoct an alternative… hence the present scenario. Though AL is an equally bourgeoisie party, their image is a problem… hence a revamped BNP or something similar.
Together with a Nationalistic force (BNP), there always are more extreme rightist forces… moderate right wingers serve as umbrellas for these religionists… history is replete with such examples. As a consequence, we see the rise of Jamaat to the level of prominence in the political scene of Bangladesh.
My personal concern is two pronged:
Prong one:
Western powers need to have a way to penetrate Asia. There is N. Korea and there is China to be tamed. But how do you get to them? India has not been an ally as such, but recent developments (growing market economy, nuclear deals, boosting their jute industry, etc. to name a few) point toward an increasing closeness between USA-UK and India. On the other hand, there is this historical rift between India-Pakistan relationships and nothing they (Western forces) do ameliorates this either. Some pertinent questions in this regard are: Who planted heroine curtails along the Pak-Afghan border? Who has been the historical instrument in creating the Taliban? Which democratic government has supported the ARMY rule in Pakistan? Funny how things have been working out… look at Pakistan now - how far is it from being another Palestine? And India… another Israel may be… may be this is stretching things too far, but am I? Let’s see.
The role of these big brother nations (pretty soon we should be talking about India in a similar vein, if it isn’t already that time) in our political landscape is becoming clearer and clearer everyday… think about multi-billion dollar TATA investment, Intel Chief’s visit, Gates’ visit, an IMF office inside BD Bank, the PSI, the continuous media presence of the cheerleader UK ambassador, Beauty apa (former USA ambassador) meeting the generals before leaving, idiot Bush every now and then praising the CTG… the list goes on and on. Wouldn’t this give rise to something that the West will appreciate? May be (only if this CTG-Army succeeds), or may be not (only if there is anti-Ershad like andolons). Interestingly, it will be a win-win situation for the West either way. If they succeed, then they will gain a free access to the mainland Asia and toward China (port, highway - a thoroughfare, etc.) - needless to mention gaining control of our market completely. But, what if they fail? The result will be unorganized andolon, ransacking, bloodbaths, and so on, resembling Pakistan. And of course - the rise of the extreme right - the Jamaaties!!! ZaFa – I am sorry, but that is what the shape of the andolon will be if people do not get the chance to get organized – if there are no visions to strive for… the only point of optimism is that historically a charismatic person embodying a vision is born out of the turmoil and crisis… ‘cause I don’t see a ready made leader, nor a movement to lead us out of the impending mess!
After the so-called fall of the communist block - the West was left with no enemies to wage wars against. But, how can they survive without wars, which traditionally has been their workplace, their way to earn bread and butter for their nation!? Islam showed up in the scene to provide exactly what they needed. In fact, they created an insignificant part of Islam and turned it violent so that they can blame the whole of Islam and fight them everywhere - IRAQ, IRAN, AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN, INDONESIA, and in the near future - BANGLADESH. The legitimization of such activities would come from the news headlines describing this nation as one of the hubs for Islamist terrorism and so on (it has been treated in such manner already…) … same ol’ formula!
Prong two:
One of the strongest of pillars behind the struggle for this nation’s birth out of the oppressive Punjabi nation called Pakistan was Secular Democracy. I think it is a foregone conclusion that we are up against the same opponent – in fact, the process never stopped… the WIN, in fact, was an illusion. Pardon me for making such a remark, but please hear me out, and consider the following flow of events:
1. Sheikh Mujib one of his first speeches to the newborn nation proclaimed the country as the second biggest Muslim country in the world. Yes, a Muslim country he had said… he wanted to create a space of legitimacy among the Muslim majority - of course forgoing the spirit of secularism.
2. It wasn’t too long before he let his famous “Joy Bangla” be replaced by “Khodahafiz,” which slowly but surely became “allah-hafiz” following the same process of social Islamization. I say social Islamization because the constitutional secularism remained intact, though on the social level Mujib was increasingly making amends with the Muslim majority.
3. It was Sheikh Mujib who wanted to join OIC… an attempt at becoming closer to the Muslim nations.
4. I wouldn’t implicate Sheikh Mujib in paving the way for the Islamicists’ rehabilitation since he was not, as popularly assumed, the one who pardoned all the war criminals. Among the listed thousands, he pardoned about two-thirds who were not directly responsible for murders, rapes, and the like. While the rest of the listed ones were pardoned later, during Gen. Zia’s regime.
5. The main concerns began during Zia’s time… aligning with the Muslims countries, inclusion of “bismillah” in the constitution, rehabilitation of the war criminals, killing of the muktijoddha air force officers, killing of Col. Taher, and so on. Sheikh Mujib’s and the proceedings recently has discovered Zia’s involvement, along with other known faces.
6. During Ershad – Islamization continued unabated. Secularism was completely done with… we had placed our constitutional faith in Allah! And the freaking camels arrived!!
7. All along, Jamaat gained force, organized well… Shah Aziz came to prominence, Jamaat was legitimately doing politics to establish an Islamic republic already – they gained more grounds…
8. BNP later formed JOTES with Jamaat… AL didn’t stay too far behind… electoral politics gained so much ground that parties gave up their philosophy completely to win elections!!!
SO AND SO FORTH…
Readers, we now have completely lost the fight. Now, we do not have leaders, do not have visions, and do not have a progressive political party to lead us. Many had seen this right it was taking place, though they were killed… Tajuddin being only one of them – left leaning scores of leaders and workers were killed, including Siraj Sikder. Left has turned to give way to the right… demise of global socialist nations have disillusioned like minded people here… they have become comfortable in the NGO movement and regular nine-to-five salaried jobs… revolution has lost its edge completely.
Need I say more?
September 10th, 2007 at 6:17 am
Jyoti bhai,
True, no formal alliance was there. But would you say that the Supreme Court had enough autonomy to make that decision on their own without any interference from the executive? And would you say that Jamaat/Islam-ponthi political elements were not aligned with the Zia regime?
September 10th, 2007 at 6:42 am
The Supreme Court decision to return Ghulam Azam’s citizenship was in 1993 or 1994, not during Zia’s era. I don’t think the Courts were as politicised in the early 1990s. The crux of the verdict was that anyone born in Bangladeshi territory has a right to citizenship that the government cannot deny regardless of any crime. I haven’t seen any serious suggestion that the SC decision was politically motivated.
Would I say that Islam-pasands had informal alliance with the Zia regime? Man, it’s hard enough to say who is allied with whom today - you’re asking about making guesses about what informall alliances there were in the late 1970s, the part of our recent history that is most distorted and least researched or understood. Since all of my knowledge of that era is based on published material, I’ll pass.:)
I think it is reasonable to say from the published material that Zia drew support from Muslim nationalists. And many of the Muslim nationalists, almost all of them belonging to some faction of Muslim League, were opposed to the Liberation War. But surely you’re aware of the difference between Muslim nationalism and Islamist politics.
One Islamist in the early part of the Zia regime was Air Marshal Tawab. At a conference in 1976, Tawab said that Bangladesh should change its flag and national anthem and think of joining a confederation with Pakistan and other Muslim countries. Tawab was fired and sent off to Germany (he had a German wife) within days.
September 10th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Damn, I should have read your comments more carefully!:) Yes, I was alive when GA got his citizenship back.
What I should have been referring to is the post-75 regimes’ decisions to let Islamist parties function again after the 71-75 hiatus. What’s your opinion on that?
My knowledge of it, as yours, is based on published material. Perhaps commenters here can educate us with their real life experiences during those turbulent times.
September 10th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Jyoti
Thanks for bringing back the Tawab Khan incident.
Unfortunately history has been so severely twisted to taint Zia in every possible way, that in AL alligned media, websites and blogs, Tawab Khan incident now a days comes as Zia’s evil move to remove anti islamist dissent from the government and army.
Zia had some rajakars in his ministry. He thought he needed Shah Aziz/ Alim etc to tackle AL in parliament. That decison proved to be right ( On purely political point of view) if you follow 1991-96 parliament proceedings where Tofael, Nasim didn’t let BNP stand in front of them. B Chowdhury as the parliamentary deputy leader was helpless.
We always complain that Zia brought Jamaat back to government, but the fact was that there was not a single Jamati in the government of Zia. What we don’t hear is that Zia’s national government was probably the most inclusive government in Bangladesh. He brought people like Prof Muzaffar Ahmed ( Now TIB/Sushil/environmnetal leader), Dr Ibrahim ( BIRDEM), Brilliant ex CJ Justice Sattar ( Who bacame CJ although he was national president of a student party prior to that), new generation young blood barrister K M Hassan as party’s international front liaison( Later he baceme CJ and who was barred from taking CTG role), Enayetullah Khan, BUET VC Dr. Rashid etc into the government or party roles. He also brought back NRBs like Daud Khan Majlish to make him press secretary and invited Mr Fazle Lohani from abroad and specifically asked him to start a western style TV talk show. But all we know is how Zia brought back Go Azam and jamaat and formed govt with them.
[ Apology for the digression]
September 10th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
AsifY,
Leaving Zia aside, yes you are correct in saying that post-75 regimes allowed Islamists to politically organise. The military regimes of Zia and Ershad did so for their own benefits - more parties there are, less the opportunity for the parties to unite on a common platform. Also, both tried to boost their Muslim nationalist credentials.
But independent of these realpolitik calculations, one has to ask - on what grounds should we ban Islamist politics? In 1972, the decision was taken because some Islamists parties, and all Muslim nationalists, opposed the creation of Bangladesh. Insofaras these were ideological positions, how can anyone espousing liberal principles ban their politics? Note that this has nothing to do with the war crimes issue. With the benefit of hindsight, the correct decision in the early 1970s would have been to allow parties opposing Liberation War to function as legitimate entities within the mainstream politics, while trying key war criminals for crimes against humanity.
Going back to the post 1975 politics, every mainstream politician - generals and netris alike - made tactical alliance with Islamists.
But the army as an institution didn’t make an Islamist-alliance.
But this is because unlike say in Pakistan or Turkey, the army as an institution didn’t get involved in politics or running the country (until 1/11 - but that’s a separate discussion). The coups of the 1970s were carried out by various factions, and once Zia emerged as the strongman, the army essentially returned to the barracks. Ershad’s was very much a one man show, and the army left him alone to do govern. When going got tough for him 1990, army refused to intervene.
So you might say that the army didn’t get the chance to dally with Islamists. As you noted elsewhere, our army didn’t fight gun battles with Islamists either. So we cannot categorically say where the army stands about the Islamists. On this, I’d agree with you.
September 10th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Gen Zia seems to me to have really tried to integrate everybody, drawing on talents from all over the shop in his time even to the extent of calling and personally convincing those cast out by earlier mayhem and state ideological shunning, to return and contribute to the order he was trying to bring about.
vice marshall Tawwab getting booted out i feel had more to do with the individual being able to show the General in a more pro indian light.
He wasn’t an islamist (did he write any memoirs?), lots of nationalists with testosterone and muslim pride in bd might think they are, but thats the nature of the fuzzy beast of muslim nationalism, an interesting starting point that should have been built on but wasnt.
September 10th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
As fugstar rightly points out, Muslim nationalism should probably be considered a subset of Islamism (using Islam as identity rather than policy), at least the way it has been shaped in pre-71 Bengal and Bangladesh. And no, I don’t think “building on it” ever ceased. This is where we are because of it, not because it was stopped halfway through…
The only thing we know for sure is that the power dynamics aren’t like those in Pakistan, as Boishakhi pointed out. Neither are they like Lebanon, which Boishakhi would have us believe is the case. Neither option is particularly palatable to those of us who want peace between ALL our countrymen regardless of political beliefs.
And Rumi bhai, apologies for the Zia digression. Did not mean to slur him, thought I was making a statement of fact. Excuse the ignorance!:)
September 10th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Islamism and muslim nationalisms are subsets of the politics bookshelf of the history of Muslim society under colonial pressure.
i prefer to look at Islamic Education in south asia and its reforms and responses to changing times. It is a much longer time scale methinks, but has more essential meaning than these rather silly political configurations which can me laid over if you like.(though not neatly)
I dont think the BNP brain really developed or honed during recent times, in fact im of the opinion that they shot themselves in the head last year. Gen zia did rehabilitate islamic forces to an extent, but he wasnt a warrior-scholar, he was a warrior-doer.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Zia did remove secularism from constitution. During his time it was made sure no hindu can join the army. He made believe and trust to Allah (not God) one of the main principles of Constitution.
Ershad just followed him.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:16 am
Dear Rumi (22),
Where have you found that Justice Abdus Sattar served as the CJ???
I am really ashamed and appalled to find that with this level of knowledge, you are giving sermons daily in the blogosphere!!!
September 11th, 2007 at 5:14 am
Is it really true during Zia’s time there was no Hindu in army? I doubt it.
I think if BNP/JP did not do it, AL would have done it for sure. Mr Bush does the same here. In politics of power this is the reality-:)
There is funny thing here. To a a Muslim Islam comes first and Quran/Hadith comes before constitution. No Bangladeshi has ever put trust in Allah because it is in constitution. Neither any person has made trust in Allah as his main principal because Constitution made so. But I have doubt how much trust these people had on Allah who played with constitution.
September 11th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
#28 Ahbab
Good to see a keen and well researched following of my instant ramblings in the internet. Keep correcting me, mate. Readers will be benefitted.
Yes there was a typo, I meant CEC, not CJ.
This is from wikipedia,
“Sattar was appointed justice at the Dhaka High Court, serving from 1957 to 1968. In 1968 he was appointed to serve on the Supreme Court of Pakistan and became the chief election commissioner of Pakistan from 1969 to 1972. Sattar was responsible for supervising the 1970 elections, which led to a major political crisis between East Pakistan’s Awami League, the Pakistan People’s Party of West Pakistan and the military ruler Yahya Khan.
Justice Sattar was called in Islamabad in May 1971, however, he refused to serve the government of Pakistan and was immediately put in house arrest. He and the family remained under house arrest until his escape to Bangladesh, via Afghanistan, in 1973. “
September 11th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
#25, no apologies.
Its probably me who digressed more. I am probably turning into a reverse bitterboy in the net, and invoking Zia on every possible discussion!
September 11th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Rumi (# 30),
A blog should not be a platform for ‘instant rambling’ to turn CEC into CJ, and ‘leader’ into ‘minister’ (General Shafiullah - in another of your recent ‘instant rambling’). Please check, and check more than once if need be, before posting anything on the blogs. Otherwise, you will surely lose whatever credibility and acceptability you have left amongst the netizens. Excuse of ‘typo’ will not work, I suppose.
September 11th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Ahbab, the grandfather, Aziz,
Blog is indeed the platfor for instant rambling. Otherwise how can I ashame and appall you? Keep up your good work researching and finding all my typos. Thanks for those, anyway.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:37 am
Rumi (#33),
Thanks for assuring that you will continue to ‘ashame and appall’ with your ‘typo’-filled cyber-’rambling’!!!
September 12th, 2007 at 8:47 am
18 Iconus Clustus:
“Funny how things have been working out… look at Pakistan now - how far is it from being another Palestine? And India… another Israel may be… may be this is stretching things too far, but am I? Let’s see.”
Good observation. The difference is of course that India has far more potential and possibility than Israel, if it lets itself be hijacked and used as a pawn, or if it agrees to a marriage of convenience for the time being.
“Islam showed up in the scene to provide exactly what they needed. In fact, they created an insignificant part of Islam and turned it violent so that they can blame the whole of Islam and fight them everywhere”
Very good point. Islam remains the sole surviving ideology that has the potential to challenge the reigning system in the future and hence the urgency to demolish its popularity, good name and legitimacy in every way possible. One point must be mentioned that Islam is not a new enemy, it is a 1400 year old historic foe that has threatened Europe’s existence multiple times, though it never was as potentially destructive and unstoppable a force as the Mongol cavalry waiting in Buda and Pest, which was called off due to Ogedei’s (Chingis Khan’s son) death in 1241, an accident of history that saved Western Europe from total annihilation and changed world history forever.
“Prong two:”
Islam entered Bengal in early 1200’s and Muslim rule was interrupted between 1757-1947. Islamization of Bengal has been a long process from the beginning and it is still continuing, although the dynamics are different at different periods. A democratic people’s ruler cannot be outside of or ignorant of this process driven by the people themselves from the grass roots level. Jamat and other such peripheral players are only a visible symptom of this process, but not the main drivers or causes, in my opinion). The years between 1757 and 1947 did create various auxiliary dynamics and they have their own diminishing legacy in this region.
“demise of global socialist nations have disillusioned like minded people here”
Here I will try to give my opinion on Marxism/socialism.
Human history has several broad trends:
- migration from original homeland in Africa (hypothesis) to other parts of the planet
- genesis of ethno linguistic proto races in isolation in different parts of the planet
- later migrations (invasive and non-invasive)
- hunting gathering stage during all of above
- rise of agriculture and pastoral nomadism, creation of surplus food and resulting rise of civilizations and empires
- industrialization
- information economy
- rise of autonomous intelligent machines whose creativity and power of innovation surpasses that of human mind (a learning machine with sufficient processing power and memory will be able to mimic or surpass the ability of the human brain)
In the struggle for survival and supremacy, specific skills of certain groups evolved over a long period and became invaluable for civilizations. Also harsh and inhospitable regions made people more skilled in the art of survival and weaker genes were eliminated giving some population a different kind of strength compared to population in areas and regions which were bountiful and hospitable. Ideology gave people moral character, unity and cohesion in society. Bedouin Arabs and Central Asian steppe nomad mounted horsemen are examples of this category in case of Islamic civilization. Leaders with far sighted vision were rare gifts that could elevate a nation, but their mistakes could also bring ruin to many and absence of such leaders left nations stand still or drifting, not going here or there.
Marx’s study of history and his theory of “historical materialism” describes that societies go through phases of primitive communism of hunting gathering, slave society (with rise of agriculture and land and slaves as property), feudalism (lords and serfs), capitalism and industrialization (bourgeoisie and proletariat) and then naturally to proletariat revolution resulting in property-less socialism and eventually to an ideal state of utopian communism. Its principal attraction for the working classes was that it was a short cut way to bring an end to their suffering and gain equality for all in society, a very attractive and seductive message for the masses.
The final stage of communism according to Marx was going to look like the following:
“When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”
Marx was the genius behind the voluminous philosophical works, the theoritical base of Marxism, while Engels helped with ideas, guidance, financial help and thus by being a true partner to help Marx every way possible.
The idea was to create a world wide proletariat revolution starting from the advanced technological and industrial economies of Western Europe, but the existing order was strong enough in Western Europe so it never succeeded in any workers revolution there. Instead the idea got a foot hold in pre-industrial Tsarist Russia and finally flourished after industrialization there in early 20th century. Here if I may apply my “historical continuity” theory, Western Europe that was not devastated under the Mongol invasion had a fairly strong Monarchical order and a cohesive society, except for France due to earlier French revolution. A Paris Commune revolt did take place in Paris in 1871, but it was crushed after two months. With leadership of Lenin, Trotsky and others who took Marx’s philosophy and expanded on it. Bolsheviks eventually toppled Tsarist govt. and became the ruling party in Russia. The other major country where Marxism took hold a short while later is China, where Mao Ze Dong, adapted the teachings of Marxism for a peasant revolution. China was ruled under Mongol Yuan and although there were the indigenous Mings for several centuries, it again fell under the harsh rule of the foreign Manchu (formerly Jin/Jurchen) semi-nomadic warriors from the North East, who ruled China till 1911. Since then various war lords and Koumintang nationalist party had a tenous hold of the country, all of which were eventually swept away by the Peoples Army led by Mao. Here also we find that a fractured and weakened society where a new ideology took hold.
Marxism became one of the dominant world ideologies by mid 20th century, mainly with support from Soviet Russia, which at the end of the 2nd world war took many East European countries under its umbrella and incorporated them in its economic model.
The Marxist model had the following shortcomings:
- incentive to work hard, do well and be creative to produce the best possible product was simply not there in a Marxist society as everyone made the same amount of money regardless of how hard they worked
- as a result products that came out of this system were of poor quality and no product from the Marxist economies could compete with “capitalist” products in terms of quality, workmanship, durability and value for the customer, so the planned economy of the Soviet block countries produced sub standard products mainly for themselves in a barter economy and could not participate and take advantage of World Trade as well as the capitalist countries
- product quality was just one aspect, overall management of country and economy suffered the same fate, although most people enjoyed good health and education
- Russian people used Marxism to exploit and colonize other satellite countries and provinces, in fact the Russian ethnic group became the new ruling class in the Soviet Union led eastern bloc. Similarly the Han Chinese went on to occupy and colonize Tibet, Xinjiang and continued to hold Inner Mongolia
- Stalin’s repression killed and uprooted millions, whereas Mao’s cultural revolution also killed millions in famines
Like any ideology it did have some positive virtues such as making everyone equal in a largely classless society (except for Aparatchik and Nomenklatura), improve education and health care for every citizen, but as a system it could not compete with the established capitalist system in world market, the output of the system, both goods and services, were simply substandard and not comparable.
Getting back to my historical continuity theory, a disruptive force that engulfs and transforms a society usually never brings much good and it takes a long time for societies to find its old footing, heal itself over time, get back its stride, become self sufficient, internally cohesive and healthy and then compete with others. Marxism I believe had such a destructive influence. Just like the old Barbarian invasion of Goths, Huns, Mongols, Arabs and Turks, the Marxist proletariat led revolution was another such disruption, based on the faulty but seductive ideas of one visionary philosopher.
In any country that is making a transition from agrarian feudal societies to industrial societies, there is a danger to organize the industrial workers and use them for Marxist revolution, and of course the caste system of India is another specially conducive environment for this disease as we are seeing now. For Bangladesh, the large number of female workers in garment industry somewhat neutralizes this threat (male workers are usually more unruly and violent, I guess driven by testosterone) but nevertheless the threat is there and there are parties who are willing to take advantage of this situation, although knowing fully well that over the last 100 years Marxism has proven itself to be a faulty study of human history and faulty recommendation for the shaping and organizing of a society.
I can sum up my objection to this theory in the follow way. No revolutionary philosopher even with faulty but original and seductive ideas like Marx has ever come out of a Marxist system, Marx himself was a product of the nineteenth century bourgeoisie society in Germany. Excellence of ideas and leadership come from mature and cohesive societies. Societies where the creative genius is utilized and rewarded the most, that is the society that can reach the heights of human achievement and provide leadership to mankind. A society that is clubbed and flatenned to make everyone equal, is going against the very laws of nature and human behaviour. Great men are the drivers of history, they are rare and do not come often in a given population. So a wise and pragmatic society tries its best to find and nurture the great and visionary genius and utilize them to the greatest extent possible to advance their collective cause and the cause of humanity in general, be it as a CEO of a company or a master craftsman or craftswoman in a garment factory or a scientist making a new invention in a research lab.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Arre jala, aami defend korlam Zia-ke, aar Rumi bhai claims the credit. Fine, Rumi bhai can be the Godfather of Zia-defenders. But Bitterboy is in a different class altogether - remember Khaleda is like his mother, and if he could, he’d worship Zia. -:)
Khilji, I like the history lessons, but please keep them a bit shorter. Or, serious suggestion, have you considered your own blog?
November 6th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Khilji 35,
Thank you for a well thought response. However, I must say though you wrote a lot, you didn’t quite base yor opinions on strong evidences. Now a days, failure of communism is like a foregone conclusion. Anyone talking about leftist politics is easily ruled out with reference to Russia or China or the like.
Personally, I don’t think that is all that there is to say about Marxism in general and Communism and leftist politics in specific.
Creativity wasn’t encouraged and the production of the Eastern block lacked quality in all aspect has nothing to do with eihter communism or Marxism. Marx, being creative himself, never shunned art, creative thinking, or anything along the line.
As you said it yourself, he was merely explaning the historical development of the world as he read and understood it. He quite clearly exposed the relationship between the means of production, the producers, and the produced products. The he showed how all of that was connected to the rise of one class over the other and how oppression found a strong footing in all of this.
Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Che, Hoja, and the like - they all interpreted Marx in their own way and very few really tried to contextualize the theory into the own situation. A lot of them failed to read their own historical mileu in the correct light. Results and the eventual demise of the so-called communist block reeks of that failure, which is not an expressin of inadequacy of the theory behind it all.
Our own country, if we can return to the original topic, never had the chance to test some of those ideas, though the ground was almost ready. Instead, we experienced annihilation of scores of people, primarily leftists - including Siraj Sikder, after the war and during the period in between 71-75. Even during the war, things were getting pretty rough for them. Upon returning from Deradun, the BLF, the Dada Bhai- Moni- Tofael- Razzak band, in October, what did they do… I think they were involved in “cleaning” the slate… leftist, as you would know, were majorly against the war, since they figured it was a war of two bourgeiosie nations/parties and not of the people. So - it was easy for them to justify their acts… but, they didn’t consider the points that were raised. They didn’t spare Siraj Sikder you see - who was a freedom fighter himself! Like I wrote earlier - Bongobondhu himself said, “Kothay tomader Siraj Sikder aj…”.
Well - what I am trying to say is this - sure the idea didn’t come to its full fruitino in Russia and China and the like. But, then again, I must say, nothing faced such an opposition either! Downplaying the war machines, the secret services, the “natural-tendencies” of the human race (as you put it) should be considered too.
It is interesting that often people talk about communism as being unnatural and capitalism as natural. Why? Because one talks about putting a curb on the so-called natural desires and the other encourages it! It is like - since it is natural, it is good. But the philosophical thrust lies in this: all things human, are natural, since humans are natural. In this very natural world, one cannot do something that is unnatural.
Having said that - nwo we need to probe the merits of things natural as opposed to not-so-natural. Killing, a lot of people say, is a natural instinct. Does that mean that killing is okay - or - killing should be incouraged? I think NOT.
The basic thinking - socialist thinking that is - is, food, shelter, medicine, and education should be for all. The rest can go to the dog-eat-dog world. All the competition, all the advances, and what not, can still be there as it is now… only after ensuring the basics.
This - I believe, will have a nation/world of people those who do not spend most of their times looking and scrounging for food and money and shelter and medicine. Hence, there will be more time to devote in other creative ventures, like art, science, philosophy, and the like.
I understand - this is utopia like thinking. But, why so? Why isn’t thinking that capitalism will one day deliver goodness to all a greater utopia?
Practically speaking, I know and feel that this world will remain a place of suffering as along as it exists - yes, that too owing to it natural instincts of being self-centered and egoistic (things that are highly regarded in capitalistic modes of living). But, this does not in any way tell me that I and all the rest should follow the path. Cause, there really are alternate paths, at least on individual levels, if not social levels, to try and overcome that egoistis drive and think higher thoughts.
Well - governments can and should pay attention to those avenues and keep on constantly trying to widen the horizon of those ventures everyday… be it whatever kind (by name) of government.