Dear Alochok Mohammed Haque
Nobody is afraid of Bangladesh. Period.
Do you think RAW, ISI and CIA invest a lot in Bangladesh? Forget it.
We are proud of providing great value for money to foreign interests.
Thanks for this very interesting piece. It contributes to the already
huge effort invested by people far cleverer than me in externalising
the viruses that are wrecking our national body.
If only half of this effort was aimed at AL and BNP - holding them
accountable, exposing them, challenging them and, please God,
reforming them, then we would be getting somewhere.
Historically, how difficult would it be to get an average MP onto the
payroll of ISI or RAW?
And whose fault is that? Some say ISI and RAW.
And I say BNP and AL.
Ezajur Rahman
Kuwait
--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, "Mohd. Haque" <haquetm83@...> wrote:
>
> Who is afraid of Bangladesh?
> The west is afraid that the Bangladeshis might vote to power the
party that may not be as responsive to their demands as they would
like. Demands meaning hunting terrorists, nurturing secularism, and
further opening up the economy, weakening the state in Bangladesh by
allowing foreign penetration of state institutions â€" financial,
organisational, ideological and otherwise, writes Anwara Begum
>
> ANYBODY afraid of Virginia Woolf? Probably not, she is dead; her
books could still scare control freaks though. It seems pretty much
everybody is afraid of Bangladesh or Bangladeshis. I can see the
reader frowning but I am sure s/he will agree with me a little later.
No matter how oppressed we feel, how persistently we are hounded, how
blatantly we are subjected to deprivation (with the help of our
parasitic elites) and how childishly our politics and economy are
disturbed, we are said to be the reason of fear. We arouse fear in
others who would love to see us ape them and become their carbon
copies (we can never be their equal but be only copies, subordinate,
dependent copies, so they can shape and reshape us like the creator).
Alas, copies are not real! We arouse fear on so many counts that most
Bangladeshis must be feeling that they are a curse (?) on the globe.
It is not just outsiders but also some forces inside Bangladesh with
strong linkages with
> outsiders who are afraid of us.
> But the truth is it is the dominant who suffer from or create
such a fear syndrome. The whites portray the blacks as muggers, drug
addicts, even murderers, and then fear them. The capitalist media
creates fear about the workers who thoughtlessly (?) go on strike and
create mayhem in the streets; the upper caste fears the lower caste
seeing it as dirty, ugly, and always scheming to break out of
control. Whole religions can be branded oppressive and their
followers feared as terrorists or potential terrorists. There is fear
created around the figure of the ‘criminal’ and ‘woman’. Such
fear is part of the strategy of constructing the dominated, the
marginal, or the oppressed as the ‘other’. It demonises them and
legitimises (and invites) strict control or repressive domination
over them. Ethno-linguistic minorities are subjected to such
dehumanisation, of course. Many references can be given on the issue
but I will just provide two: The Birth
> of Whiteness: Race and the Emergence of U.S. Cinema; edited by
Daniel Bernardi; Rutgers University Press, 1996; Ella Shohat and
Robert Stam, Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the Media;
Routledge, 1994.
>
> The west and India, the copycat
> LATELY everyone seems afraid of the probability that a fair
enough election might be held. What if a fair enough election is held
after all and the party you do not like comes to power? In other
words, what if the Bangladeshis vote for a party you do not like? I
have heard Bangladeshi analysts and observers express concerns that
election result engineering will take place in addition to some
electoral frauds.
> The west is afraid that the Bangladeshis might vote to power the
party that may not be as responsive to their demands as they would
like. Demands meaning hunting terrorists, nurturing secularism, and
further opening up the economy (as if the economy could be opened up
any further), weakening the state in Bangladesh (the state hardly got
a chance to form, really) by allowing foreign penetration of state
institutions â€" financial, organisational, ideological and
otherwise. These demands ensue from the old paradigm that produced
the failed policies against so-called Islamic terror, the devastating
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the horrific economic crisis
worldwide. Ask any average citizen of this country â€" a rickshaw-
wallah or a vendor â€" he would advise the west to take a deep breath
and a moment to ponder; the westerners played games with the world
and since they were the hegemon and messed up seriously with the
globe they need to control
> their interfering minds and hands.
> It is not just the west that is afraid of us but India as well.
India is afraid that Bangladesh is fast becoming a breeding ground of
terrorists without the Bangladeshis having any inkling of it! It is
afraid that the Bangladesh economy might try to be autonomous (and
who knows what will happen if the economy does develop and gains
autonomy?) unless it is swamped by Indian goods. So beggar thy poor
neighbour. We Bangladeshis seem to have a crooked collective mind as
well. That’s why we would love to destabilise (?) India by
protecting its separatist elements. Talk about blaming others for
one’s own policy failures!
> Average Indians do not get to watch our TV programmes; I wonder
if there is a fear that they might like and admire Bangladeshi
programmes. Some young people have told me that the Indian youth love
Bangladeshi band music and they don’t let visiting Bangladeshi
bands get off the stage. The average Indian citizen really would not
have any problem admiring Bangladesh. The problem lies with the
policymakers, the bureaucratic implementers, media high-ups, meaning
the Indian elites. There are other fears of course. One of them being
Bangladeshis playing havoc with the Indian economy just by a few of
them walking across the border into India!
> What do all these fears do? They create the penchant to
intervene in Bangladesh politics and economics just like a
traditional imperial power. I know some of my theoretical purist
readers would be annoyed and say ‘Come on! The Indians are non-
western, non-white people. How can they behave like the white
Europeans?’ I don’t want to answer the question directly. This is
a pity of course. India is a non-western and non-white power now. It
was a colony before. India has grown in power and economic ability
but has remained an obedient student of the old European (American)
world â€" the knowledge that world produced, the findings it spread,
the paradigms it used. About a year back, I asked my former teacher,
a famous American sinologist, if Chinese scholars were thinking about
alternative paradigms for international relations. He mentioned that
he was involved in preparation for a major seminar and found ideas
about alternative theoretical frameworks
> from potential Chinese participants. I am sure serious Indian
scholars have done work on ‘different’ ways of seeing inter-state
relations that would promote peace, cooperation, and reduce conflict
not only in our region but beyond it as well.
> It might sound like repeating a cliché but there has indeed
been a lot of progress in science and technology and globalisation
has created linkages that have brought countries closer.
Consequently, it seems, we all now live in glasshouses that are
fragile and vulnerable. Mutual respect and admiration may take us a
long way rather than wielding a big stick (that is used against the
black or the brown ‘other’). Too much faithful learning from our
former (and current, in my opinion) colonial masters simply cannot be
good for our socio-econo-political health. India being a non-western
emerging power has to reckon with this and try to offer some fresh
thinking rather than following word for word the old world’s
thinking on international relations forcing its neighbours to wish
they lived on a different planet. Some unlearning needs to take
place, indeed.
> Bangladeshis do not have any problems admiring India for its
economic progress and they are genuinely hurt to see Indians attacked
and dying. That is only normal. Bangladeshis also do not like India
to ignore our legitimate, elected leaders and gang up with western
powers to intervene in Bangladesh politics and economics with the aim
to control this country and choke off its democratic aspirations.
Bangladeshis are a wonderful people: talented, resilient, tolerant,
and brave. We have our indigenous secular trends. Those who know
Bangladeshis well would have a hard time believing that this country
could suddenly slip into the grasp of religious fundamentalists. So
much money has been scattered to create a discourse suggesting
religious fundamentalism is spreading in Bangladesh that one needs
real courage just to point out that it is practically/politically
impossible because of what I call ‘the identity construction’
efforts of our two major
> political parties, the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist
Party with solid blocks of followers, let alone the flexible nature
of Islam in Bangladesh.
>
> The army, bureaucracy and halo around them
> Fear is being instilled in the army and the bureaucracy about
their own country. It is difficult enough to establish
civilian/political supremacy over these two institutions even under
ideal circumstances (ask any scholar from developed or developing
countries). The British should know well; they produced the famous
sitcom ‘Yes, Minister’. It is even more difficult when foreign
forces directly access these institutions and woo them to see
Bangladeshis as violent, rowdy, unpredictable, and in need of strict
control.
> The state in this post-colonial society is in a formative phase.
The past two years, an alliance of the army, bureaucracy, civil
society elements, and foreign forces governed Bangladesh using a
suffocating, autocratic emergency rule. I am not a ‘decolonisation
believer’ and I do not believe that the Third World countries were
decolonised, the sacrifices of our nationalists notwithstanding. The
term post-colonial society is more for facilitating communication;
the developing countries are still colonised and often such
bureaucratic-military alliances are invoked to take over power and
discipline the people who are about to cross limits like unruly
children (?). It is very difficult for weak Third World states â€"
functioning, as they do, in an extremely harsh and militarised world
order which encourages strict domination and control over non-western
territories and non-Western people â€" to maintain civilian control
over the bureaucracy and
> military. The west, the US to be more specific, has used such
bureaucratic-military alliances to suppress and repress Third World
people on a regular basis. More often than not ravenous trans-
national capital has been a part of this alliance. The post-January
2007 Bangladesh shows the parasitic civil society has become an eager
partner. Historically, the army interventions have always had
civilian involvement. Some civilian quarters â€" conservative
politicians/capitalists fearing labour power, for instance â€"
invited the army, almost always with US backing.
> It is extremely important, for a country like Bangladesh, to
safeguard the integrity of state institutions like the bureaucracy
and the military and have civilian control over them. The political
parties must form a rock solid consensus on this issue. This is
needed for our own good as well as for the good of these
institutions. We do not have the luxury of being European countries
which can get economic help from the US and which did not have to
worry about their defence. I know, reader, Europe felt controlled by
the US during the cold war and the US did intervene in the internal
politics of European countries â€" in West Germany, for instance, in
the early 1960s, to isolate Chancellor Konrad Adenauer after the
treaty between West Germany and France was signed in January 1963.
Still, we do not call European countries developing or underdeveloped
countries, do we? Our journey to development is different in nature
and far more difficult, to be honest.
> The degree of elitism surrounding our bureaucracy and army is
nothing less than unhealthy. I call it the halo surrounding these
institutions which alienates them from the people of this country
whom they are supposed to serve and protect. The halo has to be
dismantled. These institutions need to reckon with the fact that
their higher education and training do not locate them on a pedestal
from which they can look down upon the average citizen and expect
reverence. Just like any other institution of this country they
belong to Bangladeshis and must learn to identify with the trials and
tribulations of the common people. A soldier or an army officer has
no reason to think that he has somehow acquired a special status.
Isn’t each and every citizen expected to make the supreme sacrifice
when his/her country is in danger? The average Bangladeshi is
fighting, struggling each and every moment of her/his life for
freedom, livelihood, and cultural
> independence and this struggle should not be seen as somewhat of a
lower quality compared to fighting wars or manning borders. And it
should be regarded with the utmost respect.
> We can hear fear expressed of the next parliament. This fear of
course is the disguised efforts to control the representatives. This
government has approved some one hundred and five ordinances and it
wants to talk about the approval of these with the two leaders. Why
such haste and why such tyrannical concerns about controlling the
parliament? I am sure the parliament, whichever party wins the
election, would like to consider the ordinances and then think about
approving them through open deliberation. If it thinks most of them
would be useful for the country it will pass them. This authoritarian
tendency to manipulate the parliament even before the election is
held is dangerous, to say the least. It will frustrate the efforts to
attain openness in the political system and will strengthen the
culture of secrecy. It challenges our efforts to institutionalise the
legislative process.
> The election should be fair and acceptable. The parties,
election commission, bureaucracy, and military need to do their level
best so an acceptable election is held and we can veer away from
uncertainty and destructive chaos. Can the media figure out a way of
playing a constructive role so any plan or efforts to subvert even
part of the election process can be uncovered? The foreign forces
have done enough of ‘playing God’ and messing up other people’s
political and economic systems; there has to be a stop. This severe
world economic crisis should point at their own limitations and
remind them that they, like us, are only human. It would be helpful
if they could make it understood to different forces that they
support a fair election and would respect the results.
> To all concerned: There is no need to be afraid of Bangladesh.
How about admiring it?
> Anwara Begum is a professor of political science at Chittagong
University New Age, 29.12.2008
>
>
>
>
>
> Get your preferred Email name!
> Now you can @ymail.com and @rocketmail.com.
> http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/aa/
>
------------------------------------
[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/