On secularism

Secularism is in fashion these days.  The Law Minister thinks that if the High Court verdict on the 5th Amendment to the constitution is upheld, we will revert to being a secular state.  But the Judge who issued the verdict specifically said:

Some of the areas that the court condones are closed-transactions. For instance, incorporation of Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim or resting trust on the Almighty Allah in the fifth amendment do not fall under the purview of illegality since the court feels that these could also have been done constitutionally.

So the Judge says Bismillah and trust on Allah stays in the consitution, and indeed the Law Minister assures everyone that the constitution will continue to begin with Bismillah.  And yet, this verdict is about secularism?

Secularism ki khay, na mathai dey?

Jokes aside, it’s about time we discuss these questions: What is secularism?  Why do we want it?  Why have we failed to achieve it? 

Watching the watchmen

Despite harrassments of individual journalists under elected governments, and notwithstanding serious attempts of censorship by the army-backed interim regime in 2007-08, the print and electronic media in Bangladesh is probably freer than in many other comparable countries.  But how fair are they?  When we read something in one of our major dailies, how confident can we be that they are telling the truth? 

I am not talking about the editorial bias here — a newspaper may very well have an ideological stance that will come through in its opinion and editorial pages.  But these biases shouldn’t affect the way front page news stories are reported.  One usually cannot tell the difference between the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal’s reports of a major news event, even though the two papers have vastly difference ideology.  Can we say the same for our newspapers?  

The recent back-to-back meetings by the Awami League and BNP at Paltan provides us with a good opportunity to check.  Both were the first major post-election public meetings with addresses from the leaders.  Both leaders spoke to their bases, with flourishing political rhetoric.  The factual reporting of the two events should be similar across our major newspapers.  

Are they?  You be the judge.

The White Tiger and us

I finished Aravind Adiga’s The White Tiger in two nights.  Let me begin with some quick observations. 

• The prose is very simple and crisp.  There is no Rushdiesque long sentences.  But it is still quite evocative. 
• Adiga describes poverty very accurately, but without sentimentalism or development porn.  I was reminded of Satyajit Ray’s movies. 
• However, unlike Ray’s rural movies — and very much like his urban movies — Adiga has a strong, albeit subtle, subversive tone.  I like subversion.
• I am never going to be able to look at a driver the same way again. 

I strongly recommend the book, and if you haven’t read it, you may wish to stop right here.  On the other hand, if you have read it, looking forward to your thoughts.