Rakib Khan’s Blog

The welcome talk proposed between the two former lady Prime Ministers of Bangladesh, shied away for decades from each other, sitting across a table, if at all held, is not that easy to go by smoothly as some are talking about that could be.
The first boggling issue is that the sharp difference between the two celebrities is nothing personal. The gap is contrarily not only very much critical but also irreconcilable. One’s birth and survival is another’s fear for liquidation. One was born when the other died in the aftermath of the mid 1975 revolutionary changes of political power of the State of Bangladesh, and all those mattered for the changes, particularly of the 15th August 1975 revolution born in the successful army coup d’etat. The BNP would not have been born had there been no 15th August occurrence for the 7th November army-people popular uprising that ultimately gave birth to the BNP only as a run of events following the 15th August. Possibly as the obvious alternative, the freedom loving people of Bangladesh would have still today enjoy the unpalatable bitter taste of another Fidel Castro here at best likely to be replaced by a junior Castro!
The second point derives from the first issue in that though both were drawn into politics to lead the two big parties from being housewives primarily as accidents of history, one inherited the multi-party democratic legacy out of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the Republic fully legalizing not only the 15th August change but also replacing the Secularism of the earlier BAKSAL to Islamic goal, and further bringing to a happy end of the other who happened to be attitudinally fascists that the people very painfully bore for five years in the recent past during 1996-2001, that further fortunately was brought to the other happy end in the 2001 October poll. The alternative would have likely been pre-1975 BAKSAL syndrome once again for reprisal killings like of Seraj Sikder, ‘ten for one’, etc.!
None in right sense must expect these basic differences wither away by a soft touch of the Aladin’s magic lamp sitting face to face right across the table. It is thus only reasonable to expect that there is no point to go wild in exuberance of high pitch emotion but may first fix up pre-agreed agenda for the proposed talk. The only agenda should be to ensure full participation for restoration of democratic government through the 18th December poll in full accompaniment of democratic norms free from muscle power and misuse of black money with open public pledge from both for full adherence to democratic norms and culture in their each and every day post election postures.

M.T. Hussain
Dhaka-1206
23 September 2006

At last the election date for the 9th Bangladesh Parliament was announced by the Chief Adviser of the Caretaker Government Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmad in a TV (Radio as well) address on the 20th September 2008 to be held on the 18th December this year followed by the Upazila or local government ones in two phases on the 24th and the 28th. The announcement of the date for the parliament election, in particular, has brought some positive and few negative reactions from quarters interested in the political matter of crucial national importance. I have specific reading on the issue.
Despite the harsh realities and suspense that ran for nearly two years since the end of 2006 that led now to the announcement of the date for the next parliament election, and despite some hope for reconciliation of scores between two major contending parties, the Jote and the Mahajote have been busy shaping naturally for their individual strategies with issue-based rhetoric likely to be popular in the perception of the people in distinctly divided groups, one or the other. To me the core dividing issues may fall into what our forefathers had in 1940s.
The anti-British movement for independence from the foreign shackle of the Raj though started soon after the British East India Company got hold of the independent Bengal, Bihar and Orissa in 1757 from Nawab Seraj Ud Daowla based at capital Murshidabad, it took nearly two centuries of long drawn struggle to rid the British off from the colonial control in 1947. The initial struggles for independence of the people in this country had neither been organizationally integrated nor been constitutionally lawful until the British Government based in London provided for the Indian Administrative Act of 1935. The first provincial election held under the Act in 1936 based on the separate electorate shaped perceptional difference and identity of the people of Bengal, in particular, for personalities like A.K. Fazlul Haq, Huseyn Shaheed Sohrawardy and Khawja Nazimuddin leading for long one decade the administration of Bengal as Premiers in turn, one after another, nothing acting in communal way but marginally promoting the Muslims who fell backward for nearly two centuries to come up gradually at per with the already advanced elite Hindu community who took all advantages of the English education, landed properties, learned vocations, professions, business etc. Such marginal promotional help for the disadvantaged Muslims, however, was unpalatable to the elite Hindus for they took such marginal favor as undue ones that they thought challenged their vested interests. As a result the Bengal Muslims had to think in terms of their own that brought the Muslim League in forefront and soon rose to the height of popularity. At one stage the KSP (KRISAK SRAMIK PROJA PARTY) stalwart AK Fazlul Haq had to leave KSP and took full allegiance and membership of the All India Muslim League. Thus Bengal got divided into two major communities, Hindus and Muslims. The 1946 election was fought by the Muslim League as a referendum for separate entity and an independent country comprising the Muslim majority areas of the British Indian provinces. The Muslims responded overwhelmingly for the idea set in the 1940 Lahore Resolution. Bengal was thus to become along with Assam an independent country in 1947. But the British and the Hindu vested interests represented by the Congress bombarded the issue just as they did in 1911 by forcing the British to agree to annul the new Muslim majority province of East Bengal and Assam created not to favor the Muslims but merely for administrative ease and expediency by the then British government, and that was ill perceived by the Calcutta (now Kolkata) based Hindu elite as a threat to their vested interests in economic and political matters. The unfortunate annulment had its reaction in permanent division leading to the partition of India in 1947 between the two major communities, Hindus and Muslims (See, Dr. Matiur Rahman, From Consultation to Confrontation: A Study of the Muslim League in British Indian Politics, 1906 -1912).
Following the 1946 election, the Congress stood to divide Bengal on the basis of regional Hindu- Muslim majority smaller units, West Bengal being Hindu majority districts from East Bengal being Muslim majority region. Sohrawardy and Abul Hashem along with a lone broad minded Hindu leader Sarat Bose opposed the division of Bengal. Not only this. They stood to keep Bengal united and independent of both Pakistan and India that were to realize soon. Though Muslim League President M A. Jinnah nodded Sohrawardi to go ahead for Independent Bengal (See H.V. Hodson, The Great Divide) but the Congress and the Hindu Mahasava opposed tooth and nail the proposed independent Greater Bengal. They mobilized Hindu public opinion for the division (Shila Sen, Muslim Politics in Bengal 1937-47 and Joya Chatterjee, Bengal Divided) that the British in their harakiri to leave their Raj here through announcing the 1947 3rd June Plan for division of British India into two units and grant independence to both as India and Pakistan. The vulnerable East Bengal thus had no option but to join the Federation of Pakistan in August 1947. The Congress and the Hindu Mahasava leaders Nehru, Patel, Shyma Prasad etc let the truncated and moth eaten East Bengal to join Pakistan that in their estimation would soon fail to continue like that and then be forced in no time to join the mother West Bengal and the Indian union sooner than latter (See, Nehru’s letter dated 23 May 1947 addressed to Ashrafuddin Chowdhury of Tipperah/Comilla Congress). The 1971 episode was mainly directed from their side to that end. But the heroic and freedom loving people of Bangladesh did successfully resist the pressure for the last four decades, despite enormous pressure and all round hegemony ( See, M.T. Hussain, Bangladesh: Victim of Black Propaganda, Intrigue and Indian Hegemony ) in terms of cultural intrusion from across the geographical border, economic dominance, flexing of muscles all along the border nearly 2,500 kms., throttling 53 river water flows in the upstream during lean season flouting all international norms and conventions ( See, M Rafiqul Islam, The Ganges Water Dispute) and releasing larger volumes down the rivers during rainy season causing recurring damages each year of billons of dollars (See, B.M Abbas, The Ganges Water Dispute, Leif Ohlsson, ed., Hydropolitics, and M.T. Hussain, India’s Farakka Barrage: Cold Blooded Murder of Bangladesh), keeping maritime boundary unsettled for four decades and keeping forcibly occupied the Talpatti (India’s New Moore) island of Bangladesh along the Hariabhanga river in the Bay of Bengal, etc.
The most unfortunate matter is that the issues mentioned above that remained unsettled and of life and death question for Bangladesh are only contested by the nationalist parties born or revived after the 1975 August/ November revolutions and hardly by others. It is thus reminiscent of the past failed history of 1905-11 of our forefathers, the 1946-47 evil machination of others against Bengal’s unity and independence, Delhi’s realization of hegemonic interests in the 1971 war, and now the clearly seen vicious scenario for appeasing the Indian hunger for absolute hegemony for what they dream for the utopia of AKHANDA BHARAT or re-establishing epical Ramrajya in the re-united India, if not in total reality but in essence, by the same group or the Mohajote in the upcoming 18th December general election of 2008. The patriotic nationalists Jote has thus to set clear positive strategies for the next poll to contain not only the hegemonic Indians but also effectively face up to their all time continuing lackeys and faithful of the Indian Central Intelligence Agency, the RAW, based in Bangladesh in various colors and shades.

M.T. Hussain
Dhaka-1206
22 September 2008

Now that Begum Khaleda Zia, a former Prime Minister of Bangladesh, is known to be nodded to sit down across a table with Sheikh Hasina, another former Prime Minister of the country, the latter has not as yet indicated anything positive in the matter, people have been making guesses somewhat wildly. Is it at all needed? Is it for any worth of ‘qualitative’ change of political culture in Bangladesh? Or is it only for waste of time and effort? Should the Caretaker Government (CG) venture at all for the task considered by many beyond their arena and scope?
It is appreciable that the CG Adviser Dr Hossain Z. Rahman had his or his CG colleagues’ pious wish in the issue for minimizing perceptional distance between the two most powerful leaders and women in the country. But pious wish hardly work always, particularly, in politics in developing countries having less developed democratic political culture. Zimbabwe looks like an exception but after it had hard toil of the African leaders, South African President Embeke in particular, for months for mutually agreeing to a power sharing deal known to have been signed today, the 15th September. Bangladesh is not certainly Zimbabwe having peculiar stumbling blocks not insignificant in calculus.
The first and foremost, to me, is the way the two came up to the position of leadership of their parties concerned. Sheikh Hasina was saddled to the leadership of the Awami League not only by her other party stalwarts in midst of grave internal crisis but also by initiative of Khaleda’s husband President Ziaur Rahman in early 1981. President Ziaur Rahman himself having had huge sympathy for Hasina being the daughter of Sheikh Mujib went all his way out to bring Hasina to Bangladesh from her self-exile in India then running for about six years. Reasons for General Zia’s seriousness in the matter could be seen both for reconciliation in internal politics as he did in many other issues, for example, repealing of the so-called Collaborators Act that remained controversial since its very inception in early 1972 for compulsive reasons in internal politics and for improving relation with India that went very sour and bitter since the historic toppling of Hasina’s father from the State power in Dhaka in August 1975. The junior Sheikh was brought to Dhaka from India by the government with both high security and honor, quite appreciably having had some sort of understanding that she would head the Awami League reformed for multi-party constitutional mode after the despised BAKSAL, her father had been heading in the latest format just before his fall. Unfortunately, in two weeks time of Hasina’s homecoming, President Zia was assassinated on the 30th May 1981 by some disgruntled army men, alleged to be well connected with the RAW or Indian central intelligence agency, Hasina was believed to be deeply connected for her being under the care and security of the same organization in the South Block of Delhi Secretariat for six years between mid August 1975 to early May 1981. Many people in the know here in Bangladesh tended to believe that she might have covert connection in the matter of assassination of Zia. Her attempt to flee the country on the day of assassination of the General and President Zia but for Security persons intervention she could not flee to India through Bangladesh’s Akhaura border, made people suspect more that she had been involved in the matter. One may recall her statement about Zia’s body exhumed from the Chittagong area (first grave) in most reprehensible term, ‘SHIAL KUTTER DEHO SILO KINA KE JANE’- who knows if the exhumed body was of jackal or dog. Such discourteousness remark might further lay some burden on her for Zia’s killing. The counter coups well known to be engineered by the RAW supported ones that followed the August 1975 coups leading to the victorious revolution that put Zia into power on the 7th November 1975 further provided some proofs that the RAW might have had some active role. These issues can not be unknown to them both that certainly affected their past relations in over two decades, and so their perceptions of each other in mutual dealings as of now.
The other issue that distances them from one another is the crucial question of ideological goal of the country. Hasina’s father Mujib in 1972 set the country on to attain secularism not of liberal one but of the Indian variety aimed to impose on people of all faiths and culture the belief in, what the Indian top intellectual and theoretician Balraj Modhak termed as ‘Indianization’, essentially of the epical and Vedic Indian variety. The post 1975 revolution that General Zia had to lead, though afterwards for only about six years, ditched the Indian brand of secularism not arbitrarily but through constitutional process and instead took to the path of Muslim nationalism for Bangladesh under the nomenclature of Bangladeshi nationalism thus abandoning the Bengali nationalism not only based on lone language but also divorced from value system of the overwhelming majority of the people of the country. There is hardly any meeting point between the two on this score. Neither Hasina has reconciled to the 1975 changes nor can Khaleda afford to abandon the 1975 basic changes in the Constitution of the country. Those who take these distinctly opposite divergences into something personal rivalry between two persons are rather naive.
Still another issue is that both inherit charisma of their dear ones, father and husband. But as distinct from Hasina, Khaleda had fought uncompromisingly to restore democracy all along just as she has been doing despite being in the latest tirade against herself and the family, but Hasina remained as an opportunist and an arrogant for power game in self aggrandizement not only in the past but also in the latest one as possibly many people can clearly see now that as if it is Hasina and Hasina alone and none else has any right to run the country having had misused the cult of the Senior Sheikh, no matter if that is still now acceptable to the overwhelming majority people of the country. Khaleda pursues contrarily, despite some lacuna and human frailties, a lofty ideal for open and free democracy for all people to benefit from that albeit her husband had set the country on to the right path in late 1970s.
One can as such be little optimistic from the past experience about the proposed dialogue that might turn very much into wasteful exercise in terms of time spent for and energy lost to bring the two to sit across the same table for any productive result. What is essentially needed of the CG as the first priority is to hold the parliament election immediately that is long overdue for nearly two years now. Let the people hope and pray that the fairly elected 9th parliament would better strengthen participatory democracy in the country through their benevolence. Let them compete for love of democratic culture of gentlemen and ladies in the next parliament.

Dr. M.T. Hussain
15 September, 2008

Ramzan in Dhaka begins this month, and the next few weeks are expected to be very enjoyable! Mosques all across Bangladesh will be overflowing with devotees as practicing and non-practicing Muslims alike will pray and celebrate Ramadan. Islamic organizations all across Dhaka will arrange programs and lessons in order to teach everyone about the Holy Quran. Children will enjoy their special Eid gift bags later this month that are filled with goodies and treats! The markets in Dhaka will be keeping the prices fair for the duration of the month, to make food and gift giving affordable to all Muslims.