[Attachment(s) from subimal chakrabarty included below]
The first attachment is the hand-written 1972 BD constitution ornamented by Shilpacharya Zainul Abedin received from my friend MMR Jalal whose main passion is the history of the liberation movement of Bangladesh. The second one is an article by Farhad Bhai (controversial, yes, repeat, controversial Farhad Mazhar) received from my Ogrobeej colleague Chowdhury Salahuddin Mahmood. The first one is a sacred document that you may want to save for ever while the second one is a thought provoking article by one time revolutionary subsequently turned into a proponent of Bengali nationalism which is not complete without Islam as a component. My objective is to examine Farhad Bhai's article in the light of our original constitution.
Mazhar has referred to the 1971 April 10 Mujibnagar "Declaration of Independence" (mission is to establish a sovereign people's republic that will ensure equity, human dignity and social justice for all). The Declaration was probably drafted by top AL leaders including Tajuddin Ahmed. Any way, Farhad Bhai sees the four state principles viz. Nationalism (it is noteworthy that the principle has not been written as Bengali Nationalism), Socialism, Democracy, and Secularism as nothing but the reflection of narrow sectarian politics of AL. If you read the preamble of the original constitution carefully, you will see that while the Declaration of Independence was a general guideline for the emerging nation, the four state principles without contradicting the former have been more specific guidelines for the newly established country. Because of the nature of all the progressive movements including the 1952 language movement and 1971 liberation movement, the Nationalism principle became an inevitability for the constitution. But as has been argued by Mazhar, can the said Nationalism be interpreted as Bengali chauvinism? If we exclusively focus on Mujib's audacious remark ("Convert into Bengalis") aimed at the the people of Chittagong Hill Tracts, we will not fully understand the main spirit of the term. To have a better grasp of it, we have to read Article 9 with Article 23. Article 23 clearly calls for protection of cultural tradition and legacies of all layers of people. Although Bengali has been declared as the national language, it does not imply by any means that languages (and other cultural aspects) of the smaller ethnic groups and tribes will be suppressed. Rather the constitution vide Article 23 ensures promotion of the various cultures and traditions. [Personally I have problem even with the mildest form of nationalism in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, and multi-lingual state. But the reality is such that we see some sort of nationalism in every state in the world.]
Similarly as can be seen from the explanation, the principle of Socialism does imply gradual transition to socialism or communism, and Secularism does not imply irreligiousness. Nobody should have any problem with with the principle of Democracy.
Mazhar has correctly pointed out that the people of the Chittagong Hill Tracts did not want to be designated as Bengalis. But he is not right when he says that that is why they stood up in a bloody resistance. The bloody resistance was primarily against planned and forced settlement of Bengalis from the plains in the hills. He has not mentioned that Ziaur Rahman was the villain in this case. One of his generals told the hilly people that he wanted their land, not them. Even BNP was all along against the peace treaty that AL wanted to sign with the leaders of the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
It is really unfortunate that Farhad Bhai sees the organizers of the Shahbag movement merely as a bunch of coercive and blood thirsty vampires who do not have any respect for the judicial system. He has all along been intimately connected with the politics in Bangladesh. It should not be unknown to him who these convicts are and what they did in 1971. How can he ignore the painful and tragic memories of victims and relatives and friends of the victims of these collaborators? It would have rather made some sense if he accused that the verdicts were the results of AL-Jamat collusion aimed at isolation of BNP.
I am not sure how much respect Farhad Mazhar has for the original 1972 constitution according to which using religion for political purposes is forbidden. If 1972 constitution can be restored, Jamat will lose registration. But the case is totally different. He does not utter a single word against Jamat-e-Islam and Islamic Chhatra Shibir.
He very often complains that for the last forty years Bangladesh has witnessed a culture of hatred for Islam. He has never elaborated on his complaint. Personally I see this complaint as unsubstantial. I do not see any civil war between those who believe in Bengali nationalism and those who believe in Islam. Mazhar's compalint seems to be unfounded. He has also not mentioned the fact that a large section of the Ulema and musallis are against Jamat-e-Islam. He does not seem to accept the fact that all the agitations by Jamat and its allied groups are aimed at thwarting the trial of the war criminals.
Attachment(s) from subimal chakrabarty
2 of 2 File(s)
__._,_.___
