Tag: Bangladesh MInorities

Bangladesh’s Secular Credentials At Stake

By Kunal Bose

The Muslims are in an overwhelming majority in Bangladesh. Their share in the country’s population of nearly 170 million is slightly over 91 per cent, the 2022 population and housing census says. At the same time, worryingly the percentage of minority population has continued to dip since the founding of the country in 1971 because of its persecution by fundamentalists, whose ranks are growing. Incidentally, the Hindus with 7.95 share of population are the largest of minorities that also include Buddhists, Christians and Ahmadiyyas.

Many in Bangladesh and outside are deeply anguished that even while secularism along with nationalism, democracy and socialism are the fundamental principles in the preamble of the Constitution, attacks on minorities continue to rise and violence perpetrators go unpunished. The earlier the new dispensation in Dhaka realises that remaining true to the fundamentals of secularism not only will create the right condition for a democratic and socialist society but the economy will also benefit immensely if all live in peace and harmony.

Five Indian states have a combined over 4,000 km long border with Bangladesh of which 916 km are still to be fenced facilitating illegal movements. The exodus threat of minorities, particularly the Hindus, will only grow if their persecution persists. And their natural destination remains India.

In any case much to its mortification, India today is surrounded by unfriendly, if not hostile, neighbours. Leave out the Himalayan kingdom Bhutan, which is more like Switzerland equally well disposed to every other nation, the rest of India’s other immediate neighbours having undergone regime changes in recent times have no love lost for the largest south Asian country.

The birth of Bangladesh ending the subjugation of Bengalis, their language, culture et al by an ever hostile and domineering Islamabad was a revolution with support from India. That country has come full circle with the dethroning of Sheikh Hasina that ended an unbroken 15-year rule by the Awami League.

The change in August came about through swelling street protests with students in the forefront. Their prime demand that reservation of jobs for the descendants of freedom fighters after all these years was beyond challenge. What, however, totally unacceptable was mob rule that saw ascendancy of Islamist forces that in no time torpedoed whatever remained of the secular character of Bangladesh. Image of the country got sullied in the process in the eyes of democrats and liberals around the world.

ALSO READ: Hindus Persecution In Bangladesh Vindicates Need For CAA

Even while the interim government led by Muhammad Yunus, 2006 Nobel peace prize winner, continues to make unconvincing efforts to play down the persecution of minority communities, particularly the Hindus and the Buddhists, the world is aghast at secular living principles getting increasingly compromised in Bangladesh. Here it will be appropriate to quote from a report of the Bangladesh Hindu-Buddhist-Christian Unity Council that in the first 15 days of regime change, the Hindus and Buddhists were targets of as many as 2,010 attacks. Moreover, there were desecrations of Mazars (mausoleums of religious leaders), arson of Hindu temples and looting of minority properties. Harijan (dalit) colonies are not spared either by the newly energized Islamists.

The question now is whether New Delhi got the right inputs well in advance from its intelligence network that the new regimes in Sri Lanka, Nepal and finally Bangladesh would seek revision of equations with India. Perhaps not. If intelligence inputs were there well in advance of arrivals of crisis points, then New Delhi would have been better prepared to deal with the new situations in neighbouring countries instead of being taken by surprise. A nagging concern now is, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh may all be pivoting away from India and seeking closer ties with China.

All the three countries are part of China’s expansive Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) where the focus is on building infrastructure, road and port in particular. Infrastructure development requiring large investments is what these countries badly need. Though its BRI ambition has been scaled down of late due to its own economic woes and Beijing putting pressure on borrowing countries to properly service debts, including timely repayments, China has strategic compulsions to be accommodative when it comes to countries in the neighbourhood.

Such an analysis finds support in President Xi Jinping telling Nepal’s communist prime minister KP Sharma Oli during his recent three-day visit to its northern giant neighbour that China would help Nepal to be transformed from a land-locked to a land-linked country, facilitating trade. Furthermore, Xi gave Oli assurances of China’s continued support to Nepal’s economic development “to the best of its ability.” A secular trend among all the three countries is to pare their dependence on India signifying a greater degree of reliance on China for trade and economic cooperation. Incidentally, India happens to be the largest trading partner of Sri Lanka and Nepal, while it has the second largest share of Bangladesh trade, next to China.

At this point when disturbing developments are noticed across the world, leave aside India, one needs to read closely Yunus interview with Japanese Nikkei Asia for an understanding of Dhaka’s engagement in overhauling its foreign policy. The main thrust of the exercise is to undo many of the policy thrusts, especially close ties with India, of the Hasina regime. At the same he made it a point to describe China as a “friend,” which keeps on supporting “us in various ways from building roads, power plants and sea ports.”

Dhaka’s tilt towards Beijing is much in evidence. When it comes to India, Yunus appeared to give lip service as he said Bangladesh should have a “strong and cooperative relationship with India.” Sadly in the same breath, the interim government chief adviser made attempts to play down the seriousness of attack on minorities, religious leaders and places of worship to the disappointment of people across Bangladesh border.

Reacting to New Delhi’s rightful concern about the safety of Hindus, Yunus instead of being apologetic said: “Much of what’s being said about this issue is propaganda and not based on facts.” As the Hindus and Buddhists continue to live in fear, the Yunus statement is dismissed straightaway. A few days after the Nikkei interview, a US state department official visiting India expressed “deep concern about news of persecution of minorities emerging from Bangladesh.” Earlier, during the US Presidential election campaign and also afterwards, Donald Trump was unequivocal in condemning the violence against minorities in Bangladesh.

MPs from across the floor in the UK parliament have condemned the happenings in Bangladesh in strongest terms and urged the government to take diplomatic steps for protection of Hindus. In fact, Tory MP Bob Blackman has gone as far as describing the communal incidents in Bangladesh as an “attempt at ethnic cleansing.” The uncertain political situation in Bangladesh where life remains at risk finds expression in the recent UK government travel advisory telling its citizens not to travel to the south Asian country unless it is “absolutely essential.” The US travel advisory is no different. Both the Western countries will not rule out the possibility of “terrorist attacks” at any time.

That considerable sections of the Bangladeshi population are perceived as irreverent of faiths other than theirs is underlined by the UK advisory saying foreign nationals will be a risk in “crowded areas and at religious places and political rallies… Some groups (Bangladeshi) have targeted people who they consider to have views and lifestyles contrary to Islam.”

Now an ISKCON centre in capital city Dhaka has been burned down and its other establishments remain vulnerable to attack by religious zealots. Even while Sheikh Hasina as prime minister went on assuring safety and security of minority communities, the fundamentalists would not miss an opportunity to do harm to the Hindus.

No wonder, the Hindu population constituting over 20 per cent at the time of Independence came down to 7.95 per cent in 2022, when the last census was done. Will the Hindus and other minorities remain condemned to live in perpetual fear in Bangladesh or the international community be able to put pressure on Dhaka so that secular principles are upheld?

In other regional relations, Yunus called China “our friend”, saying, “From building roads and power plants to seaports, they’re supporting us in various ways”.

Is Bangladesh History Headed For A Revision?

By Kunal Bose

Many in Bangladesh calling the shots now have in their wisdom liked the unrest, killings and chaos leading to a change in the government as “revolution.” Going a step further, they say the change amounts to the country’s second liberation. What, however, the world had witnessed during the protest period was great degrees of senseless violence, including the highhandedness of the state machinery in restoring order, communal strife and destruction of public and private property.

Without questioning the earnestness of participating students to eliminate the malice in the system and justification of protest points, it can be safely said, their movement was infiltrated by fundamentalists, communalists and lumpen elements. In fact, their actions gave the movement a bad name.

Marxist revolutionary Ernesto Che Guevara said: “The first duty of a revolutionary is to be educated. One cannot lead a revolution through common sense or gut.” Certainly, the Bangladeshi protesters have failed to live up to the Guevara standard. Guevara also said true revolutionaries would necessarily be “guided by a great feeling of love.” That was also lacking among the protesters. Then there is a great deal of controversy over describing the dethroned Bangladeshi leader now in exile as fascist. This calls for some cogitation.

A fascist has one too many abominable attributes. But basically, someone to be called a fascist will be found to be anti-liberal and anti-left. A fascist leader will be promoting a nationalist dictatorship and he will have a positive disposition to violence. Mass mobilisation besides, he will be prone to building himself as a charismatic authoritarian leader who overtly and covertly will stay engaged in snuffing out all critics at all times. Some leaders will wear democratic mask but their actions will give out their fascist bearings. Since her resignation as prime minister and the army aided fleeing the country for friendly neighbour India as a result of unrelenting protests turning violent with students in the forefront, Sheikh Hasina to her acute discomfiture finds that her father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is called a fascist by several leaders of the interim government.

The present dispensation in Bangladesh is well aware that Mujibur Rahman’s place in the country’s history is secure. But why not make a campaign to give him a bad name so that he is at least half hanged. The liberals around the world were mortified the other day when the Attorney General of the interim government Muhammad Asaduzzaman told the country’s high court, among many other disturbing things of far-reaching political and social import, that the government wanted revocation of the 15th amendment of the Constitution declaring Mujibur Rahman as the ‘father of the nation.’ The AG while acknowledging Mujibur Rahman’s “contributions to our liberation war” says, the conferment of such a title to him “contradicts the spirit of constitutional inclusivity…. Moreover, the amendment betrays the sacrifices of martyrs like Abu Syed and Mugdho.” The two were student leaders.

Later at a Press conference, the AG made the emphatic statement that the government rejects the proposition that all that led to the emergence of Bangladesh was due to one individual. What regrettably the AG failed to appreciate was that how much the present administration might try to besmirch the image of Bangabandhu, his place remains secure in the pantheon of modern world political leaders. Even among those opposed to the Awami League, which is to be faulted on many counts, governance standard in particular and the Exchequer being drained of funds because of corrupt practices of some ministers and bureaucrats, are to be found many strongly disapproving of the AG’s snide attempt to make references to some martyred student leaders in the same breath as Mujibur Rahman.

As it would happen, ahead of the AG deliberating on the alleged infirmities of the 15th amendment, the government had allowed removal of Mujibur Rahman portrait from the Durbar Hall of Bangabhavan and government offices, for being a ‘fascist.’

ALSO READ: Muhammad Yunus – Walking A Tightrope

In a shocking demonstration of heroics at the height of student agitations across the country, misguided students along with gatecrashing lumpen pulled down the statues of Bangabandhu at several places. Their attempt was to diminish the physical visibility of Mujibur Rahman. Many observers of the Bangladeshi scene fear that there may already be insidious moves to rewrite the history of the country born in March 1971 following a brutal war Bengalis fought against the Pakistani army, undermining Mujibur Rahman’s central role in ending Pakistani tyranny.

In fact, there is reason to be concerned about the AG saying in his deposition in the court that in no way the 1971 victory was to be exclusively credited to one individual. Is not that enough of a hint that in the coming days the country’s official history would undergo revision? The interim government considers the conferment of ‘father of the nation’ title to Mujibur Rahman in the preamble of the constitution using the 15th amendment amounts to “deviation from the original spirit of the constitution,” an official spokesman contended recently.

Let’s not get into the semantics of the 15th amendment that its continuation is a negation of the “spirit of liberation war” and an assault on “democracy and the rule of law,” as alleged by the interim government. What, however, is for sure is that the country’s political, social and economic structure will undergo profound changes and for the worse if the pillars of secularism, socialism and Bengali nationalism are removed from the Constitution. It is disappointing that in this time and age, the argument is advanced that the idea of secularism should be dropped in favour of unwavering faith in Allah since around 90 per cent Bangladeshis are Muslim.

According to the 2022 census, of the country’s total population of 165.15 million, the Hindus constitute 7.95 per cent. Even under the oversight of Sheikh Hasina, the Hindus would sporadically come under attack and their places of worship vandalised because of the intolerance of fundamentalists. It was not for nothing the government in October 2022 made a proclamation guaranteeing the security of the Hindu minority community.

As it would happen, for no reasons, the Hindus became the target of attack and some of their religious places were damaged during the July-August agitation that saw the end of Sheikh Hasina regime. Unfortunately, instead of sustaining a genuine campaign against religious intolerance, the country’s AG was advocating deletion of ‘secular’ and ‘socialism’ in the preamble of the Constitution. Yes, there were occasions when chief adviser Muhammad Yunus would visit Hindu temples and give messages that all minority communities would be ensured peaceful living and their properties protected.

Besides the Hindus, the Christians in Bangladesh too have the feeling of insecurity. All the minority communities want Yunus not to stop at making symbolic visits to Hindu places of worship and politically correct statements, but met out exemplary punishments to the miscreants. Donald Trump during his election campaign expressed his disappointment over the persecution of the Hindus and the Christians in Bangladesh in strongest possible words. Aware that Bangladesh is earning a bad name globally, the media savvy Yunus dismissed attacks on Hindus as baseless propaganda.

No one knows for sure how much authority Yunus actually wields in the government. The Nobel laureate was chosen to create ‘ideal condition’ to hold the next parliamentary elections because of his reputation as a liberal economist who was a banker to the poorest of the poor. Did Yunus himself choose the three new advisers with alleged links to extremist groups or was there pressure on him from an unidentified power centre to induct the controversial trio? What certainly did not enhance the image of the interim government was the open voicing of disapproval and disappointment over the new appointments by student groups who engineered the fall of Sheikh Hasina government.