WRT:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/49006
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/48988
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/48973
I have more to agree with the message by Dr. Zaman than the other
two though.
>>
What the cultism derives from ? Does this happen suddenly ? No. The bottom
line here is a true democratic culture that does not exist in Bangladesh.
<<
Cultism started with Mujibism and culminated in Baksal doctrine. The
bottom line is that democracy was nipped in the bud in 1975. And it
was not sudden, it was a gradual process between 1972-75
>>
They often forget or want to forget that Bangladeshi Army establishment
had been in power almost 16 years in Bangladesh
<<
Army as institution was not never in power for too long. A group pf
rebel army officers ran a parallel government in Bangabhaban headed by
Moshtaq between 8/1975 - 11/75. The main army command never accepted
their rule. So that cannot be called an army rule. After 11/75 the
army ran the nation for about a year and half. The it was Zia's BNP
that ruled between 1977 and 1981. it was civilian party. Zia never
involved the army after that in state matters. That may have been
the cause of his downfall as General Manzoor, a leftist ideolougue
wanted a sort of revolutionary command to rule Bangladesh and was
unhappy with Zia's civilianization of the government and is assumed
to be the main player behind Zia's assasination. Then after Ershshad'
s takeover it was a shortlived army rule before Ershad also formed
a civilian party and ruled Bangladesh as a civilian party chief. So
the direct state rule by army cannot be more than couple of years.
The fact that Zia or Ershad came from army hardly makes their rule
of Bangladesh by the civilian party formed by them a military rule.
Saying so would be as absurd as saying that the Mujib rule between
1972-76 was an Islamic rule because Mujib was a Muslim. They may have
had army support. But that is true for any head of state. The army is
supposed to be loyal to the prevalent head of state. Mujib was backed
by the army led by Gen Shafiullah during 1972-75. So Awami rule can
also be called an army backed government. So is the Awami rule of
1996-2000. The fact that they were not democratically elected is a
different matter. But it would be a fallacy to say that army ruled
Banglaesh for 16 years.
It is fashionable to make army the scapegoat for the utter failure
of the political system in Bangladesh which was brought about by the
political leaders themselves and their cohorts, and ultimately the
blame should go to the people electing them to power, assuming they
were elected fairly. It is intersting that AL accuses BNP of vote
rigging and vice versa. If both are right then who were the people
voting for truly, Jamat?(Shudder). Supporters of the mainstream
political parties would not own up their misdeeds and take
responsibility for the mess and thu they blame it all on the army.
>>
Zia was in power, he started the evil politics of breaking the main
stream parties and creating some domestic pet parties.
<<
Such remarks reveal intellectual bankruptcy. On one hand they would
clamour for multi-party democracy and then they would condemn forming
new parties. And pray tell what is a "domestic" party? Colonial
mindset still persists it seems. Which mainstream party did Zia
break? Awami league? Did we or do we have two Awami leagues then or
now ? And so what if a new party is formed from former members of
other parties. Is that undemocratic? "Thou shalt only have mainstream
parties and no new party should be formed" sounds like a dogma to me.
That was also the dogma of Baksal who only wanted one party, namely
Baksal. Democracy is a free market system. Anyone can join any party
and form any new party. We have seen what the AL and BNP had done to
Bangladesh. At a time when we need a third alternative, or a reformed
mainstream parties, the cynical people of Bangladesh have spurned Dr.
Yunus' effort to join politics and have also the spurned the
reformists in favour of the same old politics as usual of Khaleda and
Hasina. And now these people are complaining against formation of new
parties saying it is blessed by this power or that. So what do they
want? The loggi boitha wielding Awami goons, or the BNP plaunderers?,
each calling hartal after hartals when the other is in power? If so,
eventually people of Bangladesh will get what they deserve, A
Talebani style Islami fanatic rule by Jamat, IOJ, ICM, or KM, or a
dangerous mix of islamic and communist ideology by bodies like the
murderous Sarbahara party or some muatation of that.
>>
Now this military bureaucrats are involved in destroying our forest
wealth and other resources, thus selling the country-the purpose what
they were broght for by the foreign powers.
<<
Another example of naivette and intellectual bankruptcy. Seeing
foreign powers behind everything. Bhasani also used to accuse Mujib of
serving imperialist interests, as did JSD. Mujib in turn used to accuse
the leftist parties as being the stooges of Russians etc etc. It seems
like seeing foreign masters behind powers or persons they don't like
is ingrained in the mindset of these antillectuals.
>>..that the military is unlikely to be a heralder of a healthy
democracy, and that a military backed political system is a poor
substitute for a civilian multi-party democracy, however flawed
the latter may be.
<<
However flawed sounds like a dogma. What is better and what is
worse cannot be an absolute. It should all be based on pragmatism
and what is best should be decided in a given situation on a case
to case basis. When the civilian political parties engage in mayhem
and destruction and fight amongst each other like tribal societies
destroying public properties and innocent lives are lost in the
process, then that is not a flawed democracy, that is a primitive
tribal system. In such a situation insisting on or preferring status
quo over military backed political system, however flawless it may
be, smacks of a dogma. Of course it may be politically correct to tout
such dogmatic position. After all democracy is a noble princple and
military dictatortship is not. But such a clear digital divide does
not apply in Bangladesh where political parties do not believe in
or practice democracy. And who claimed that military was or has to
be heralder of democracy? Military has stepped in only after the
politicians have taken the nation to the brink of complete
lawlessness and anarchy and holding the entire nation under hostage,
disrupting public life. Military intervention becomes the only
option in such a situation. Antibiotics are supposed to kill the
bacteria, antibiotics are not supposed to be health food. That's
the analogy that is appropriate here. To have a "civilian multi-
party democracy" there has to be a civilized society and where the
main political parties are also civilized. In absence of either
there can never be a "civilian multi-party democracy". And in the
absence of either, the painful truth is that military intervention
is the only recourse to avert a complete breakdown and reversion to
tribal system of clashes. And a civilian government, military
backed or not led by technocrats and sensible people would then be
infinitely preferable to such tribal system od feuding politicians
by any objective criteria. Dr. Zaman has rightly pointed out the
raping of the constitution and democracy in 1975 by the Mujib
regime. The first murderer/raper of democracy in liberated
Bangladesh was not the military but the putative liberators if
Bangladesh.
>>
Then, there is a "democratic movement" led by the dysfunctional
politicians to overthrow the even more dysfunctional military
<<
One may ask the legitimate question: by what objective criteria is
the military (or military backed system like the current one) "more
dysfunctional" than the dysfunctional politicians? Dysfunctional may
be a kinder word to describe the political thugs who have ruled
Bangladesh, who should be characterized as criminal, not
dysfunctional.
We often hear the platitudes by many critics about "military being
responsible for this or that, military has ruined secularism" etc.
as typified by messages 48988 & 48973. The clamour in message 48988
that military has desecularized Bangladesh and subverted democracy
is a case in point. As pointed out by Dr. Zaman, it was not military
that raped constituition in 1975. The fact is that historically
military in BD has never subverterd democracy, military had
intervened only when democracy was subverted by politicians
themselves. Just because a government is civilian (not civilized
necessarily) that does not automatically make it a democratic one.
The glaring example being the 1975 Baksal regime. Regarding
desecularization, it was Ershad mainly who took it as a personal
agenda to islamize Bangladesh taking cue from Ziaul Huq of Pakistan.
It cannot be characterized as military de-secularization as much as
the the Baksali de-democratization in 1975 cannot be characterized
as the de-democratization by the Bangali nation, whom Awami league
was supposed to represent. Sheikh Mujib offered Bhutto a red carpet
reception in Dhaka in 1973 to gain his support in joining the OIC
(An Islamic organization). So by that token Bangladesh(meaning it's
people) itself embraced Bhutto, who is blamed more than anyone else
for the butchering of Bengalis in 1971. After all if Ershad's act
can be blamed on military then Mujib's acts can be blamed on Bangladesh
as a whole. It is more logical to do so as Bangladeshi people elected
Mujib. Military as a body do not elect their chief of staff.
Military chief like Ershad were political appointees. Military as an
institution has not been any less secular than the civilian society.
In fact during Pakistan military was more secular than the civilan
wing. It was the military court that issued death sentence to
Maududi in 1955 for fomenting anti Ahmedia sentiment. Military has
been historically very pro-western and secular. In Pakistan it was
Ziaul huq and in Bangladesh Ershad that tried to instil islamic
element into the civilian society as part of their personal
philosophy and agenda, and/or to satisfy the oil rich Islamic
countries, not as part of military doctrine or strategy.
Unfortunately that process by Ershad went on for so long that it has
made some changes irreversible, like making Friday a business
holiday, causing immense harm to the business (thus economy). But
most importantly how should one interpret desecularization(or
secularization). By mere symbolism or by the acts and policies that
have DIRECT impact on society? Zia's (Ziaur Rahman, not Ziaul Huq)
token sybolism of appending Bismillah in the constitution and
deleting the word secularism (unfortunate) and replacing it by
"religious freedom" did not cause any noticeabe change in the the
society as far as secularism is concerned. He rather pursued a
secular policy much like Kamal Ataturk, of whom he was a fan.
Policies like inducting women in police and encouraging sports for
women. No communal bigot refered to that amendment in the
constitution and and started to engage in any communal act or in
acts of religious bigotry following the amendment. I hasten to add
that such amendment was nevertheless very unfortunate, even though
it was done as desperate move by Zia to appease the oil rich
Sheikhdoms for much needed help during the oil crisis of the 70's. I
think that Mujib's act of embracing Bhutto and joining the OIC,
establishing Islamic Foundation, these had more direct and adverse
anti-secular effect on Bangladeshi society. Regarding actual acts of
communalism and and bigotry look at the Awami rule of 1996-2000.
Awami thugs had feasted on enemy property acts and usurped Hindu
properties. Mayer Dak of Kolkata did extensive coverage of
communalism during that time, so much so that Awami appointed BD
consulate in Kolkata demanded banning of Mayer Dak. And what about
Hasina? She openly criticized Hindus of Bangladesh as placing their
one foot in India and the other in Bangladesh. She had made a deal
with Jamat in 1994 just to defeat BNP. And to top it all she even
made a deal with the fascist communal party Khilafat Majlish in 2006
December. She had completed what Ershad left unfinished. Complete
madrasization of Bangladesh, boasting of having poured more money
for madrasa education than any other government. With all these
glorious record by the civilian leaders by the putative torch
bearers of secularism, it is laughable to accuse military of de-
secularization.
- JA
------------------------------------
*****************************************
Sign the Petition : Release the Arrested University Teachers Immediately : An Appeal to the Caretaker Government of Bangladesh
http://www.mukto-mona.com/human_rights/university_teachers_arrest.htm
*****************************************
Daily Star publishes an interview with Mukto-Mona
http://www.mukto-mona.com/news/daily_star/daily_star_MM.pdf
*****************************************
MM site is blocked in Islamic countries such as UAE. Members of those theocratic states, kindly use any proxy (such as http://proxy.org/) to access mukto-mona.
*****************************************
Mukto-Mona Celebrates 5th Anniversary
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/5_yrs_anniv/index.htm
*****************************************
Mukto-Mona Celebrates Earth Day:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/Earth_day2006/index.htm
*****************************************
Kansat Uprising : A Special Page from Mukto-Mona
http://www.mukto-mona.com/human_rights/kansat2006/members/
*****************************************
MM Project : Grand assembly of local freedom fighters at Raumari
http://www.mukto-mona.com/project/Roumari/freedom_fighters_union300306.htm
*****************************************
German Bangla Radio Interviews Mukto-Mona Members:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/Darwin_day/german_radio/
Mukto-Mona Celebrates Darwin Day:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/Darwin_day/index.htm
*****************************************
Some FAQ's about Mukto-Mona:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/new_site/mukto-mona/faq_mm.htm
****************************************************
VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/
****************************************************
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:mukto-mona-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:mukto-mona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mukto-mona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: