[Reader-list] Lalon & Terror: Re-configuring Political Map During Emergency

[Kshmendra Kaul]

Dear Shuddha
 
Thank you for the very informative comments on Bangladesh.
 
Before raising some points, I must admit that, before joining this List, my knowledge about Bangladesh was restricted to one of a general sort. Not surprisingly so for the general sort of a person' that I am. So I must thank this List for adding to it and provoking further interest in Bangladesh - especially guys like Naeem Mohaiemen and Shambhu Rehmat.
 
If not declaredly so in it's Constitution, the Islamic nature of Bangladesh is fairly well embedded in the Constitution. It is a 'default setting' which cannot be overridden in the present form of the Constitution.
 
"Present Form" of the Constitution is important is it not? That is what governs the lives of the citizens and defines how a country, any country, is percieved by the rest of the world in terms of the idealised principles meant for governing the country.
 
In the Indian Constitution for example the words "socialist" and "secular" got first added in the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment when India was governed by Indira Gandhi in 1976 under the"Emergency". Little different from it being a dictatorial regime. But the 'words' stayed on in the Constitution even with the restoration of Democratic norms. So, even if practice does not keep up with the idealised self-view (that any Constitution is), those 'words' are a part of what governs (or is meant to govern) the lives of Indians and how India will be percieved by the rest of the world in terms of the principles guiding it.
 
Same is the case with the "Islamic" character of Bangladesh, since the 'added' provisions have not been rescinded even if the provisions were added by Military Dictatorship under "Proclamation Order No 1 of 1977" (PO1 1977) and  'Eighth Amendment Act of 1988' (EAA 1988).
 
Between the 'intended' and the 'actualised' (by whichever means and at whatever stage) the latter provides the characteristics of the Constitution and the Laws derived from it. This is true of India or of Bangladesh or any other country. Jinnah's address to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan contains the finest of definitions of a "secular" country but that is not what Pakistan became.    
 
Yes, as you pointed out, there do not seem to be any Constitutional Disabilities specific for Non-Muslims. But there are many ambiguities which provide grey areas that can easily serve as fertile ground for such interpretative licence that will create disabling norms without contravening the Constitution. 
 
As an illustratively blunt example, let me point out the words " together with the principles derived from them" in the Article 8.1 that could extend to any domain the injunction of " absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah". (in the Fundamental Principles of State Policy). Shariah and Sunnah certainly can be seen as "principles derived from  ....absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah". Or at the very least that "Statues are Haraam, even if they are of Baul singers (Lalon or no Lalon)"   
 
You have already given some examples of ambiguities and other (introduced by dictators) 'Islamic' provisions, which are included in the points mentioned below, where I have given additional examples of the "Islamic embedment":
 
- Invocation for the Constitution : "BISMILLAH-AR-RAHIMAN-AR-RAHIM" (PO1 1977) 
 
- In the Preamble:  "Pledging that the high ideals of absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah, ......."
 
- Art 2A: "The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in the Republic." (EAA 1988) 
 
- (In Fundamental Principles) Art 8.1: "The principles of absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah, nationalism, democracy and socialism meaning economic and social justice, together with the principles derived from them as set out in this Part, shall constitute the fundamental principles of state policy." (PO1 1977) (KK-interpretative license)
 
- (In Fundamental Principles) Art 8.1A:  "Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah shall be the basis of all actions" (PO1 1977)
 
- Deletion of Art 12 dealing with "Secularism and Freedom of Religion" (PO1 1977)
 
- Art 25.2: "The State shall endeavour to consolidate, preserve and strengthen fraternal relations among Muslim countries based on Islamic solidarity" (KK- Islamised Foreign Policy)
 
To highlight the generousness of ambiguities and I daresay contradictions that have crept into the Constitution of Bangladesh, I must, while pointing out the "Islamic Embedment" provisions, also list the "Testifying to Secularism" provisions that have stayed on inspite of (PO1 1977) and  (EAA 1988):
 
Art 27: Equality before law - All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law
 
Art 28: Discrimination on grounds of religion, etc.
           1. The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race caste, sex or place of birth
           3. No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth be subjected to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to access to any place of public entertainment or resort, or admission to any educational institution.
 
Art 29.2: No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office in the service of the Republic.
 
Art 41: Freedom of religion
           1. every citizen has the right to profess, practice or propagate any religion; 
           2. every religious community or denomination has the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions
 
Incidentally, the system for amending the Constitution is quite straightforward though it does require a two-thirds assent vote. The 'sacrosant' provisions such as the Preamble and Fundamental Rights need for amending the two-thirds assent vote followed by a majority support in a general referendum.
 
It has been, if nothing else, a good opportunity for me to study the Constitution of Bangladesh.
 
Kshmendra


--- On Thu, 10/30/08, Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:

From: Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Lalon & Terror: Re-configuring Political Map During Emergency
To: kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com
Cc: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>, "Shambhu Rahmat" <shambhu.rahmat at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 1:25 AM


Bangladesh is not, strictly speaking, an 'Islamic' country. The official title of the state is - The Peoples Republic of Bangladesh. 


The post 'liberation' November 1972 constitution of Bangladesh made no mention of religion except to say that the state would not discriminate on the grounds of religion. It explicitly asserted that 'secularism' was to be seen as a guiding instrument of state policy. 


Islamic references were introduced into the constitution of Bangladesh during two periods of military dictatorship, First, under the reign of General Zia ur Rahman, an amendment to the Constitution  in 1977 removed the principle of secularism that had been enshrined in Part II: Fundamental State Policy, replacing it with "absolute trust and faith in Almighty Allah."  


Then, The Eighth Amendment of 1988, during the dictatorship of General Ershad, inserted Article 2A, affirming that "[t]he state religion of the Republic is Islam, but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in the republic." This is somewhat of an ambiguous contradiction, because while it states that the state religion is Islam, it also simultaneously does shies away from asserting that Islam has any de-facto primacy. 


Neither of these two amendments, however, has had popular democratic sanction, and both have been viewed as a negation of the founding principles of the liberation struggle which gave rise to Bangladesh. I am not a partisan of the secular Bengali Nationalism that inspired many during the liberation struggle, but I do know that the thousands of East Bengali Muslims, Hindus and others who willingly participated in that struggle did not do so in the belief that they were going to create an 'Islamic' Bengal. 


 It has been argued, not without reason, that they could have been introduced into the constitution, through the back door, as it were, only during periods of military dictatorship. The current situation in Bangladesh, where the Lalon statues can be removed, is also imaginable only within the context of a military dictatorship, dressed up as 'transitional' civilian power. Military dictators in Bangladesh have always had to give their particularly corrupt despotisms the gloss and shine of Islam. 


Despite both these amendments, Islamic law, the Sharia or the Sunnah are still not the primary sources of law in the legal system in Bangladesh, and no constitutional disabilities are attatched (unlike in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia or other Islamic states) to non Muslim citizens. Bangladesh continues to have a thriving 10% Hindu population, most of whom are wealthy, middle class and found in urban areas. Many of them have found and sought their own accommodations with corrupt military dictatorships. Durga Puja, for instance, continues to be observed with as much pomp and ostentation in Bangladesh as in neighbouring West Bengal. It is the Buddhist aboriginal minorities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and of course, Ahmediyas who have had to face real persecution in the name of Islam. 


Nothing in the constitution of Bangladesh prevents a non muslim from holding political office, including that of the head of the state or government. In practice, the legal position vis a vis Islam in Bangladesh is less special even in comparison to that of the Church of England in the United Kingdom, or the Dutch Reformed Church in the Netherlands. 


In practice, however, Bangladeshi politicians (of many varieties, and not only of the explicitly 'Islamist' parties) patronize Islamic fundamentalist goons exactly as their Indian counterparts patronize Hindu and Islamic fundamentalist goons in India. 



Nothing, to me makes the removal of the Lalon statue appear sensible. It would not have been the case had Bangladesh indeed been a full fledged Islamic state (which it is not) nor does it make sense in the context of the current token 'Islamic' window dressing that adorns the (some) Peoples' Republic of Bangladesh


best


Shuddha



On 29-Oct-08, at 6:40 PM, Kshmendra Kaul wrote:


Confining comments to the removal of the Baul Sculpture (whether it included or not the statue of Lalon Fakir)
 
Two weeks back, in a private mail, I had conveyed the following thoughts: 
 
""""""""  The rationale behind the demand for removal of the statues makes sense. The news report says that the statues are in the 'hajj camp' area of the Airport. That would sure be upsetting.
 
Bangladesh is an Islamic country so perhaps in any case, wherever it might be,  a 'public' statue can tend to be viewed as something forbidden lest it leads to deification. Pardon my ignorance, are there such 'public statues' in Bangladesh? I presume, if none others, there would be many of Bangbandhu and Nazrul 
 
I got introduced to Baul Music very late in my life. It is exquisitely soul-touching.
 
Maybe the Bauls, because of the roots, inspiration and content of their music are especially a 'sore point' cultural inheritance for the Islamists """""""""
 
That generally seems to be along the lines of the views reported of  Maulana Noor Hossain Noorani, Amir of Khatm-e-Nabuwat Andolon Bangladesh and Imam of Fayedabad mosque.
 
There have been wishful 'thought explorations' on this List and elsewhere in the public domain about "Union" between India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. That would neccessarily require some degree of seamless congruity in Laws spread across the three countries; not only Commercial Laws but Laws applicable to all aspects of the lives of the citizens.
 
Such a "Union" would also require one another important and critical change (in my opinion). Either India would have to declare itself a "Hindu" country or Bangladesh and Pakistan declare themselves as "Secular".
 
Kshmendra
 




--- On Wed, 10/29/08, Shambhu Rahmat <shambhu.rahmat at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Shambhu Rahmat <shambhu.rahmat at gmail.com>
Subject: [Reader-list] Lalon & Terror: Re-configuring Political Map During Emergency
To: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 1:14 AM


http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2008/10/28/lalon-terror/


>From Rahnuma Ahmed's analysis of Lalon Statue controversy & larger
"great game".


   1. 'No decision is taken without the army chief's consent,
that's
why we informed him,' said Maulana Noor Hossain Noorani. According to
reports, highup intelligence agency officials (DGFI, NSI) had mediated
contacts between the ruling party and the KN. He had met the DGFI
chief in Dhaka cantonment thrice, Noorani had thus boasted to Satkhira
reporters in 2005
   2. Twenty-two months later…with their respective parties in
shambles, thousands of party workers in prison, constitutional rights
suspended due to the state of emergency, economy in tatters, police
crack-downs on protests of garments workers, jute mill workers,
women's organisations and activists, on human chains against
increasing prices of essentials, the only two forces to have remained
unscathed are the Jamaat-e-Islami, and Muslim clerics, Islamic parties
and madrasa students
   3. The US government's role in not only contributing to the
situation, but in constituting the conditions that have given rise to
extremes, of being the extreme, is disregarded by many Bangladesh
scholars
   4. Pakistan, America's strong military ally, is now "on the
edge"
of ruin. Pakistani political analysts repeatedly warn Bangladeshis
that they see similar political patterns at work here: minusing
political leaders, militarisation, milbus, National Security Council
etc etc. Are we being set on America's flight path to greater power by
this unconstitutional, unrepresentative government, one which is more
accountable to western forces, than to us?


Lalon and Terror: Re-configuring the Nation's Political Map during
Emergency
by rahnuma ahmed (New Age, Oct 29, 2008)


Baul sculpture, and the nation's most powerful man


'No decision is taken without the army chief's consent, that's why
we
informed him,' said Maulana Noor Hossain Noorani, amir of Khatme
Nabuwat Andolon Bangladesh and imam of Fayedabad mosque, at a press
conference. `He didn't like the idea of setting up an idol either,
right in front of the airport, so close to the Haji camp. It was
removed at his initiative' (Prothom Alo, 17 October).


The `it' in question was a piece of sculpture, of five Baul mystics
and singers. Titled Unknown Bird in a Cage, it was being created in
front of Zia International Airport, Dhaka. Madrasa students and masjid
imams of adjoining areas were mobilised, Bimanbondor Golchottor Murti
Protirodh Committee (Committee to Resist Idols at Airport Roundabout)
was formed. A 24 hour ultimatum was given. The art work, nearly
seventy percent complete, was removed by employees of the Roads and
Highways Department, and Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh.


Artists, intellectuals, cultural activists, writers, teachers,
students, and many others have since continuously protested the
removal of the sculpture, both in Dhaka, and other cities and towns of
Bangladesh. They have demanded its restoration, have re-named the
roundabout Lalon Chottor, and accused the military-backed caretaker
government of capitulating, yet again, to the demands of Islamic
extremists, and forces opposing the 1971 war of liberation.


Soon after its removal, Fazlul Haq Amini, Chairman of a faction of
Islami Oikya Jote (IOJ) and amir of Islami Ain Bastabayan Committee
(IABC) said at a press conference, if an Islamic government comes to
power, all statues built by Sheikh Hasina's government (1996-2001)
will be demolished, since statues are `dangerously anti-Islamic'.
Eternal flames, Shikha Chironton (Liberation War Museum), and Shikha
Anirban (Dhaka Cantonment) will be extinguished. Paying respect to
fire is the same as worshipping fire.' What about statues built during
Khaleda Zia-led four party alliance government (of which he had been a
part). 'Where, which ones?' Rajshahi University campus was the prompt
reply. `Why didn't you raise these questions when you were in power?'
'We did, personally, but they didn't listen. We were used as stepping
stones.' Amini also demanded that the National Women Development
Policy 2008, shelved this year after protests by a section of Muslim
clerics and some Islamic parties, should be scrapped (Prothom Alo, 18
October).


Noorani and his followers demand, a haj minar should be built instead,
and the road should be re-named Haj road. 'Men from the administration
and the intelligence agencies,' he said at the press conference, `wore
off their shoes, they kept coming to us.' (Prothom Alo, 17 October).
Now where had I read of close contacts between Khatme Nabuwat and the
intelligence agencies?


I remembered. A Human Rights Watch report, Bangladesh: Breach of Faith
(2005) had stated that KN had close links to the ruling BNP through
the Jamaat-e-Islami and the IOJ, its coalition partners. I remembered
other things too. It was the same Noor Hossain Noorani who had said,
Tareq Zia, Senior Secretary General of the BNP, was their "Amir and
same-aged friend," and had threatened police officials saying Tareq
would directly intervene if Khatme Nabuwat's anti-Ahmadiya campaign
was obstructed. According to reports, highup intelligence agency
officials (DGFI, NSI) had mediated contacts between the ruling party
and the KN. He had met the DGFI chief in Dhaka cantonment thrice,
Noorani had thus boasted to Satkhira reporters in 2005, a statement
never publicly refuted by the intelligence agency (Tasneem Khalil, The
Prince of Bogra, Forum, April 2007, issue withdrawn, article available
on the internet).


What links does the present military-backed caretaker government, and
more so, its intelligence agencies, have with these extremist groups?
I cannot help but wonder. Is there more to what's happening than meets
the eye?


Other questions pop into my head. The Baul sculpture was not
advertised, as public art should be. No open competition, no
shortlisting, no selection panel. On the contrary, the contract seems
to have been awarded as a personal dispensation. The only condition
seems to have been that the sculptor must get-hold-of-a-sponsor. High
regard for public art, for Baul tradition, listed by the UNESCO as a
world cultural heritage, and for procedural matters. Particularly by a
government whose raison d'etre is establishing the rule of law, and
rooting out corruption.


Simplifying the present: from `1971′ to the `Talibanisation' of
Bangladesh


British historian Eric Hobsbawm terms what he calls the 'short
twentieth century', The Age of Extremes (1994). I can't help but
think, things seem to be getting more extreme in the twenty-first
century.


In his most recent book, On Empire. America, War and Global Supremacy
(2008), Hobsbawm traces the rise of American hegemony, the steadily
increasing world disorder in the context of rapidly growing
inequalities created by rampant free-market globalisation, the
American government's use of the threat of terrorism as an excuse for
unilateral deployment of its global power, the launching of wars of
aggression when it sees fit, and its absolute disregard of formerly
accepted international conventions.


The US government's role in not only contributing to the situation,
but in constituting the conditions that have given rise to extremes,
of being the extreme, is disregarded by many Bangladesh scholars,
whether at home or abroad. Most of these writings are atrociously
naive, exhibiting a theoretical incapacity to deal with questions of
global inequalities in power. Authors repeatedly portray American
power ― in whichever manifestation, whether economic or cultural,
military or ideological ― as being benign. Two images of Bangladesh
are juxtaposed against each other, a secular Bangladesh of the early
1970s, the fruit of Bangladesh's liberation struggle of 1971, and a
Talibanised Bangladesh of recent years. `National particularities' and
'the dynamics of domestic policies' are emphasised (undoubtedly
important), but inevitably at the cost of leaving the policies of US
empire-building efforts un-examined.


One instance is Maneeza Hossain, Senior Fellow at the Hudson
Institute, who, in her 60 page study of the growth of Islamism in
Bangladesh politics, tucks in a hurried mention of US' supply of
weaponry to Afghan jihadists, and moves on to call on the US to shake
off its `indifference' to Bangladesh, to use its 'good offices' to
help democratic forces within Bangladesh prevail (The Broken Pendulum.
Bangladesh's Swing to Radicalism, 2007).


Ali Riaz, who teaches at Illinois State University, author of God
Willing. The Politics of Islamism in Bangladesh (2004) provides
another instance. International reasons for the rise of militancy are
the Afghan war, internationalisation of resistance to Soviet
occupation, policies of so-called charitable organisations of the
Middle East and Persian Gulf, and (last, it would also seem, the
least) `American foreign policy'. A token mention showing utter
disregard towards 1,273,378 Iraqi deaths, caused by the invasion and
occupation. 1971 was genocidal, but so is the Iraq invasion. On a much
larger scale. Unconcerned, he goes on, policy circles in the US are
`apprehensive' about militancy in Bangladesh. Even now. The solution?
He advocates open debates, particularly between the intelligence
agencies and the political parties (Prothom Alo, 3 February 2008).


And then one comes across Farooq Sobhan who claims that president Bush
has 'taken pains' to convince Muslims that the war against terror is
not a war against Islam or a clash of civilizations (no, it's a crime
against humanity). Rather petulantly, he asks, why has Bangladesh, a
Muslim majority country, not figured prominently on the US 'list of
countries to be wooed and cultivated.' Further, he writes, "High on
the US agenda has been the issue of Bangladesh sending troops to
Iraq." Sending 'troops', like crates of banana, or tea? Surely,
there
are substantive issues ― of death and destruction of Iraqis and Iraq,
of war crimes ― involved.


Re-configuring Politics during Emergency


Creating a level playing field so that free and fair national
elections could be held, that's what the military-backed caretaker
government had promised. Twenty-two months later, after failed
attempts at minusing Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina, with their
respective parties in shambles, thousands of party workers in prison,
constitutional rights suspended due to the state of emergency, economy
in tatters, police crack-downs on protests of garments workers, jute
mill workers, women's organisations and activists, on human chains
against increasing prices of essentials, the only two forces to have
remained unscathed are the Jamaat-e-Islami, and Muslim clerics,
Islamic parties and madrasa students, those who protested against the
Women Development Policy, agitated for the removal of Baul sculptures,
recently caused havoc in the DU Vice Chancellor's office protesting
against newly-enforced admission requirements. Are these accidental,
or deliberate governmental moves? I cannot help but wonder.


Several western diplomats ― members of the infamous Tuesday Club,
particularly ambassadors from United States, Britain, Canada,
Australia, and the EU representative ― and also the UN Resident
Coordinator actively intervened in Bangladesh politics prior to 11
January 2007, in events that led to the emergence of the present
military-backed caretaker goverment. Renata Dessalien did so to
unheard degrees, leading to recent demands that the UN Resident
Coordinator be withdrawn.


In a week or so, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon arrives in
Dhaka, to see for himself electoral preparations, and extend support
for the government. A visit that has nothing to do with politics, we
are told. In the eyes of many observers, Ban is one of the most
pro-American secretaries general in it's 62-year history. He has
opposed calls for a swift US withdrawal from Iraq, and is committed to
a beefed-up UN presence in Baghdad. The UN staff committee has
protested Ban's decision saying it would `make the institution
complicit in an intractable US-made crisis' (Washington Post, 24
September 2007).


In the name of bringing 'beauty' to politics in Bangladesh, the
lineaments of political reconfiguration undertaken by this
military-backed caretaker government are becoming ominously clear:
mainstream political parties in shambles, Jamaat-e-Islami intact
(`democratic party,' Richard Boucher, US Assistant Secretary of State,
2006), Muslim clerics and Islamic forces re-emerging as a political
force under state patronage, and the exercise of rampant power by
western diplomats.


A beast in the guise of beauty? Time will tell.


On the Flight Path of American Power


I borrow the title from British-Pakistani historian Tariq Ali's coming
event: `Pakistan/Afghanistan: on the Flight Path of American Power,'
to be held at Toronto, November 14.


Seven years after the US led invasion, Pakistan, America's strong
military ally, is now "on the edge" of ruin. Pakistani political
analysts repeatedly warn Bangladeshis that they see similar political
patterns at work here: minusing political leaders, militarisation,
milbus, National Security Council etc etc. I do not think that an
Obama win will make any difference to the American flight path for
unilateral power. As atute political commentators point out, Obama and
McCain differ on domestic policies, not substantively on US foreign
policy. A couple of days ago, president Bush signed the highest
defense budget since World War II.


Maybe there should be an open public debate in Bangladesh, as Ali Riaz
proposes, but with a different agenda: are we being set on America's
flight path to greater power by this unconstitutional,
unrepresentative government, one which is more accountable to western
forces, than to us?


Drifting in cage and out again


Hark unknown bird does fly


Shackles of my heart


If my arms could entwine


With them I would thee bind


― Fakir Lalon Shah, "Khachar bhitor ochin pakhi,"


translation by Shahidul Alam.
_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in
the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list  
List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>






_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list  
List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>


Shuddhabrata Sengupta
The Sarai Programme at CSDS
Raqs Media Collective
shuddha at sarai.net
www.sarai.net
www.raqsmediacollective.net