Post-modern Razakars
Shimul Chaudhury
I was born in post-1971 Bangladesh and started to be familiar with national politics and political debates in the late 1980s. The 1990s onwards has been the period of my political come-of-age. Throughout my whole political exposure and experience, I think I have heard the work 'razakar' more than any other terms as far as Bangladeshi politics is concerned. It is at times used as a tool to damage the reputation of rival political groups and as a swearing word during informal conversations. It is used both by educated and un-educated people alike, equally by professors and the street urchins. I have also heard renowned Bangladeshi university academics using the term in a manner which does not befit their status. In the West, children at schools are taught not to use bad language that includes swear words. However, in Bangladesh, with regard to using the term razakar, many educated gentries including university professors seem to bring themselves down to the vulgarity of streetscape. All these facts about the term 'razakar' make me most curious and persuade me to look at it critically.
My curiosity with the word razakar reached its climax on several occasions. On two such occasions, the name 'Jalil' has been at the centre of interest. The first Jalil is Major M A Jalil who bravely and fearlessly fought for the liberation of Bangladesh during the 1971 war of independence. That he was the commander of the ninth sector of the freedom fighters should amply point to his extraordinary contribution to the Bangladesh war of liberation. However, despite his glorious credentials as a freedom fighter and as a sector commander, he had to die with the 'taint' of being a razakar. My next climax of curiosity is very recent, and it involves the second Jalil. In September this year (2009), the former secretary general of Awami League, Abdul Jalil made known in the UK that the party had come to power through an 'understanding' and that the general election of 29 December 2008 was 'fake'. Few days after Jalil's disclosure, an Awami League rally in Sylhet branded him a 'razakar'.
Apart from the branding of these two Jalils as razakars, I have encountered many other incidents where people randomly call each other razakar. At students' dormitories at the universities in Bangladesh, if a student is regular in masjid and is not involved in antisocial and immoral activities, he takes the risk of being called a razakar. In public offices in Bangladesh, if an officer does not take bribe and stops his subordinates from the unethical practice, he may not be able to avoid the fate of being regarded as a razakar. Sometimes in everyday life, a morally clean person with Islamic leanings runs the risk of being called a razakar. My experiences with the term razakar may not agree with those of many people; but I believe no sensible person will deny that in Bangladesh many good people are being labeled as razakars irrespective of their roles in 1971. People who did not collaborate with the Pakistani army in 1971 and people who were born after 1971 are not necessarily immune to this derogatory term. These anomalies with the term razakar must make a person pause and think in order to get to the root of the issues involved in the contemporary politics of Bangladesh.
Actually, razakar is a Persian word and it means volunteer. However, during the liberation war of Bangladesh in 1971, a group of people aided the Pakistani army against the local freedom fighters, and they were known as razakars. But, current indiscriminate and bewilderingly misplaced use of the term has given it newer meanings in Bangladeshi politics. This will become clearer if we analyze the reasons why the two Jalils mentioned above were termed as razakar. Major M A Jalil became a razakar in the eyes of his opponents mainly for three reasons: 1) his dissociation from secular politics in Bangladesh, 2) his subsequent Islamic leanings, and 3) his writing and political stance against Indian hegemony. Later day Abdul Jalil was branded a razakar because of his criticism of his party Awami League, which implicitly suggests his anti-Indian sentiment as the party's affinity and close tie with India is common knowledge. Theoretically at least, the term razakar should be used to describe a Bangladeshi person who goes against the interest of Bangladesh. But, practically in the current political reality of Bangladesh, any person who goes against Indian interests is generally given the bad name of razakar. Thanks to a number of Bangladeshi newspapers with understood Indian inclination! If Sheikh Mujibur Rahman were alive today and maintained his usual anti-Indianism, he had every chance to be categorized as a razakar by the pro-Indian newspapers in Dhaka.
In 1971, people who collaborated with the Pakistani oppressors were called razakars. In post-1971 Bangladesh, Pakistan has become almost irrelevant. I have not met anybody expressing a desire to re-integrate with Pakistan. Bangladesh now has its new international enemies and neo-colonial masters. One enemy is obviously India, a country that helped Bangladesh become independent. However, although collaboration with foreign powers against the interest of the country is very much true today as it was in 1971, the neo-collaborators comfortably escape any derogatory terms like razakars. The neo-collaborators frequently use the term razakar to describe the erstwhile pro-Pakistani collaborators and to conceal their continuous anti-Bangladesh activities. I call this kind of people post-modern razakars. We should identify the following categories of people and associate them with the hated term razakar:
1) Those who keep quiet when the Indian BSF regularly kills Bangladeshis in the border region.
2) Those who keep quiet when Indian and Western diplomats in Dhaka interfere in our national politics.
3) Those who disregard the public and seek the help of foreign missions in Dhaka to go to power.
4) Those who keep quiet when India goes ahead with building the Tipai dam that will have disastrous consequences for the people of Bangladesh.
5) Those who keep quiet when Indian government and media give Bangladesh a bad name in the international arena.
6) Those who earn money in Bangladesh and spend it in India and other foreign countries.
7) Those who get their children educated at foreign universities and do not show any concern about the continuous degradation of education culture at the universities in Bangladesh.
8) Those who regularly visit Indian high commission to enjoy 'free' wine and remain silent about the trade imbalances and other unequal relations between Bangladesh and India.
9) Those who switch off Bangladeshi TV channels and spend their time watching Indian channels.
10) Those who are negligent about their duties in public offices and universities.
11) Those who take bribe and steal public money.
While collaboration with Pakistani army is a matter of the past which may not harm the national interest of Bangladesh any more, current collaboration with foreign powers is a reality and is destroying our motherland at an alarming rate. We should identify the post-modern razakars, isolate them and stop their anti-Bangladesh activities. Dear readers, you may know very well that post-modern razakars pronounce the term razakar more often, and that to conceal their anti-Bangladesh activities and divert out attention from down-to-earth issues. Chorer mar boro gola!
Shimul Chaudhury
e mAIL : honestdebater@yahoo.ca
http://newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidRecord=301388
My curiosity with the word razakar reached its climax on several occasions. On two such occasions, the name 'Jalil' has been at the centre of interest. The first Jalil is Major M A Jalil who bravely and fearlessly fought for the liberation of Bangladesh during the 1971 war of independence. That he was the commander of the ninth sector of the freedom fighters should amply point to his extraordinary contribution to the Bangladesh war of liberation. However, despite his glorious credentials as a freedom fighter and as a sector commander, he had to die with the 'taint' of being a razakar. My next climax of curiosity is very recent, and it involves the second Jalil. In September this year (2009), the former secretary general of Awami League, Abdul Jalil made known in the UK that the party had come to power through an 'understanding' and that the general election of 29 December 2008 was 'fake'. Few days after Jalil's disclosure, an Awami League rally in Sylhet branded him a 'razakar'.
Apart from the branding of these two Jalils as razakars, I have encountered many other incidents where people randomly call each other razakar. At students' dormitories at the universities in Bangladesh, if a student is regular in masjid and is not involved in antisocial and immoral activities, he takes the risk of being called a razakar. In public offices in Bangladesh, if an officer does not take bribe and stops his subordinates from the unethical practice, he may not be able to avoid the fate of being regarded as a razakar. Sometimes in everyday life, a morally clean person with Islamic leanings runs the risk of being called a razakar. My experiences with the term razakar may not agree with those of many people; but I believe no sensible person will deny that in Bangladesh many good people are being labeled as razakars irrespective of their roles in 1971. People who did not collaborate with the Pakistani army in 1971 and people who were born after 1971 are not necessarily immune to this derogatory term. These anomalies with the term razakar must make a person pause and think in order to get to the root of the issues involved in the contemporary politics of Bangladesh.
Actually, razakar is a Persian word and it means volunteer. However, during the liberation war of Bangladesh in 1971, a group of people aided the Pakistani army against the local freedom fighters, and they were known as razakars. But, current indiscriminate and bewilderingly misplaced use of the term has given it newer meanings in Bangladeshi politics. This will become clearer if we analyze the reasons why the two Jalils mentioned above were termed as razakar. Major M A Jalil became a razakar in the eyes of his opponents mainly for three reasons: 1) his dissociation from secular politics in Bangladesh, 2) his subsequent Islamic leanings, and 3) his writing and political stance against Indian hegemony. Later day Abdul Jalil was branded a razakar because of his criticism of his party Awami League, which implicitly suggests his anti-Indian sentiment as the party's affinity and close tie with India is common knowledge. Theoretically at least, the term razakar should be used to describe a Bangladeshi person who goes against the interest of Bangladesh. But, practically in the current political reality of Bangladesh, any person who goes against Indian interests is generally given the bad name of razakar. Thanks to a number of Bangladeshi newspapers with understood Indian inclination! If Sheikh Mujibur Rahman were alive today and maintained his usual anti-Indianism, he had every chance to be categorized as a razakar by the pro-Indian newspapers in Dhaka.
In 1971, people who collaborated with the Pakistani oppressors were called razakars. In post-1971 Bangladesh, Pakistan has become almost irrelevant. I have not met anybody expressing a desire to re-integrate with Pakistan. Bangladesh now has its new international enemies and neo-colonial masters. One enemy is obviously India, a country that helped Bangladesh become independent. However, although collaboration with foreign powers against the interest of the country is very much true today as it was in 1971, the neo-collaborators comfortably escape any derogatory terms like razakars. The neo-collaborators frequently use the term razakar to describe the erstwhile pro-Pakistani collaborators and to conceal their continuous anti-Bangladesh activities. I call this kind of people post-modern razakars. We should identify the following categories of people and associate them with the hated term razakar:
1) Those who keep quiet when the Indian BSF regularly kills Bangladeshis in the border region.
2) Those who keep quiet when Indian and Western diplomats in Dhaka interfere in our national politics.
3) Those who disregard the public and seek the help of foreign missions in Dhaka to go to power.
4) Those who keep quiet when India goes ahead with building the Tipai dam that will have disastrous consequences for the people of Bangladesh.
5) Those who keep quiet when Indian government and media give Bangladesh a bad name in the international arena.
6) Those who earn money in Bangladesh and spend it in India and other foreign countries.
7) Those who get their children educated at foreign universities and do not show any concern about the continuous degradation of education culture at the universities in Bangladesh.
8) Those who regularly visit Indian high commission to enjoy 'free' wine and remain silent about the trade imbalances and other unequal relations between Bangladesh and India.
9) Those who switch off Bangladeshi TV channels and spend their time watching Indian channels.
10) Those who are negligent about their duties in public offices and universities.
11) Those who take bribe and steal public money.
While collaboration with Pakistani army is a matter of the past which may not harm the national interest of Bangladesh any more, current collaboration with foreign powers is a reality and is destroying our motherland at an alarming rate. We should identify the post-modern razakars, isolate them and stop their anti-Bangladesh activities. Dear readers, you may know very well that post-modern razakars pronounce the term razakar more often, and that to conceal their anti-Bangladesh activities and divert out attention from down-to-earth issues. Chorer mar boro gola!
Shimul Chaudhury
e mAIL : honestdebater@yahoo.ca
http://newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidRecord=301388
__._,_.___
