As we enter the month of October, we seem poised to complete three years of government by coercion. The first quarter of the past three years starting from October 2006 was dominated by coercion of political violence. The following eight quarters starting from the infamous military intervention of January 11, 2007 consisted of coercion by the might of the armed personnel in uniform. The past three quarters of 2009 has been marked by the coercion of a civilian government claiming an absolute majority as a consequence of an election result that defies imagination and challenges credibility.
The advent of the rule by coercion that commenced in October 2006 was certainly not a novelty in Bangladesh. There are numerous schools of thought that can point fingers at when and how the concept of rule by coercion started in independent Bangladesh. Some are inclined to trace this back – perhaps, rightly so – to even the days of the erstwhile Pakistan. Yet others can trace the genesis of the rule by coercion to the colonial era of British India. Without engaging in any argument as to when this offensive phenomenon was introduced in our country, it is possibly fair to suggest that the emergence of the rule of coercion after a stretch of 15 years of government by consent must be attributed to the monumental failure of our political leadership. We could not recognise that 'in making the great experiment of governing people by consent rather than by coercion, it is not sufficient that the party in power should have a majority. It is just as necessary that the party in power does not outrage the minority.'
It is possible to engage in an animated argument as to whether it was the spirit of 'barbarity of tyrants' or the 'fatuity of idiots' that inspired the enactment of the 14th amendment of the constitution, by which the age Supreme Court judges was extended by an additional two years. The increase in the age of judges by itself was innocuous enough but the fact that an immediate past chief justice had been given the onerous responsibility of being the chief executive of an interim government for holding elections had made this enactment transparently suspect to partisan political objectives and invited the ire of all and sundry.
The policy decisions of the last three years in Bangladesh suggest that our policymaking process has been subverted to meet the wish list of a regional hegemony patronised by western powers that is petrified by the sheer thought of 'a hundred and fifty million Moslems on the loose.' It has been claimed by the military junta that interrupted constitutional government in January 2007 that it was the UN threat to terminate employment of Bangladeshi troops in UN peacekeeping operations that prompted it to intervene in the political process. This rationale invites two fundamental questions. First, whether the employment of Bangladeshi troops by the United Nations has been used as leverage by the superpowers in general or any 'omni-power' in particular. Second, whether the armed forces of Bangladesh have been transformed into a mercenary force, in the interests of a hegemony, designed to protect the territorial sovereignty of distant countries rather than its own.
The overt – often arrogant – and less than diplomatic activities of a 'quartet' of plenipotentiaries in Dhaka preceding the coup d'etat of January 2007 promoted the belief that these patron saints of democracy were instrumental in denying the people of this country the right of franchise for a long two years. The advocacy of this 'quartet' endorsing and defending the military junta who usurped political power in Bangladesh for two years suggests that the powers represented by this unholy 'quartet' had possibly orchestrated the military intervention for more than altruistic reasons. The pursuit of the policy priorities of the military junta by the succeeding Awami League government of the last nine months tends to confirm the belief that the government in power is committed to pursuing the course of action charted out three years ago.
It is grossly unfair to hold the AL government responsible for kowtowing to regional and international powers for its enthusiasm in giving a transit corridor to India or in its reluctance to take effective action in defining and defending our maritime boundaries. Encouraging the systematic destruction of institutions of the state that represent independent statehood quite naturally invites the question whether these attempts are part of the debt-servicing obligations for the 'good conduct' certification of the redoubtable elections of December 2008.
It is possible that Bangladesh might have had lost some earnings in foreign exchange if our armed forces employment by the UN for peacekeeping missions had been terminated. Compared to the foreign exchange earnings of our unskilled workers abroad, these earnings are a pittance. Perhaps the erosion of respect for our armed forces amongst the general public for its perceived role in the course of the two years of an ostensible 'caretaker government' cannot be quantified in dollars and cents. Even the liberal use of allegations of 'corruption' – described by Gibbon as 'the most infallible symptom of constitutional liberty' – failed to justify the seditious act of violating the constitution by a military brass whose ambitions far exceeded their competence.
The unfortunate tragedy is that the naïve and inept ambitions of a few tarnished the image of many. Passions of fury against these inept, corrupt and ambitious few draw the wrath of nationalists across the board who are even tempted to paraphrase Max Hoffmann's description of the British army in the First World War as 'Lions led by donkeys.' The armed forces as an institution are now being held accountable to public opinion for the avarice of some of its members. This state of affairs cannot be in the interest of Bangladesh as an independent nation. To a liberal Bengali, this charade of unfulfilled ambitions of an errant military junta may be a matter of nonchalance. But to a Bangladeshi nationalist, this disastrous loss of image of our armed forces maybe seen as a hegemonistic design to reduce our competence to mould our own destiny rather than an accident of history in a territory destined to be a vassal state of a regional power.
Having lost a father in unnatural circumstances in incarceration during an Awami League government, sympathy for anyone who has lost near and dear ones by violence because of political reasons is instinctive. That the prime minister of Bangladesh lost almost her whole family in violence deserves the sympathy of the entire nation and this violence deserves condemnation from all. There can be no debate on this issue. Nor can there be a debate on the extraordinary contributions of the late lamented Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to the creation of Bangladesh as an independent nation. His success in securing the withdrawal of occupation forces from the soil of Bangladesh on March 19, 1972 shall perhaps be remembered as the finest hour of his political career. The nation shall cherish this memory for posterities. Sadly, and perhaps not so mysteriously, the Awami League chooses to ignore this great milestone in the history of its own party.
Political parties, as competitors in the political arena, have their own respective burdens to bear. The sole responsibility – of imprisoning the people of Bangladesh under a one-party rule, throttling the throat of the media, letting loose a political paramilitary force (Rakkhi Bahini) on the people of Bangladesh, the physical elimination of political opponents – cannot be attributed to the late president alone. Indeed, it needs to be enquired as to what failures and inadequacies of his political colleagues and his party obliged him to embark upon a course of action that is contrary to his past political convictions. Having said that, the Awami League led by Sheikh Hasina has to determine whether it is ready to own the end of one-party rule and the dismantling of the Rakkhi Bahini.
This is especially important today as it is now commanding almost the same strength in parliament that was enjoyed in the first parliament of Bangladesh that enacted the amendment for one-party rule. Rumours are rife about a variety of constitutional amendments that the government is considering. Consequently, apprehensions are on the rise.
Remembering to forget the atrocities of General Moeen U Ahmed's 'caretaker government' is a transparent admission by the current Awami League government of owning the seditious acts of the military junta along with their civilian collaborators. The pursuit of the political agenda of the 1/11 bandits reinforces the perception that Sheikh Hasina's government is only a 'constitutional face' of General Moeen's regime committed to the same obligations that propelled his junta to power. The continued persecution of nationalist forces in all sections of society confirms the belief that the past nine months is only another phase of an administration that usurped power in January 2007.
The killing of over 50 army officers and the incarceration of almost 2,000 personnel of the Bangladesh Rifles has effectively destroyed the primary institution entrusted to be sentinels of our territorial sovereignty. One does not require the IQ of a rocket scientist to identify the chief beneficiary of this catastrophe. The marked lack of enthusiasm demonstrated by General Moeen and his cronies of January 11, 2007 in responding to the pleas of help by the army officers in Peelkhana on February 24, 2009 is a transparent fact witnessed by the whole nation. The negotiations with the rebels at the highest political level resembled the bargaining of the management with a labour union, generating questions as to the motive of the political government.
The insecurity of the inhabitants of the Chittagong Hill Tracts caused by the decision to withdraw security personnel from this insurgent-infested area has made the greater Chittagong district vulnerable. The strategic vulnerability of Chittagong that is connected to the trunk of Bangladesh by a 'chicken's neck' of only a few miles, flanked by India and the Bay of Bengal, seems to be inconsequential to the political strategists in Dhaka. The Chittagong Hill Tracts is a natural sanctuary for violent centrifugal forces of northeast India and can be a source of irritation to our hegemonistic neighbours and can provide excuses for ambitious incursions, a fact that seems to be conveniently ignored.
The Chittagong port, comparable to Danzig of Poland in the 2nd World War, is literally our only viable port, while it is the nearest access to the sea for the Seven Sisters (the seven states of northeast India). The appalling condition of the road between Chittagong and Dhaka – the only national highway – combined with the government's enthusiasm for an Asian Highway connecting various states of India through Bangladesh territory is possibly yet another indication as to the intentions of the past three years rule of General Moeen and his successive cohorts.
The government's liberal 'understanding' of the Indian government's intention to build a dam at Tipaimukh, which is perceived by the nation as a national ecological disaster, projects the impression that the government is more concerned to address the interests of our all-encompassing neighbour rather than the interests of its own citizens. The marked reluctance to establish the claim of our maritime boundaries also seems consistent with this policy.
Three years ago, the nationalists of this country were condemned publicly for corruption, incompetence, failing law and order situation, rise of terrorism, politicisation of the bureaucracy, shortage of power, shortage of gas. The bandits of January 2007 spent hundreds of crores in a media blitz to prove their allegations. They spent hundreds of crores of taxpayers' money to project themselves as competent and honest saviours of the nation. In less than a year, this 'beacon light to marooned humanity', their expertise in Rwanda, Ivory Coast and Congo failed to make any headway in resolving national issues. On the contrary, they exposed themselves as less than honest, inept and incapable of responding to national needs.
It became obvious that the only escape was the election of a government that would pursue the same goals designed by their international sponsors and that would provide it indemnity from prosecution. This brought about a well-engineered 'election' – where coercion rather than competence must claim credit – which presented Bangladesh with an elected government with Sheikh Hasina as the prime minister. The certificates of 'good conduct' for the elections were effusive by the international sponsors of General Moeen and his January 2007 adventure.
It is just about three years that our honourable prime minister lauded General Moeen's adventure as 'God's latest gift to mankind' by claiming that the 1/11 government was a product of her own political movement. Since then, the nation has found no reason to challenge her claim then, nor the popular perception that her government today is a continuation of the same government under a different guise. In the last three years, we have not seen any increase in the capacity of power generation or any increase in the supply of natural gas. Prices of essentials are on the rise – suppliers claiming that they are prey to rent seekers. Law and order situation is at its ebb. Incompetence in the administration reigns supreme. Politicisation of the administration has achieved new dimensions.
The 'rule of law' has been redefined. Persecution of political opponents is the order of the day. Rent seeking activities has become all pervasive – to the point that government ministers are publicly acknowledging it. Political rhetoric of coercion is at its height of articulation. Security forces are working at cross purposes. The territorial boundaries of the country are being patrolled by sentries with batons as weapons. Heightened security for VIPs is in vogue. Prevailing conditions remind us of Shakespeare in Hamlet, 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.'
Cynics, such as Inge, define a nation as a society united by a delusion about its ancestry and by a common hatred of its neighbours. Persistent challenges to our national pride and recurring insults to our nationalism may force us to be reduced to this pathetic definition of nationhood. It is not in the interest of this nation of 150 million people to be projected as such. We wish to stand up with our heads held high as an independent people in the comity of nations, boldly protecting the interests of our people without being represented as being malicious to neighbours – near or distant.
That we are Muslims is a matter of pride and we have no desire to capitulate to threats of being branded as terrorists because of our faith in Allah and the prophet (pbuh). We wish to contribute to international peace but not at the cost of undermining our own national institutions. We support the territorial sovereignty of other nations but cannot afford to defend them at the cost of leaving our own territories vulnerable. We would like to practise democracy and representative government and welcome the support of the international community but we cannot allow the sections of the international community to hold us to ransom for their approbation in our strictly domestic concerns. We are a nation striving with remarkable resilience to shape our own destiny. Any attempts to thwart us from this goal would be met with resistance.
Patience with despair has its limits. Rhetoric of hope has a rather short life of credulity. Prejudice has its own bounds of tolerance, while pride has longer endurance. Injury has its recovery period but insult persists. We cannot, and indeed must not, allow despair to reach desperation. The means of desperation are rarely just, while the ends of desperation do not always provide deliverance from despair. Our maturity encourages us to recognise William Blake's couplet:
The errors of a wise man make your rule, Rather than the perfections of a fool.