So, How Come No One’s Saying, “We Are Becoming India”?

I appreciate those worries that we are becoming Pakistan and that “certain quarters” are trying to implement the Musharraf game-plan. Every time there is a rumble at the Baitul Mukarram, we hear ominous talks about the Lal Moshjid. I harbor these same fears to a certain extent. Comparative political analysis is something I enjoy a great deal, and my skeptical eye is certainly satisfied by the appropriateness of the case: Pakistan is after all the other Muslim-majority state in South Asia, and we did inherit some of its dysfunction in ‘71 (and not just through Jamaatis as some proponents of an “Original Sin” theory would have you believe).

But my comparative heart gets mighty malnourished when I see no one pointing out another obvious and appropriate case: India. Consider our friend and neighbor to the west (…and north and east). There are many things Indian that I would love to see in B’Desh: a thriving economy, a sense of pride in their country despite their differences, an increasingly assertive movie industry and, of course, Bipasha Basu.

What about the negatives that we wouldn’t like to see replicated in our own land? And I don’t mean the urban capitalist success stories with the huge swathes of rural disenfranchisement and isolation. Let’s leave that for another day, another blogger and focus on the politics for just one minute.

Within South Asia, India is the only democracy operating for more than one election (sporadic or otherwise. So Nepal, Bhutan and, if you like, Afghanistan are out of the picture) where a religion-based party is not just the Mainstream Right-Wing Party, but also one that has actually come to power at the Federal level (or its equivalent). It is quite an amazing feat for the BJP to position itself into THE right-wing alternative to Congress in a country that repeatedly professes to be more secular than its neighbours and, particularly, its dysfunctional, “truncated” twin. Why India does not have a secular right-wing option – the way BNP is to the Jamaat-B, Sharif’s ML is to Jamaat-Pakistan, and UNP is to hard-line Buddhist parties in Sri Lanka (disagree all you want on these examples) – is something that Bangladeshi citizens would do well to look into at this current juncture in our history. I feel myself particularly inadequate for the task.

But my interest lies here: that while many have commented about how BNP’s downfall will facilitate Jamaat’s rise as THE right-wing alternative to AL – thus making it BJP’s equivalent within the Indian system – I am yet to hear that fear encapsulated in this particular, analogous sound-bite: “Bangladesh is fast becoming India”. Why is that? And please don’t say validity. I can punch a few holes into the Pakistani analogy without breaking a (mental) sweat.

Is it taboo? Not catchy enough? Is India a country even our right-wingers secretly look up to and see no negative in? Will saying it get us a fatwa from Bigot-in-Chief Saidee? Does India mean only Amitabh, Tendulkar, Lata Mangeshkar and endless soap operas (and of course Ms. Basu and Mr. Abraham) to our people? Are we afraid that Fugstar will inflict yet another obnoxious-for-the-sake-of-being-obnoxious comment on us if we do say it? Will Naya Diganta use it as their premise to theorise – nay, prove! – that 1/11 was sponsored by the Indian Thread Makers’ Cabal (no doubt in collaboration with the Markin Shoe Makers’ Chokro)?

A bright, optimistic side of me wants to believe that deep inside, people – whether Awami or BNP or non-war-criminal Islamists – associate evil with Pakistan – with good reason – and despite all the India-bashing, India still isn’t evil in the same way. But I still wonder, and I ask this with no malice, a smile on my face and out of genuine curiosity, what is it that prevents that particular sound-bite about India?

BNP-bashing

This article is not about Kamal Hossain’s digbaajis. He has proven himself a non-entity in our democracy and I am not about to waste time on his potential as a politician. No, this is an appeal to thinkers in BNP.

This is Shameran Abed in New Age writing about Dr. Kamal Hossain in an unflattering way. Link
This is Mahmudur Rahman in Naya Diganta writing about Dr. Kamal Hossain in an unflattering way. Link

Please read each and note the difference.

Abed is “critical”, Rahman is “negative”.

Abed deals with what Dr. Hossain has said, done and whom he has professionally associated with. Rahman deals with whom Dr. Hossain married (are we talking about Hameeda Hossain here?), her background and who he might have associated with in 1971.

In short, Abed talks straight about the issues raised by Dr. Hossain’s (unsupportable) remarks and his latest political somersault. By contrast, Rahman tries to make the same points but manages to significantly weaken his case by first insinuating and smearing the person based on whom he married.

Which of these two approaches do you want to see in Bangladesh in the future? Issues or smears?

(Angry sidenote: And since when does someone, who held a cabinet-level post alongside a War Criminal like “Minister” Nizami, get the right to call out his political opponent based on the Pakistani origins of the latter’s spouse? It’s called a mirror Mr. Rahman. Take a long, hard look!)

We have had quite a few discussions on these pages about the lack of intellectual voices and a solid, positive ideology within the BNP. Those discussions were not motivated either by sheer opposition towards BNP or by a desire to “concern troll” on AL’s behalf. There are potentially very healthy trends within the BNP, which address concerns close to my heart: namely, security and free market principles. I, for one, would like to see them gain on their strength in these areas, and ditch the anti-Hindu, pro-Jamaati stands as soon as they can. For the better of this country and the party.

Regarding the lack of a solid ideology, I read with interest Tacit’s post in which he regards BNP’s lack of solid ideological foundations as a positive thing. I hope that was nothing other than a rhetorical flourish, because, unfortunately, I have to disagree.

It is the lack of solid ideology that:
(i) sustains all sorts of contradictions within BNP during its ruling years, especially the tussle between the Young Turks and the Old Guard in 2001-2006
(ii) makes it easier for any potato-loving bullshitter to hijack the party without too much trouble.

While AL grassroots ask, “What have you done for our ideology?”, BNP grassroots cannot be left asking, “Are you for the people?” Of course they are! Who in this country is “anti-people”?

The lack of further depth in their ideology makes BNP a tabula rasa, a blank drawing board on which any hijacker can come and draw his own bullshit and gets away with it. Unless they address this issue, they will not become a sustainable political party.

And the road to this is hampered by people like Mahmudur Rahman, who once sued people despite VIDEO evidence that showed he had no case. In fact, suing CPD members, instead of responding vigourously, cleanly and perhaps with a pinch of ridicule to their “clean candidate” campaign back then, is exactly the kind of politics that has harmed the BNP.

I am not saying that he is the only BNP intellectual out there. There are many others who are far more articulate, respectful and intelligent, such as Professor Mahmudullah of Jahangirnagar U. or his brother Mahfuzullah the journalist. But Mahmudur Rahman is certainly the most outspoken, most prominent, and, apparently, the most stubbornly stupid one among them at the moment.

Both he and Shameran Abed had the same end-goal. Can you necessarily agree with their means?

The means matter. Firstly, such smears appeal to the lowest common denominator, so that intelligent people who might agree with what you say are driven away. Secondly, the politics of dirty smears drives out intelligent discourse from within BNP ranks, discourse that might solidify into positive ideology.

Thus, a culture develops in which these smears are taken to be “politics” and issues are taken to be “atelism”. No coincidence then that foul-mouthed, bigoted SaQa Choudhury was nominated for OIC Secretary General while Dr. (“Our sons don’t get along”) Badruddoza was thrown out of the party?

I mean, how ridiculous was that?

Simple advice for our litigious former energy advisor: leave the smears at home, talk issues. Not much hope that you’ve learnt your lesson.

Bangladesh Zeitgeist Watch: The Rise of the Aloo

Lying there, half-immersed in curry sauce, ignored by those looking for meat, the aloo has been a much-neglected vegetable indeed. Until now that is. The Knight of the Order of the Aloo rode in on horseback, his armour – polished by the spittle of a thousand supporters – shining in the deltaic sun! All to save the aloo from the ignominy of being made bhorta. The aloo is indeed redeemed, for chefs at five-star hotels now covet it. The Knight is vindicated, and we admire his courage for mixing himself up with such a funny vegetable.

Without further ado (aloo), below I list some things I expect to witness in the coming months, and fondly contemplate how the aloo mania is affecting my favourite advisor ever. Just remember: aloo must be consumed ALONGSIDE rice, not INSTEAD of it, as any number of recent op-eds in the Pravda can attest.

Mohammad Ashraful (speaking English WHEN HE COULD BE SPEAKING HIS OWN MOTHER TONGUE!): We eat rice and lose all the time. From now, we eat aloo and win!

Robi Thakoor (back from the grave, beard longer than ever): I made a spelling mistake in one of my songs. It should have been “Aloo amar, aloo ogo, alooy bhubon bhora, aloo jokhon bhorta, tokhon alooy petta bhora.”

Naimul Islam Khan (writing yet another egotistical editorial): Aaj thekey Amader Shomoyer naam bodliye amra holam Aloor Shomoy, eengrejite ja daray the Age of the Aloo. Ami jani pathokra ei cheyechilo. Ami jani.

Matiur Rahman (not to be outdone): Aloor Shomoy kono potrika holo? Oita to puro goyendader hathey. Tar thekey apnara aaj thekey Prothom Aloo porun. Amra shecchay aloo khai.

The Tagore-Protection Committee (open letter to various newspapers): We, patriotic aloo-eaters that we are, strongly protest recent attempts made on certain blogs to parody Tagore’s lyrics. We condemn this dhakashohor chhokra in the strongest terms and hope he does not get his aloo tonight.

Mainul Hosein (unemployed, breakfast: aloor dom): Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

Hasan Mashud Chowdhury: The potato’s meteoric rise is very suspicious. I think amader uchit hobey ekti case thookey dawa, jaatey remandey niye alooke ektu bhorta kora jay.

Daily Star’s Crown Jewel’s filed report: The Potato’s meteoric rise has come under the scrutiny of the ACC. The Potato’s activities are known in every corner of the country. The Potato is rumoured to have established a shady presence in a few flats, a few cars, a few companies, a few restaurants and a few television channels, all in an illegal manner as far as I know. And I didn’t try looking too hard, just used my access to government officials without trying to get independent confirmation of the aloor bhaji they fed me.

Wait – Breaking News: Potato found to be none other than our very own “aloo”, favoured by Knights on Horseback. Case dismissed! No suspicion on the aloo ever. No, we don’t apologise.

Mainul Hosein (unhinged, lunch: aloo bhaji): Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

Delwar Hossain Saidee: Aloo is halal. Not just halal, but the most Islamic of foods. From Saladin to Jinnah, they have all endorsed the aloo as “Islamic”. That is all that matters to Believers like me. It is also easily proven that the Ihudi-Nasra-Hindu-Nasteek Buddhijibi-Indian Thread Makers-Venusian Sith Lords Chokro have never spoken well of the aloo.

Shahriar Kabir: Aloo khetey ami raaji, but we must ask, is this Secular aloo? If the farmer prays for a good harvest, then surely that aloo cannot be Secular. Also, I heard Delwar Hossain Saidee praising the aloo, so surely…

Saidee (the next day): Aloo is haram from today. Nasteek buddhijibira aloo khetey raaji!

Dan Quayle (hand-written statement): I wish Banglanians Banglastanis Bangladeshies the best in their ongoing adventure to harness the awesome power of potatos.

Mainul Hosein (approaching senility, dinner: aloo bhorta) : Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

Forhad Mazhar: Porashoktir ekta slang term ache, “couch potato”, maaney sharadin sofay boshey boshey, aloor chips kheye kheye jara aloor moto dekhtey hoye jay. Jemon hoyechey dhakashohor namok ak bhojonbilashi, olosh-prokritir shamrajyobadi-blogger! Chee chee. Aantorjatik o aancholik porashokti ei chay: tader bohujaatik company gulo diye amader aloo khaiye khaiye couch potato banatey. Shabdhan!

Pinak Ranjan Chakrovorty: Bangladesh could learn a lot from India on how to make your aloos secular and your aloor dum more tasty.

Mahmudur Rahman (writing in Naya Diganta): This sort of comment on our aloo and our aloor dum is nothing short of a Breach of our Sharbobhoumotyo! Amader aloo ar aloor dom ke opomaan korechey bharoter rashtrodoot. Er pichoney nishchoi amader sushilder haath achey, tara aloo na kheye polao korma kheto eto din. This is the Greatest National Crisis Ever (GNCE) to hit us since India tried to make us a “captive market”, and look how well my Jatiyotabadi government dealt with THAT! Ei sorkar eishob meney nay ki korey?

Patricia “Beauty Apa” Butenis: We will welcome your aloos in Iraq. We will make freedom fries out of them.

Abul Barakat (yet another roundtable): Hawa Bhaban stole 64 billion MT worth of aloos. In one night. Just from my dinner table alone. God knows how much more aloo they stole from the entire country and deposited in Switzerland! I know for a fact that the Swiss have been switching from cheese to aloo fondue not just because it is cheaper, but obviously more fun to do. (groan away!)

Syed Badrul Ahsan (weekly column in DS): April is the cruelest month, breeding aloos from the dead land. Yes, indeed the land is dead, for its people have failed to acknowledge that it was Bangabandhu and NO ONE ELSE who came up with this grand plan to eat aloos!

Mainul Hosein (sleeping, pillow: aloor bosta): Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

Hossain Zillur Rahman, (PhD): Sorkar ekti notun udyog niyechey. SMS korun amar phoney, ebong ami apnader ek bosta aloo pathiye debo. Rice via OMS chilo political solution, riddled with corruption. Amader solution hochchey aloo via SMS. Wider coverage (I use GP, you should too)*wink* and no chances of corruption.

Forhad Mazhar: PhD ajkal money hochchey Potato-holder’s Degree hoye gechey. Etao porashoktir arek shorojontro. Aloo khawa cherey din. Shabdhan!

Shishir Bhattacharya: I honestly cannot think of any funny cartoons or joke about aloo and our current national obsession with it. And no, I don’t check out blogs for ideas for my cartoons.

Shahriar Kabir (angrily, on some talk show): Ei dhakashohor naam diye ek neo-Jamaati, shamprodayik bojjat cheley blog korey. Aloo niye likhtey giye tar shamprodayikota exposed hoye giyeche. Shey Robindronath Thakoorke bangyo korechey! Amakeo! Er porey aloo khawa jay ki korey, apni bolun?

Delwar Hossain Saidee (Friday afternoon on television): Aloo is halal again! Reading that bekhtameez larka dhakashohor’s idiocies is still haraam!

Mainul Hosein (lost in a field of aloo): Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Conspi – (gets hit on head with aloo)

শহীদুল জহির RIP

হয়ত সেই রাতেও পূর্ণিমা ছিল
হয়ত রাস্তায় এক ফকির তার বাবাকে থামিয়ে বলেছিল যে তার কপালে এমন এক সন্তান আছে যার মতো লেখক বাংলা ভাষায় এর আগে দেখা যায়নি।
হয়ত সেই কথা শুনে তার বাবা অবাক হয়ে দাঁড়িয়ে থাকার সময় ঘাট থেকে নৌকাটি ছেড়ে দিয়েছিল।
হয়ত তার পরের নৌকায় উঠার সময় তার সাথে দেখা হয়েছিল তার ভবিষ্যত স্ত্রীর, তার ছেলের ভবিষ্যত মা।
হয়ত সেই ছেলে ভুতের গলিতে সত্যিই ভুত দেখতে পেয়েছিল।
হয়ত সে সত্যিই শুনেছিল গ্রামের মানুষের কাহিনী সেই জ্যোৎস্নার আলোতে।
হয়ত সে সত্যিই জীবন ও রাজনৈতিক বাস্তবতা মেনে নিতে পারেনি।
হয়ত সে কারণেই তার মতো মানুষ, যে এই দেশ ও দেশের মানুষের করূণ বাস্তবের মধ্যেও সৌন্দর্য ও ভালবাসা খুজে পেয়েছিল, সেও চলে গেল এত কম সময় কাটিয়ে।

শহীদুল জহির ওরফে শহীদুল হক – ১৯৫৪-২০০৮ইন্নালিল্লাহেওয়াইন্নাইলাহে্রাজিউন।

Leave them alone

Call me old-fashioned. But there are some things about our tradition I cherish unquestioningly. To take a random example, as those who are even remotely familiar with worker revolts in tea-estates know, women, children and the elderly are never targets. The men, ie. the head of households, are. It’s considered bad form to attack those who cannot defend themselves. This might be a patriarchal mindset, but it does lead to admirable self-restrain and spares someone amidst the mindless violence. That is our tradition.

This is a code of conduct I cherish amongst fighters, whether in the fighter’s arena or the politician’s. I recall it being broken once, in bloody fashion about 23 years ago. A pregnant woman died that day. A 10-year old boy died that day. A mother of five died that day. The killers remain unpunished. Even worse, their disrespect for our own Bangladeshi tradition and their cowardice in attacking women and children are not sufficiently berated in certain quarters.

Which brings us to the present day. I can understand if not condone that there are people thirsty for power after 15 years of rule by two people. But what exactly are they doing by charging and/or arresting wives, children and siblings of those they are up against? I have previously argued against the insanity of charging a young girl for her father’s corruption. I have argued against Mrs. Hasina’s sister being charged absurdly in her cousin’s extortion case. Now, I hear that Dr. Zobeida Rahman and her mother (of all people!) are being charged with some thing or the other. I’m sure many more families will suffer if this keeps up.

Which leads me to wonder if I might be charged with hiding something since I happen to be Mr. Moudud’s cousin, 64-times removed. I estimate we have a common ancestor somewhere in the 12th century. Now you might say that’s not true, and you’d have a point. But if you believe that the charges laid against all these relatives of prominent politicians are true, it was worth a shot trying to convince you of my (in)famous family connection.

What a pathetic bunch of losers these guys are turning out to be.

Forum does an April fool piece in March

Do you pick a fight with a helpless beggar on the street for swearing at you because you didn’t give him/her any money?

No? Then why pick one with Henry Kissinger?

I was annoyed when some Bangladeshi journalist thought it worth his while to ask Kissinger about the “bottomless basket”/ “international basketcase” remark. But when I saw this article in March’s Forum, my annoyance turned to utter astonishment! I urge every reader to read the article for themselves before reading my blog post.

Surely Forum is trying to promote itself as a publication that carries thoughtful, high-end political, economic and social commentary. In which case, what is it doing running an article that would fit better into a rag like Amader Shomoy?

The entire point of this article seems to be that some anti-Bangladesh and anti-Mujib quarter has amplified the importance of the “bottomless basket” phrase to hurt “Bangladesh’s image abroad” (Mrs. Zia, Mr. Babar, Mr. Nizami, meet your soulmate!). How have they amplified this? By asserting that the phrase was uttered by Kissinger himself when in reality it was made by some career diplomat that no one has heard of.

Oh brilliant! Simply bloody brilliant!

There is one big, glaring problem within the article, and some larger, more ironic meta-problems.
The BIG GLARING problem

I have just finished reading the article twice. I read it the second time because I could not quite believe what was going through my head, so decided to duck back and re-read the entire thing more carefully. And here is what I found: there is one single sentence that talks about the U.S. administration’s “tilt” towards Pakistan in 1971. There is no background given for this, which would explain that Kissinger was the architect of that infamous “tilt”. There is no mention of the fact that Kissinger deliberately turned a blind eye to the atrocities carried out by the barbaric Pakistani army, and that made him anti-Bangladesh more than any throw-away remark.
Sticks and stones actually break bones; words… not so much!

I repeat: there is NO mention of this not-unimportant detail; not a little mention, not an understated mention, not a footnote even. NO mention of this easily verifiable historical fact. A Bangladeshi writes about Henry Kissinger’s relationship to Bangladesh (if only tangentially) and does not mention this historical detail at all: what do you call that? Astounding.

Reminds me that when Sharmila Bose was publishing her drivel, there was talk about who was backing her. Some said the U.S. foreign policy establishment was trying to get her to re-write their dirty role during our war and its attendant atrocities. At a time like this when the historical record is under attack, surely the editors at Forum can take a closer look at the impact of what they are publishing. Especially when the article in question focuses on words that Kissinger may or may not have uttered, and NOT on his egotistical backing of Pakistan against us, just so that the little f***er could score a deal with China and feel like a real man!

Let me illustrate all this by way of a parable. Mr. X is accused of murdering his neighbour. Mr. X is also accused of calling his neighbor “a man of loose morals”. Mr. X’s lawyer gathers about witnesses, documents and testimonies from those in the know to prove that not only did Mr. X not say anything, but furthermore he cannot even pronounce the words “loose” or “moral”, and moreover Mr. X has philosophical doubts about the very worth of morals themselves. Indeed, all this proves what a “heavyweight” Mr. X is therefore absolved of never having said any of this, and therefore his neighbor has nothing to be unhappy about! Take the focus away from the murder and onto the insult.

This article is – deliberately or inadvertently – Mr. X’s lawyer.

Meta-problems

And this leads us to several meta-problems.

1) I quote from the article:

“ Now, more than ever, is the time to de-link Kissinger from the “international basket case” as its real history intimates, and correct ourselves and leave our younger generation free from false context and wrong historical perspective.”

The phrase “right perspective” also crops up twice in the introductory paragraphs.

The irony is that this article itself seems to be perpetuating the very “false context and wrong historical perspective” that it decries. To repeat ad nauseum: the problem with Kissinger was not this remark, but his material support for the Pakistani army!!!

That’s the right perspective and it is not represented here!

2) But wait, there’s more. The writer and editors might argue that this was not an article about Kissinger’s foreign policy, but only about his “bottomless basket” remark. Which of course poses a larger meta-problem. Because the article says clearly:

“It was this propaganda that had been carried out in the world to unmake Bangladesh — to prove that breaking up with Pakistan wasn’t a viable alternative in the first place. And unfortunately, knowingly or unknowingly, we are participating and/or contributing to that propaganda today.”

And asks desperately:

“Why do we continue with the legacy of erroneous information and flawed interpretation and be a part of the anti-Bangladesh propaganda?”

Why indeed? Propaganda does not work without our consent. By focusing on just the “bottomless basket” remark, we have once again given it undue importance and thus “participating and/or contributing to that propaganda today” by consenting not only to propagating it, but also to say that it is actually important enough to refute. As I’ve asked before, do you pick fights with a helpless beggar who says something awful about you? Why or why not?

Frankly, this borders on the ridiculousness of CNN decrying the cable news coverage of the latest Britney Spears breakdown… which of course is their way of covering the latest Britney Spears breakdown! I say “borders” because our genocide actually matters!

3) Nothing though beats the extreme irony of what this article teaches us. It teaches us that Kissinger is “a heavy weight”. It says things like “Bangladesh did not get even a year to prove the American diplomat Ural Alexis Johnson wrong!” and lastly, with a truly ironic attempt at irony, “Let us recognize Ural Alexis Johnson ….and work in unison to prove his prediction wrong…”

Firstly, “development” is not – or at any rate, should not be – about trying to prove the NYT or Americans wrong, and even less about trying to live up to the expectations of Westerners. That entire “proving” business is the worst thing about our little obsession over Kissinger’s comments.
Secondly, since when does an admirer of Mujib have to acknowledge Kissinger as anything other than the slimy rat he was? We, who love Mujib, love him regardless of something that Henry Kissinger (of all people!) said. Is Forum’s audience now reduced to fringe Jamaati elements and Muslim League remnants that they are publishing this drivel? They’re about the only Bangladeshis elements in Bangladesh, who think Kissinger’s some sort of a “heavyweight”. At least, I used to think so until I saw this article!

Lastly, let me just nitpick a bit about the picture that accompanies this piece. It shows men – some with beards, some in punjabis and almost all wearing prayer caps – burning an American flag.

If the photo editor wanted to compare BANGLADESHI critics of Kissinger to knee-jerk anti-American, flag-burning Islamists, then that is the highest insult towards us that I can imagine!
If on the other hand, s/he wanted to compare the magnified importance that these Islamists give American gestures and political figures to the magnified importance that the author of the piece gave to Mr. Kissinger, then I am fully behind him.

Forum, save the April Fool jokes for the April issue!

Pilger-Moudud Controversy

Background here

Mr. Moudud is a snake no one likes but every politician wants on their team.

Mr. Moudud is also incarcerated on ridiculously trivial charges.

The “controversy” over at UV is starting to border on the Gulliverian debate of which side to break an egg on. It pretty much boils down to this: when advocating for due process in Bangladesh, should we or should we not note that some of the most ill-reputed people are on trial. That’s really all there is to it folks! Otherwise, I think it’s safe to say that everyone arguing there is for fair trials and fair convictions/acquittals, instead of kangaroo courts and rubber-stamped verdicts.

So what’s interesting here and why am I writing about this?

I think the debate is a preview of what promises to be the next major cleavage in Bangladeshi politics, assuming we continue down the path we are on: minus-2 version-2, candidates barred from contesting polls based on speedy trials, the neutering of the AL and the hijacking of the BNP. As each side’s position hardens and moves away from the other’s, two camps will emerge among the chatterati: the Daily Star-CTG camp and the BNP (mainstream/Khaleda-ponthi… is there any other kind?) camp, for lack of better terms. The DS-CTG camp will keep reminding people of all the bad things that “these politicians” did. The BNP camp will simply say that this is undemocratic, unconstitutional and against the fundamental rights of our people.

Squeezed in between will be genuine human rights activists like those at UV – and I want to draw a distinction here between those truly committed to human rights above partisanship like the good people at Drishtipat, and those who use “human rights” to further their own agenda, from the left or the right or simply out of a commitment to “journalism without fear or favour”!

Now please note that both camps will be right. Factually correct, if only partial in their reporting. If I had to choose sides – and I hate choosing sides that are partial in their acknowledgement of the truth – I would choose the BNP side over the other any day. Not because I think the crimes of the 4-party government were small (they weren’t), but because the BNP-camp addresses concerns more dear to my heart.

Politicians make mistakes. To repeat an old cliché, these must be dealt with politically: i.e. through the political process as outlined in the constitution. Reminding us constantly that Moudud reaped what he sowed is unfortunately a bit too much like the tastelessness of certain remarks made against both Mujib and (at times more so) against Zia. And equally wrong-headed!

Yes, incarceration is not assassination. But – this might come as a shock to some – the land and its underestimated people recognize two ways of dealing with errant political leaders: constitutionally and unconstitutionally. It doesn’t matter to the law – and, I argue, to the people – whether the unconstitutionality involves brutality and murders of the past. Or the hostage-taking and torture of politicians by holier-than-thou bureaucrats of the present. Mujib and Zia were dealt with unconstitutionally and I doubt the good people of the DS-CTG camp applaud that or the resultant complications that haunt us to this day. Bloggers like Mash have been pointing this out since January 12th, and I confess that it took some time before I came to a similar realization.

So why are they silent, complicit or active at further unconstitutionality?

It’s a fallacy of bhodrolokes in the DS-CTG camp that they underestimate the “ordinary people”. They think that our people see only the surface of events without noting their deeper significance. They have no idea about such difficult phrases/ideas as “due process” and “constitutionality”. Inherently, we all have an idea about these things. In the long run, only those who advocate (or are seen to advocate) fairness and consistency who are going to win out. The BNP-camp is the one that’s doing it right now. Not their opponents.

Which is a pity, for the Daily Star was a good paper for a while there while Moudud ran amok. As a friend of mine far, far more experienced in the ways of Bangladeshi politics said soon after 1/11: “Where you stand today will determine how you’re perceived for the next decade or so.” The Daily Star people seem to be standing on the wrong side of history after getting it more or less right on a host of key issues for more than ten years.

A pity really.

Arif is free

Drishtipat and E-Bangladesh are reporting that cartoonist Arif has been released from his six month incarceration. This blog promised to highlight his plight until justice was done. We now thank all those who helped Arif in his struggle: other bloggers, letter writers, petitioners, and most of all, Barrister Sara Hossain and her team. When the issue moved off the headlines, Sara and her team kept on fighting the lonely legal battles. This blog also notes the cowardice of our major editors, who disowned Arif in his hour of need, and who refused to publish any op-ed on the issue. And finally, we wish Arif well for his life ahead.

The Irony of Being Naya Diganta

As Jyoti bhai pointed out, Naya Diganta was one of the few papers to carry the news about the torture report issued by HRW. I have already discussed certain aspects of the interrogations transcripts. Yet another that obviously caught my attention was the almost exclusive focus on India throughout. I don’t know if this was a solely a scare-tactic or whether the intelligence agencies really believe that one, and ONLY one country out there mean us any harm and everyone else is a সাধু. I sincerely hope it’s the former.

But even if it was a scare tactic, what enables this sort of tactic in the first place? A disproportionately large fear of India within our populace, stroked by the communally-charged elders, certain political forces, a parochial and outdated foreign policy (if one can call it that) community, and the media. Naya Diganta, while focusing on certain very worthwhile India-related stories, does run others that make it seem like a card-carrying member of this sort of baseless India-bashing group. Which ironically enables the very torture on suspicion that it has run a story about! Are these guys so dumb that they don’t see the irony?

At the risk of repetition: there is nothing wrong with a focus on India. My beef is with an exclusive, wrong-headed focus, not cool-headed analysis. I have previously described the latter attitude as that of a foreign-policy hawk, and the former as that of dodos. It seems that in Bangladeshi foreign policy circles, we have don’t have hawks and doves, but instead are blessed with do-nothings or dodos.

I’m not quite sure where to put Naya Diganta in that category. When I see ND reporting on how the civil aviation delegation might have sold us out during negotiations in Delhi – the civil aviation secretary was made OSD on return – my heart warms up. (New Age had a similar report). That is an instance of keeping people informed about the relevant points and people, thus adopting a tough stance vis a vis India.

However, a few days previously, I had seen this absolutely incredible report on how apparently there was a vast আন্তরজাতিক চক্র (International Conspiracy with a capital I and C) led by none other than that Ancient and All-Powerful Secret Cabal, the Indian Thread Makers! This Secret Cabal is apparently in control of some NGO in UK which has managed to convince major retailers like Marks and Spencer’s not to buy from Bangladeshi suppliers if they use Uzbeki cotton. Of course, I am tempted to ask why the Indian government is so stupid as to let a bunch of thread-makers disturb their diplomatic ties with a country that is increasingly becoming a major regional supplier of gas even as India is becoming ever more energy-hungry, but such questions are more likely to fall on deaf ears. Worse, they can get me in trouble with the (lack of) intelligence services for harbouring “pro-Indian” sentiments!

I understand that ND does not like the current government. Nor do they like India or Daily Star journalists who talk openly about Jamaat’s connections to religiously-inspired violence in Bangladesh. (It is said that ND is backed by Jamaat-leaning individuals; I’m also told that it gives space in its monthly magazine to some staunch left-leaning “secularists”, and not just Farhad Mazhar!). So the irony of these two reports within the span of a week is simply laughable. Or is it simply the cynicism of using a more helpless adversary like a tortured journalist to get a bigger fish, like the current government?

Lastly, at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, let me say once more: if crying “wolf” becomes the national pastime, you will have a desensitized, disbelieving population that really doesn’t care about TRUE stories of being pushed around by its bigger neighbor to the east. And if that happens, there is clearly only one winner: India.

Tip to Naya Diganta: stick to facts. Leave the conspiracy theories for the fools who fall for them.

Professor Muzaffer Ahmed and our Farce-Perception Index

Professor Muzaffer Ahmed was awarded the Ekushey Padak this year. This blog congratulates him on that.

His work with TIB has managed to publicise more allegations, appearances and perceptions of corruption more effectively than opposition political parties sitting in the highest political body of the land or media dinosaurs sitting in their offices.

Indeed, so damning are these allegations that they have managed to put about a hundred plus people behind bars, but not on any evidence of corruption which is admissible in a court of law. Finding evidence of corruption after all seems not to be TIB’s job. They seem concerned more with the perception of corruption than with evidence of corruption itself. Which might just be thematically appropriate. He is after all receiving the Ekushey Padak from a government whose members are concerned more with the perception of prosperity, rule of law, and democracy rather than any evidence of it; and in choosing a man whose contribution to society is more in the perception of a select few rather than in the evidence of benefit to the general masses, this government seems to have remained true to its nature.

The perception of corruption seems to have gone down since that perception-changing, paradigm-challenging, simply, absolutely, unquestionably wicked awesome and generally kickass day which has become enshrined in our vocabulary as 1/11. Those three 1’s separated by that angular line are unavoidable nowadays, turning up like the name/title/portraits of a Bengali/Bangladeshi nationalist leader during their respective party’s rule.

Yes, 1/11 seems to have brought about seismic changes in Bangladeshi politics.

Suddenly, we have all these people with PhDs coming out of the woodworks to join politics without a single thought to building support bases amongst the general population, generally regarded as a prerequisite to successful political participation in a democracy.

Suddenly, Dr. Kamal “Jowls of Steel” Hussein is electable again.

Suddenly, we are no longer sure if Hannan “অসহায় মানব” Shah is a real person or a Monopoly™ token which is repeatedly landing on the “Go to Jail” spot.

Suddenly, Osmani look-alikes (our answer to Elvis impersonators) are being shoved down our throats with all the energy of a demented aunty force-feeding you on Eid day.

Suddenly, Canadians are thinking of invading Bangladesh, one human-rights lawyer at a time. “Today Bangladesh, tomorrow downtown Toronto…. Or maybe not!”

Most ominously, H.M. “িবশ্ব েবহায়া” Ershad is neither getting married nor divorced (nor estranged, sued, etc.) Do we really need further proof that some great cosmic change has come upon us?

You may argue that these are not seismic changes, but I say to you: don’t they appear to be seismic changes? My Political-Change-Perception Index (PoChaI) is tingling again! Massive changes are underway. I perceive it.

And it’s not just me! Muzaffer Ahmed’s PoChaI must be tingling as well. And I’m not saying that because he was awarded the Ekushey Padak. Governments have given awards even to their trenchant critics from the time of Shawkat Osman and Ayub Khan’s stormy exchange of mutual recognition in the 50’s. No, there is a better reason for us to think that Muzaffer Ahmed’s senses are not just tingling, but overloaded. A friend of mine tells me that a new book has been launched, a selection of the army chief’s speeches and writings. It was launched on 20 Feb, and apparently the TV channels could not get enough of it (I haven’t seen a newspaper item on it, so I leave readers to find their own links). Guess who was present and spoke on the book launch? Yep: one Dr. Muzaffer Ahmed. Blissfully oblivious that there is no greater corruption than corrupting a political system. Must be all that sensory overload.

Say, what do you call a man who can measures others’ perceptions of corruption but fails to perceive evidence of a conflict of interest in his own role as a public intellectual outspoken about corruption? An idiot or a sell-out? Whichever you say, you miss the important point: with that punjabi and shawl, he doesn’t appear to be either.

And what do you call a man who appears to have given his approval to attempts at subverting our nascent democracy in return for an award? Corruption? Maybe. But not the appearance of it. Perish the thought!

Is anyone else’s farce-perception index shooting up?After TIB is dead and buried, we will still need citizens’ organizations that monitor government corruption on behalf of the citizenry. With TIB’s glorious precedence – as exemplified by Muzaffer Ahmed in the glorious month of February– in pointing out the corruption of all governments with equal energy to guide us, can we possibly go wrong? I perceive not.