Perceived failure of democracy, 14th February and the History
These days, on February 14, Valentines Day is celebrated in Bangladesh with great fanfare. The students and teen/ post teen generation as well as the older ones use their energy; ingenuity in doing thing to convince their loved ones.
Exactly 25 years ago on the 14 the February, I was about to finish my high school in Dhaka. I had no clue what Valentine day was. Then during the rest of student life in colleges throughout the 80s, I still did not know or do much with Valentines Day.
However 14th February remained a special day for us, the students and young people in the 80s. When the military establishment illegally captured state power on 24th March 1982, on this day, 14 the February the following year i.e. 1983, students lodged a large scale protest against the military occupation of governance. Five students – Zafar, Dipali Saha, Jainal, Mozammel and Ayub – were killed in the police firing, leading to the formation of Chhatra Sangram Parishad (students’ action council), the first politically organised platform against the military junta. The following year, on the same day during a student procession marking the event, the military rulers ran a truck on the peaceful procession instantly crushing Selim and Delwar to death.
Over the next six years, many more lives were lost. We invoked the names of Dipali Shaha, Mozamel, Selim, Delwar millions of times. Students were followed by trade unions followed by professionals and they gloriously defied the military rule. Politicians joined hands and later the civil service stepped in. Military had no options but to surrender and retreat back to the cantonment.
With restoration of democracy, along with many other things, we also forgot those who shed their lives for the democracy. And we badly mangled up militarycracy with a person Ershad. Ten years after fall of Ershad, he came back with a significantly limited capacity of a small political party leader. This time his power was not the military establishment. Ironically the people of his region were his principle force.
It is not clear whether it was done intentionally or mistakenly; Ershad’s minimal importance in Bangladesh politics was blown out of proportion and was shown as the ultimate failure of the revolution of December 1990 and of democracy. Those cliques, who have been vocal in making the story of Ershad’s joining of different political fronts as the major blunder of Bangladesh democracy and ultimate reversal of 1990 revolution, did intentionally hide the facts that Ershad in 2007 represented regional people power, not the military establishment. And when the ideological difference is minor, changing sides is not so unusual in democracy.
Not too long after media uproar over Ershad drama, stage was set for full blown military takeover and on 1/11/2007, military establishment regained crown they lost on December 1990. In 1982, the facade was Ershad, this time it was Fakhruddin and a bunch of retired bureaucrats and technocrats.
Unlike last military establishment, this new generation of military establishment is much smarter. This time the word martial law has never been pronounced, although the country faced worst kind of steam roller since its inception. This time no single character was allowed to turn into a villain. The main facade Fakhruddin worked hard to keep showing his political and administrative impotence; once a while if some advisor got out of control they have been instantly kicked out. And unlike 1982, this new generation won’t bother shooting at students. They will rather assassinate the mind, not the body. This government has excelled in picking up top tier political leaders, businessmen, intellectuals, teachers, students, journalists—torture them to inflict the worst possible emotional trauma and physical pain.
And during this 14 th February, nobody will recall Zafar, Ayub, Selim and others. Thanks to media promotion, young people and students will wear special dresses, draw graffiti on the face and celebrate beginning of Falgun or Poush or the Valentines Day. Although certain entity in Bangladesh think themselves as the great upholders of our historical accuracy and glory, history of peoples’ war against military establishment in 80s did never gain the elite status like that of 71 or 52 history. And surely some very strong quarter do not want our young generation to know about the sacrifices of these seven or those 24 in Chittagong or Zehad or Nur Hossain or Milon or many more. And probably that’s why Channel I etc will rather observe Pohela Falgun or Valentine day than remember Shahid Selim, delwar, Dipali Shaha, Zafar, Mozammel, Ayub or Joynal.
[Cross posted in rumiahmed.wordpress.com]
February 17th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Rumi bhai, good to see you back in these pages regularly. Some thoughts.
1. You’re quite right about mixing up Ershad the person with the army’s corporate meddling in politics. Regardless of what one thinks about what set off 1/11, army’s corporate interest a clear and present threat to future stability of Bangladesh. But was this the case as well in the 1980s? That is, was the 1982 coup a result of an ambitious general’s quest for personal power, or was it the army’s corporate interest that resulted in the coup? And once the coup happened, how involved did the army get in the wealth-generating sectors? For example, the army is currently alleged to be getting heavily involved in the telecommunication and media sectors. Was this the case in the 1980s too?
2. Army’s involvement in the profitmaking sectors under cover of emergency is a matter of speculation. Its involvement in the civilian administration is a matter of public record. Majors and Colonels are ‘deputed’ to government agencies and state owned enterprises. Was this the case in the 1980s too?
3. If the answer to the above are ‘yes’, then how did we ‘demilitarise’ after 1990? Or did we fail to demilitarise at all? What are the experiences of other similar countries. We need to discuss these because one way or other, emergency will end and some form of politics return soon.
4. I’d be interested in your opinion about why the 1980s struggles are not remembered. In my opinion, a large part of this has to do with the inadequacies and shortcomings of the generation itself. The generation that led the 1980s struggles already in the upper echelon of our bureacracy and industry. Frankly, this generation has been in ‘power’ for the past 5-6 years. If the 1980s is not remembered, surely they have to shoulder some responsibility.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Thank you for sharing this memory. The sacrifice of Zafar, Ayub, Selim, and others is not something I grew up reading about. However, the fact that your generation remembers, and passes on the stories to subsequent generations, like mine, is an indication that these heroes are not forgotten.
“And during this 14 th February, nobody will recall Zafar, Ayub, Selim and others”
Perhaps, this is something that will be less true as more people remember and share.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:04 am
Thanks Jyoti and Amer.
Yes Amer, we need to talk about and know more about our democracy movement. Like the way we remember 52, 71, we also should remember our glorious struggle and sacrifice for democracy.
Jyoti,
re your questions,
I do not see any qualitative difference between 1982 Martial law and the the ‘changes’ (alias of Martial law) of 1/11. Like the way he was as a politician-dictator, he was a distracted and weak as the army chief. 82 was rather a collective effort than Ershad’s sole venture.
You are spot on about corporate interest. In addition, we ignore one very vital factor. Military culture often looks down upon the efficiency and integrity of civil bureaucracy. Gen Moeen’s recent comment to Amnesty’s Irene Khan ( ref: Downward Spiral, UV) that the reason military officials are taking over all top civil jobs is because there are no efficient people in civil servce to handle those jobs, supports the idea. In 1982, even 7 long years after 15 August Massacre, Army top brass was not ready to be be led by a civilian called Justice Sattar.
Ershad heavily militarized the top civil services and gave rampant looting license to a business community of retired army officials. e.g. There is a retd Col Nurunnabi who was given almost free license to operate private telephone service outside Dhaka. This man ran this very lucrative services in Sylhet, North bengal etc, did not give a single taka tax, siphoned off hundreds of crores of taka to Canada nd now he is in Canada with family.
All three major military take over in BD received a passive support of a large fraction of populace. A large proportion of population justified 15th August as the last resort to remove Mujib out of power. Similarly AL supporters, intellectuals and media explicitly and tacitly hailed both the 82 and 2007 martial law as BNP was ousted off power by these martial laws.
There was significant dimilitarization post 1990. Even after 1991 cyclone, there was strong unease in using Army to coordinate relief operations. Since then until 2007, role of army was limited only to a handful of sectors.
Why democracy movement is not recognized? I’ll blame it on multiple factors:
1. Post 91 government was led by BNP and BNP is notoriously inept in promoting history and culture. Look how shamefully they mishandled Ziur Rahman and 1971.
2. So far our history narratives, popular culture, heritage etc are mainly dictated and controlled by AL leaning intellectuals. Unlike 1971, AL was not the immediate beneficiery of Democracy movement. In addition democracy movement was a combined effort of AL-BNP-Jamaat. AL is not very proud of that caveate of history too.
3. Lately, after 1/11, there at last has been an effort to start the remembrance. Hope it will gain momentum. For the first time in 25 years there have been a program in Dhaka to remember 14th February.
February 21st, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Here is reaction from “The daily star” about Moeen’s recent comment about bangladeshi brand of democracy:::::
Editorial
There is but one ‘brand’ of democracy
Differences lie in the form of practicing it
The suggestion of the chief of army staff, of formulating a Bangladeshi brand of democracy for the country, in his book launching ceremony on Wednesday, has attracted our attention.
We do not feel that that there is anything wrong with democracy per se in Bangladesh and would like to assert that there is but only one form of democracy, which has a universal character. If there is any variance it is in the political structure or institutions that give shape to it. Democracy is a concept, and in military parlance ‘operationalisation’ of that concept may vary from country to country. For example, there is the presidential and parliamentary form of government, bicameral or unicameral legislature, varying degree of power of the head of government, different measures of checks and balances, variation of power between the judicial, executive and the legislative branches of the state, and many such differences. These are not “different brands of democracy” but different political structures that have been chosen to practice democracy, which we repeat is one and universal.
We would like to believe that what the army chief was trying to convey are the flaws of democracy as we practised it, and not so much the concept itself. He makes mention of buying of votes and of the elected representatives visiting their constituencies but only once in five years and that too just before the election. But is it the fault of democracy or of the people who are supposed to make it purposeful? We have examples, by the same token, of MPs visiting their constituencies every week and some staying permanently in their constituencies. Why pick on the worst to prove a particular point of view?
He also spoke about the PM being all powerful. May we ask, is it the fault of democracy that we have had prime ministers behaving in the most imperious manner? Is it not more the fault of our institutions that have failed to exercise the necessary checks and balances that they are capable of doing but failed to do?
What perhaps the CAS was trying to convey is that there is need for political reform that would prevent aberration of the concept of democracy by the people’s representatives and those who are supposed to ensure that democracy in all its aspects is practiced. Political reform and strengthening of the political institutions are something that this paper, along with the members of civil society, has been trying to bring about in the last several years. We do not need a “Bangladeshi brand of democracy”; we just need to implement it in the form that is universally practiced today.
We would like to put on record that the CAS has earned tremendous goodwill by his unequivocal assertion for democracy, election, and political reform that can make democracy work. He has also earned respect by his continuous dismissal of any suggestion of the army’s involvement in politics. We would not like that to be spoiled by remarks that confuse matters.
We repeat, the fault is not with democracy, but the way we practiced it in the past. So correct the practice and not democracy.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
To me it seems the two views, CAS versus Daily Star, are based on different assumptions. In the former, the assumption is that the players of the game cannot be relied upon for substantial qualitative change in their behavior, so some of the playing rules must be amended. In the latter, there is reliance on the players that they will change in the way they operate.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:20 am
[...] The generals probably feel more secure from the fact that the traditionally most vocal anti-dictatorship segment of our society has been neutralised long before 1/11. Why student activism has withered in the past generation is a subject worthy of its own post (see this for an analysis). Even today, the first challenge to the army came from students. But unlike the 1980s, this uprising had no political mooring, and predictably it was snuffed out (perhaps in a less brutal fashion than the 1980s). [...]