On the law and order problem

The first, and so far only, opinion poll on the performance of Bangladesh’s current government’s performance found law and order to be the area of its greatest weakness.  That was in April.  Casual observation of the media — newspapers as well as TV news and talk shows — suggest the law and order has slided a lot further in the months since.  Anecdotal evidence from friends and family support the view.  Syeed Ahamed puts it this way:

Such social disorder contradicts the whole purpose of having a national government. Citizens elect a group of persons among themselves as the government of the country so that law and order is maintained. It is perceived as a “social contract” between the people and the government, implying that the people give up some rights to the government in order to receive social order. Most historical accounts suggest this as the reason of establishing states and affirm that the principal task of the government is to maintain law and order. Issues such as taxation, budget, development works, and poverty reduction came much later as other government duties.

And the government’s reaction — return of the ‘crossfire’ under a new name — suggests that it is taking the problem seriously. 

When one starts thinking about the issue, the following points/questions stand out:

1. Crossfires aka encounters aka gunfights aka extrajudicial killings are clear violation of Awami League’s election pledge.

2. It’s not even clear that we have a violent crimes problem that require such drastic measures.

3. The real law and order problem has no quick fix. 

কাঁটা তারের বেড়া

Once upon a time, it was Bangladesh that wanted to erect restrictions on travel to and from India.  In 1972, Bangladesh was adamant that the two country should have a visa system between them.  Back then, Bengali Muslim majority of the country feared that Hindus who migrated around partition would return en masse.  That wasn’t the only worry about India.  In the 1970s, most educated Bangladeshi feared an Indian takeover.

How things have changed.  In last year’s election, the centre-right BNP campaigned on ’saving the country’ from, among other things, Indian takeover.  Election results clearly showed, in the words of my friend Zafar Sobhan of Forum, that dog didn’t bite.  Bangladeshis are no longer that paranoid about India.

Across the border, things are probably different.  I say probably because I am not familiar with the Indian zeitgeist, and could be misreading things. 

But I say different when I read this statistic: each year, nearly 100 Bangladeshi nationals are killed by the Indian Border Security Forces (they kill a similar number of their own people along the border.  I say different when I watch a news report like this.  I say different because I see no discussion of this in the mainstream Indian media.  I say different because I see fingers pointed at alleged Bangladeshi connection when there is a terrorist incidence in India.

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? 

Some hard questions

The regular reader would know very well that my politics is not the same as Farhad Mazhar’s.  But Mr Mazhar is easily the best polemicist in Bangla.  And in the latest installment of his weekly column in the Daily Naya Diganta, he asks some very hard questions about the ‘questionable’ deaths we’re witnessing among the BDR men. 

The full article is here.  Over the fold, I have translated some of these questions.  I believe those questions are shared by everyone who believes in the fundamental right to life.  Here let me add a question of my own. 

Let me ask, why shouldn’t we hold the Prime Minister responsible for these ‘questionable’ deaths?

Dear Prime Minister, you have come to power with unprecedented mandate in independent Bangladesh.  You were faced with an unprecedented challange in late February.  With the full benefit of hindsight it is easy to question your decisions on those days.  Nothing is gained by taking that easy, and cheap, route and having that phoney debate about what you should have done. 

But why should you not be asked about these deaths now?  You promised that there wouldn’t be any extrajudicial killing under your watch.  Why should you not be reminded of that promise? 

Where does the buck stop?

A fight we can’t afford to lose

Last December, I attended the first event organised by a newly created Bangladesh Government agency whose creation was long demanded by progressive activists.  Not unexpectedly, the programme started a bit later than the scheduled time.  A fellow Drishtipat writer -and I were sipping tea in one corner when an elderly gentleman walked up to us and introduced himself.  I greeted him and introduced myself.  He returned my salaam, and completely ignoring my friend, walked away.  

I was totally taken aback.  My friend has extensive experience in the field, with field experience in places like Gaza, Afghanistan, and Nepal.  I was there only because another friend got me a pass.  But the gentleman completely ignored HER, as if SHE wasn’t even present.  My friend saw the reaction in my face, and said how this was nothing new to her.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised.  After all, that male chauvinism is deep rooted in Bangladeshi society was nothing new to me.  Imagine my surprise then to see the gentleman sitting in the stage, as the chairman of the agency that is supposed to fight precisely this sort of disdain for half the humanity! 

Airbrushing, personality cults, birthday thoughts

Had he lived, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman would have been 89 today.  I have never had much time for those quibbling over his contribution to the creation of Bangladesh.  One can play parlour games of ‘what ifs’ until the ocean rises to Dinajpur, but Mujib’s central place in our freedom struggle is undisputed.

Or it ought to be.  Sadly, for many in my generation, it hasn’t been that straightforward.  When I grew up, under martial law, Sheikh Mujib was never mentioned.  I recall one of my teachers, in the Air Force run Shaheen School, being heavily reprimanded by someone in uniform for referring to Bangabandhu during a school function.  I remember my father’s excitement when he came across an Indian magazine in Calcutta because the particular issue was banned in Bangladesh for running a cover story on Mujib (along with Indira Gandhi and ZA Bhutto).

Even though he had already been been dead for a decade, and even though the people ruling Bangladesh at that time has walways maintained an on-again-off-again relationship with his party, Mujib’s wagging finger still sent a shiver to the powers-that-be.  That’s why Mujib was being airbrushed out of history.

The youtube farce

Marxs is said to have quipped that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.  Farce is the word that came to my mind when I heard that the government has banned youtube in Bangladesh.  According to the officials, the ban is in national interest.   Retired brigadier general Zia Ahmed, now the chairman of the state telecommunication regulator BTRC, told BDnews24, “The government can take any decision to stop any activity that threatens national unity and integrity.” 

So, how exactly was the national unity threatened?  I am guessing this has something to do with the recording of a confidential meeting between the PM and army officers at Senakunjo on 1 March.  These recordings have been widely distributed over the net.  It has been printed by a number of newspapers.  The recordings should never have been leaked.  But it’s rather stupid to ban youtube (and esnips) because of the leak.  

The right approach would have been to find and punish those who leaked the recording.  Given our practicalities, perhaps the right approach couldn’t have been taken.  But the 2nd best approach would have been to ignore the recordings altogether.  The reader/listener can judge for themselves, but the impression I got from the recording was that the PM handled a very delicate situation extremely deftly.  Maybe I am in the fringes with that reaction.  But consider this.  For every person who heard the recording, there will be many more who will hear about the banning of youtube (which cannot be enforced anyway) and wonder what the government has to hide.  Simply ignoring the recording could actually work to the government’s political benefit.  Banning it, in addition to being a stupid policy decision, looks like bad politics.

Of course, it could be that the BTRC acted on its own without the government’s prompting.  If that is so, then the government cannot reverse the ban fast enough.  Again, the ban is a stupid policy decision that is also bad for the government politically.

Either way, the decision is a farce.  And what has this to do with history repeating?  Well, the first government to start banning things in Bangladesh was also a government with massive majority.  The tragedy was when its successors continued to ban things.  But banning youtube, that’s a farce.