[Reader-list] Smash Palace

[Naeem Mohaiemen]

My op-ed on the Baul statues came out in today's newspaper. Shuddha,
Jeebesh, Rahnuma Ahmed & Annu Jalais gave helpful feedback on draft.

Smash Palace
http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=61521

A cycle of outrage over baul statues has created many surprising and
dissonant coalitions: youngbloods (Charu Kala protests), musicians
(bauls and fusion bands), signifiers (wear a gamcha in support), and
shushil (umbrellas at National Museum). And diverse editorial tactics:
cowardly capitulation (Afsan Chowdhury, New Age, 20/10/08), stop it
before it's too late (Kamal Lohani, Janakantha, 21/10/08), king's men
(Hana Shams, Daily Star, 21/10/08), core heritage (Inam Ahmed, Prothom
Alo, 28/10/08), middle ages (Audity Falguny, Shamokal, 29/10/08),
Islam's tolerance tradition (Humayun Ahmed, Prothom Alo, 27/10/08).

Humayun Ahmed is worth studying, because the novelist presumes
exhaustive theology research is needed to settle the issue. Invoke
Byzantine painting of Mother Mary spared by the Prophet, Sheikh Sadi's
mazaar statue, paintings of animals preserved by Hazrat Omar, and IOJ
will retreat to their barracks. It is what Jeebesh Bagchi described in
the context of debates about Kashmiri Pandits as "the mistaken belief
that if you just keep piling up enough facts, the other side will be
stunned into silence." Theological debates, important as they are,
will not be sufficient to navigate a political conflict.

A few writers move to a quiet space and outline other elephants in the
room. Badruddin Umar (Shamokal, 28/10/08) asks why elder intellectuals
focus on a pawn and avoid naming state machinery. Rahnuma Ahmed (New
Age, 29/10/08) highlights how political forces have been targeted for
twenty months, with the exception of Jamaat e Islami and allied
"Islamist" forces. Finally, Faruq Wasif (Prothom Alo, 29/10/08) talks
about the convenient timing, providing maximum distraction from the
spider web of election 08.

Return for a moment to Audity Falguny's rhetoric of "middle ages"-- it
gets the outrage adrenalin pumping, but gets lost in the distraction
maze. Study closely Amini's press conference after the statues were
removed. Threatening destruction of "Awami League era" statues and
railing against Cantonment "Shikha Onirbaan", he plays the role of
charlatan. Even his use of the vernacular "Heida ami dekhi nai" (about
BNP-era statues) seems designed to tickle perceptions. A man who talks
like the Dhakaiya of jokes ("Korta aitasen na jaitasen?"), how can he
be a serious threat, right? How easy to ridicule, and forget the real
beneficiaries and puppet-masters.

In 2003, similar protests were the excuse for a willing government to
ban Ahmadiyya Muslim books. While filming that confrontation for my
project "Muslims or Heretics: My Camera Can Lie", I had a moment of
camera schizoprenia. In the rough cut of that film, there was grainy,
blurred footage of Khatme Nabuwat rallies, filmed from distant
rooftops. The impression was (on-screen and in my head) of ravenous
mobs that could only be filmed from a safe distance. Outside the cage,
as it were.

Returning to the project after a six-month gap, I started directly
filming rallies and found a jarring reality. "Shangbadik bhaya ashche"
they would shout, and part ways so I got the best vantage point for my
video. During one "Death to..." speech, I found my crowd shots
obstructed by ten press photographers, all gunning for the best angle
of angry faces before their filing deadlines. A BBC cameraman reached
up on stage and moved the microphone away from the mufti's face, to
get an unobstructed shot. No one blinked at this intervention by a
representative of the "imperialists" being masticated on stage. The
"fiery Islamist rally" is now a form of performance art, it needs that
BBC camera as oxygen. The audience is inside and outside borders, and
the international eye is often more critical-- without getting on an
"Enemies List", this politics cannot survive.

What we have is a two steps forward one step back, catch-and-release
"Islamist" project. These periodic fracases push the political debate
away from our real crisis of hyper-capitalist over-development twinned
with basic needs under-development. We move instead to a space of
polarized battles between the yin and yang of "Islam in danger" and
"The Islamists are coming". Every few months, a new bogey: Madrasa
students, Khatme Nabuwwat, Hizbut Tahrir, Islami Oikko Jote, Jagrata
Muslim Janata. Somewhere in an overseas think tank, yet another "Next
Afghanistan" report. All this can lead to the highly artificial
"consensus" opinion, inside government and among international
players, that some Islamist representative must be brought to the
national negotiating table. What a convenient setup: specter of
"radical Islamists" drives a fear-debate, and then the largest
Islamist party steps forward as "moderate Islamic" voice. Give us
enough seats, and we will control the Amini's.

December 2008 approaches with the denouement of "level playing field"
electoral math. Cartoons, statues, women's bill, everything can feed
into that equation. The myth of the "Islamist bloc" or "religious
sentiment" was used by state apparatus in 1977 and 1982 to bleed
secularism's body parts. 2008 is trying for a replay of that tired
script.

Perception brutalizes reality, and the dominant trope the state pushes
is of "Islamists" as ferocious warriors who can bring any government
to a standstill. Or that "militant Islamic" groups are about to take
over this country. This allows governments to maintain power and
security agencies to expand surveillance into every sector of citizen
life (Dhanmondi barbed wire barricades and body checks of young men at
11 pm). But where does the perception of a powerful "Islamic bloc"
come from? In history, the groups that actually posed strongest
street-based challenge to state power were Awami League in 1968-70,
JSD and Sarbahara Party in 1973-74, and University student led
bipartisan moha-jote of 1988-90.

Jeebesh Bagchi proposes a hard reboot: "In most cases the terms these
days are being set by people with extreme performative position and
acts. In India now, Modi has set the term around two axis - "State
terror as security" and "Development without Dissent." Now how do you
work through these axes? We need to think hard as to how to bypass or
steal away these conceptual frameworks."

We write and film and photograph and protest not to stop an "Islamist
threat", but to take control of the terms of the debate.To bring the
focus back to real political issues: the asphyxiated democracy
project, an end to security panic, and to the brutal daily absence of
roti-kapra-makan.

naeem.mohaiemen at gmail.com works on art & technology projects.


Background:
http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2008/10/19/baul-statue-protests/
http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2008/10/28/lalon-terror/