Who wants In an exclusive interview with PROBE, columnist and political thinker Farhad Mazhar says a section of the society wants to be with the US, another section with India and yet another with the Arabs. We need to determine who actually wants Interviewed by ANWAR PARVEZ HALIM The present government is termed "the government of change". Do you think the changes have begun? 'Din badal' is the script of a mobile company, the advertisement in the time of political decadence and signifies our slavery to transnational corporations and neoliberal ideologies undermining our national interests, security and sovereignty. Even the 'muktijuddho' ( war of liberation) has become a commodity to sell products and services of the companies. Watch advertisements in TVs by transnational companies. A paradoxical situation indeed, where transnational companies are dismantling the political, social and cultural structure of No one seems to know what "digital I certainly am not clear about what it means and our leadership in the government is equally unclear about the rhetoric they deploy for political gains. "Digital This government has swept to power with a brute majority. Surely the people have more expectations than ever from this government concerning development, good governance, peace and progress. This government has been brought through the process of January 11 events and their accession to power is not a surprise at all. Secondly, brute majority or not, nature of our Constitution is constitutional dictatorship of one person. The matter of votes is really irrelevant since the Constitution is basically undemocratic and anti-people and offers scope for dictatorial rule by the elected Prime Minister, a consequence of Article 70. Why should you have 'more' expectations. One may at best agree that it was a verdict against the four-party alliance. So it looks like the foreign quarters who planned the "minus two" formula have given up their endeavour in this regard? Why do you say "foreign quarters" only? Didn't our civil society want the "minus two" formula too? Didn't the civil society say that Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia are the only problems for There are some who believe the 1/11 formula is still on... It didn't start with 1/11, this is nothing new. The process to project What will the ultimate 'scene' of this political theatre? If there was a script already in place, you could talk about the last 'scene'. However, reality is that history is rife with accidents. One can never tell with certainty whether the people of The people elected this government with a vast majority of votes. Can we expect the government, then, to meet the people's expectations? Neither the present government nor BNP's represent the people's interests. You may criticise Awami League for being pro-Indian, and they obviously are politically but BNP was much more pro-Indian in terms of providing political benefit and creating conditions that has seriously undermined security issues of Now we have a new class of urban petty-bourgeoisie impressed by the More so because, the nationalist forces, if you are accustomed to think through such paradigm, in contrast to pro-Indian politics, is defeated. Just as in 1971 the left forces were defeated, now the nationalist forces who are to build up the state, defend the sovereignty, mobilise the masses to defend their national interests, motivate the entrepreneurs to build up a national economic base, strengthen national culture, etc, are defeated. Army has become 'denationalised' in serving international interests in peace missions. If you can not pay a mercenary, he will serve those who have dollars. This is very simple. While nationalists were supposed to build up soldiers with nationalist commitment and visions we have done the reverse. We, therefore, are paying very dearly. I am using the term 'national' in a positive sense and not narrow 'nationalism'. Ideally nationalist forces consider persons of all creed and colour or ethnic backgrounds, etc., to be citizens of the country. I am afraid, this political force, if there were any, has been diminished. My point is the present regime or the past regime – none of them can meet people's expectations. A new politics is a must for us to make an exit from this mess. The nationalist forces are all split and divided. There should have been two trends to represent nationalist politics. One is what we politically term as bourgeoisie that carries out activities in its own interests. The other is the radical left. Ziaur Rahman symbolised the revolutionary unity between the people and the army though November 7. But BNP couldn't catch on to this politics. They projected a politics of army versus Awami League. This is not working any more. They couldn't hold on to the people's politics and this resulted in a decline of nationalist forces in general and caused their own demise. We are facing the consequences today. During Awami League's rule, Rakkhi Bahini killed the leftist elements. But then again from Ziaur Rahman's time down to Khaleda Zia's rule, the Maoists, leftist leaders were also being finished off. Usually in the era of imperialism and fascism, on the other hand, it is the revolutionary left that develops the national imagination in a positive sense to unite the masses against the predatory imperialist powers and interests. It did not happen in But what about the other leftists? The left elements you see now are not leftists, even in a liberal reformist sense. They are just appendages of Awami League. They speak the language of George Bush, using terms like "fundamentalism", "terrorism", "war criminals", as if these are the only issues around. They have nothing to say about the economy or such important issues. They contest in the election under Sheikh Hasina using Awami symbol. How can you call them leftists? Again, we always hear about pro-liberation, secular forces as if other than them no one fought for independence... What is important is how we look at the 1971 Independence War. Those who call themselves pro-liberation forces think 1971 was a victory over Islam. The linguistic nationalism has been put forward against the Islam, which not merely theology, but culture of the majority of the people as well. But those outside of this sphere should have pointed out that the Bengali Muslims who weren't even considered to be Bengalis, had to lay down their lives in 1971 to prove they were Bengali. Instead, reacting against 'Bangalee nationalism' the contesting political parties from the opposite camp of Awami League allowed this to take a communal turn. Muslim identity prevailed over linguistic and cultural identity. This was a grave mistake. Unless we clearly understand the Muslims of Bengal had to pay with blood in 1971 to prove that they are Bangalee as well, we can not win the game. Islam has a secular effect on our culture. In the past we saw stories of gods and goddesses and mythology. Then with the advent of Islamic culture, there was the Arabian Nights, stories of Gule Bakawali, Saiful Mulk, etc. The sufis came to this land and secularism entered the scene with strong spiritual standing. Nationalists have ignored these elements and as a result a communal element has been introduced. Now let's come to the BDR incident. Two investigations were carried out – one by the government and the other by the army. The reports have been finalised but not made public officially. The media is releasing bits and pieces only. Is this intentionally being covered up or what motives are behind this? In From what I hear on TV, Awami League is saying that the bits of army report that have been revealed to the press are attempts to cover up the facts. So what is emerging here is a matter of the government report versus the army report. There is a big gap between the two. If that is so, this will lead to a serious political crisis. If they think that Awami League is involved in the BDR incident, the army officers might want to resolve the matter in one way or the other. But we don't know exactly what is in the report. We only hear bits here and there. We don't know the government report either. Things could lead to a big crisis here, a political trauma. We have been harmed by this incident, but what about our neighbouring country? Does it stand to gain, as some people claim? How have we been harmed? And what do you mean by "we"? "We" don't exist. We have proved time and again that we are not a political community yet and do not understand the political necessity of sovereign power to defend ourselves as a collective. We are divided people. You will have to solve this problem first. What about the army? Hasn't that been hit hard? Let's be very straight about it. Now, we have mercenaries, not soldiers with sense of dignity, honour and courage. We have denationalised the army the day we sent them to the peace missions. How can the army turn away from their constitutional duty following a letter from UNDP, in fear of not being sent on the UN peacekeeping missions? Where is their dignity? Look at BDR. They are changing their name, their uniforms, saying these uniforms are "stained with blood". What audacity! How can an army officer say that? What about the army killing two presidents? What about that uniform? And why shall we say that Now about the war criminal issue. The government has begun working on this, but Jamaat says it has no war criminals in its party. What do you say? If you want to try the war criminals, you have to bring in Is there a chance for the opposition to turn around and make a comeback? What is the "opposition"? This is a contest between two gangs of dacoits who come to power to plunder. Unless these elements are cleared away, nothing can move forward. It is our job to point this out. It is said that a US-India nexus has turned its sights towards Nothing could be darker than the darkness we plunged into at present. So what lies ahead in the future? We never had a present, so how can I say about the future? In the sense that we are not 'citizens' committed to defend the country and the collective interests. We are not aware yet of our own acts and opinions with full understanding of the implications. As citizens, we are all responsible. If you want to keep How to overcome this crisis? We must evaluate whether we actually want What about the masses? The masses are not taken into account. They do not exist in the kind of politics we are in right now. Whether it is the peasantry or the working class, they are not a part of this. But as I said, there are certain elements of chance, of contingencies, that may determine how these masses are going to act in the future. The contradictions, anarchy and lack of political directions had created objective situation for a change. I think radical intellectuals will have a major role to play. So the middle class is not the end of the answer. The middle class, the so called 'civil society' doesn't want Looking back, Bengali Muslims started getting educated in the 1920s. Before that they thought they were going to get back their Mughal empire. But when they woke up they found others becoming lawyers, doctors, etc and they became communal because they had to fight these new elite Hindus. They started searching for their Muslim identity. They started learning English. From 1920, in a matter of only 27 years, they succeeded in bringing forth Those who are seen in this "Islamic" category are being accused of being militants... That is a different issue. There is a broader global and regional strategy of those who have created the discourses on War against Terror and militancy should be judged in this context, good or bad. In general terms every group of political organisation, Islamic or otherwise, has the right to articulate their voice, and realise their goal. Look at Awami League, BNP or Jatiya Party – each and every one uses violence to establish their partisan goals. While you allow big parties to be violent you can not suppress militancy just because they have different politics. If we suppress them in the democratic process to articulate their ideology, they will obviously turn to militancy. When a state or society suppresses the voices of the 'other' the violence is already committed. The militancy is the response to the violence that has already been committed against those who want to speak, make their voices heard and reach the masses. Violence remains the only means to express their ideas. If we are serious about democracy, we must allow all voices to be heard and debated. Is there any place in society for the ultra-left or the "militants", to really articulate their causes in the so-called democracy? In the name of democracy, we have instituted a form of fascism. You are accepted to the so called civil society if you accept their norms, their discourses, their way of judging people, believing what their media blurbs all the time, etc. This is fascism. We subscribe to 'democracy' but do not allow any different opinion, isn't that paradoxical?
http://www.probenewsmagazine.com/index.php?index=2&contentId=5190 |
__._,_.___