BANGLADESH & SECULARISM

I got tempted to write this post as a sequel of Jahed Ahmed’s post “Bangladesh: where words cost lives”. Jahed agreed on lamentation of Dr Ajoy Roy about the Bangladesh which has gradually gone in the hands of Islamists. Dr Ajoy Roy also expressed that bangladesh was not liberated from Pakistan for Islamist activities.

Jahed wrote in response to my comment that during freedom struggle of Bangladesh vast majority did not fight for Islamic Republic or Caliphate. What ‘vast majority’, he was talking of? That was the same vast majority who fought for East Pakistan in 1946-47. ‘Vast majority’ is a vast bunch of goats. They are driven by national, regional and local leaders and civil society to a particular direction be it creation of East Pakistan or Bangladesh or Islamic Republic or Caliphate. The leaders ignite passion for Pakistan, Bangladesh or Islamic Republic or Caliphate among the vast majority and they act accordingly.

The short lived ‘Secularism’ in Bangladesh from 1972-75, as told by Jahed, speaks volume about the intention of leadership and role of ‘vast majority’ in Bangladesh between 1972 and 1975. This proves that ‘secularism’ in Bangladesh was standing on a false pillar.

I have all along been harboring the feeling that projecting a ‘secular’ Bangladesh was bait for Indira Gandhi during 1971. There was no reason for her to help in the birth of another Islamic country in eastern front of India while she was disgusted with the one in western front. Mujib played the secular card and after a few years of achieving independence took part in the meeting of OIC held in Pakistan and organized by Bhutto. Bhutto organized OIC meeting to counter his internal and external problems. And by attending that meeting Mujib gave first sure step for Bangladesh away from secularism.

A few lakhs emotionally charged open minded Muslims and all non-Muslims of East Pakistan created a halo of secularism in Bangladesh. The former group truly believed in secularism and latter group wanted an escape route from constant persecution of Pakistan era. After the death of secularism in Bangladesh, both the groups are in denial mood.

The escalated and continuous violence in Indian Kashmir since past decades is an effect of creation of Bangladesh. The surrender of 90 thousand strong Pakistani Army to Indian Army in Dhaka and loss of Bangladesh had mutilated the pride of Pakistan and has been giving sleepless night to Pakistani establishment. Pakistan ignited Kashmir problem and made Bangladesh a country of mosque and madrassa with funds from some Islamic countries. The constant atrocities on minorities (and inaction of government) has been the hallmark of Bangladesh.

The Khagragarh blast in West Bengal, a few months back, established the extension of terrorist activities from Bangladesh to the Indian State. In the Assam University campus (Silchar, Assam), the Islamists openly do propaganda in favour of ISIS. Proximity and support from Bangladeshi Islamists has been the reason for such ominous developments in adjacent Indian States.

BJP has developed a strong hold in Assam and trying hard to get a foothold in West Bengal. BJP is creating a fear psychosis among Hindus about Muslims and future of the region is anybody’s guess.

Many Bangladeshi liberal Muslims may not like the fact that from Indian perspective, liberation of Bangladesh was counterproductive. Had Bangladesh been still East Pakistan, the leaders would have remained busy to counter the exploitative actions of West Pakistani leadership and Islamists would not have a condusive environment to grow in Bangladesh.

Bangladesh and secularism are antithesis of each other.

Bhaskar

Hi Ash,
Thanks for your remark. I would appreciate if you write in this blog.
Anonymous

HOW TRUE, this is a free world we now live in and forcing one’s belief’s on another is nothing short of Communisim.
the world does not need another form of NAZZI belief’s. Killing for religion is wrong.
Ash

This is my first time on Mukto-mona. I will regularly visit and support the blog. I am against anybody, I mean anybody trying to silence any voice of reason, secularism and the right to believe or not believing in any organised religions. I personally do not believe in any religious clubs. Religions (as against Dharma) are segregative, separative and ‘My way or the highway’ kind of cultish clubs. At least in clubs they consider each other as opponents and not enemies, but in religions they consider others as enemies. World has to move on to Dharma- understanding of others, accepting others and following the righteous path, your god, prophet, messiah, lord, guru, godman or whatever you believe is fine with me, but do not impose your thinking, your god, your prophet, your messiah, your godman on me or for that matter on anybody. Do not go on loud speakers to churn out your calls, stories, beliefs. Keep it to yourself and share with me if I ask for it. Your religion shall be your personal matter, between you and your godman and god. It is of no concern to me and even to your wife and children, as is not mine to any of my friends and relatives. Sharing knowledge is fine but if in the process somebody questions your dogmas, your beliefs and your godman, be ready to accept it and we still remain friends, neighbours and world citizens.
Bhaskar

Anisur Rahaman Sir,

For about a week, I was unable to access Mukto Mona. Today I could and was happy to find your long remark. I respect you very much but there is no reason that we will have to agree always on all issues.

There are nine paragraphs with one concluding line in my article. You actually contested paragraph 3 & 4 and wrote “I disagree very strongly with the contents and implications of this write-up. There are a number of points I can pick-out from here, but the one which stands out head and shoulder as viciously insulting is the allegation that ‘secularism’ was used as a bait to Indira Gandhi in 1971.” It will be good for me to hear from you on other paragraphs also.

I wrote “I have all along been harboring the feeling that projecting a ‘secular’ Bangladesh was bait for Indira Gandhi during 1971”. It was my feeling as Mujib was anti-Bhashani (Islamic Socialism). We knew the irrelevance of socialism in East Pakistan/Bangladesh (I am no Socialist; the example is given as Socialism negates religions). From socio-economic point of view Socialism could be the most plausible political philosophy in East Pakistan/Bangladesh during nineteen fifties and sixties. But it did not happen so. Who else but Mujib was conversant about the impossibility of secularism in Bangladesh? But could he come out openly and say so during 1971 liberation struggle?

Mujib might not have gone to 1974 OIC meeting in Lahore readily (as you have made it out) but at what cost? Mujib knew that secularism would have its natural death in Bangladesh sooner or later. Pakistan and many Islamic countries recognized Bangladesh during OIC (1974) meeting in Lahore and in your word “…….getting Bhutto’s blessing were very important”. The third recommendation of OIC (1974) said “For the enhancement of Islamic culture, solidarity and education the Islamic Solidarity Fund was established.” If Mujib thought that supports from Islamic countries would come without Islamic riders, then he was fooling people like you.

All right, if participating in OIC meeting was compulsion on the part of Mujib, what additional or extra measures he took to neutralize the bad affects of third recommendation mentioned above which was a direct challenge to secularism. If BJP tomorrow does the same thing for Hinduism in India, will you not call it a death blow to secularism in India?

Corruption and nepotism in Bangladesh started and flourished during Mujib’s time. To counter the popular unrest in the infant country he created BAKSAL. He was not even a true democrat. He wanted to suppress political opposition. How a leader who so successfully led his country to freedom became helpless in running his country within couple of years? There must be something inherently wrong with AL leaders, their preaching and ‘vast majority’.

If some Pakistanis can put forward logical argument to say “Nehru had always grand design right from 1947 to attack Pakistan and it eventually materialised in 1965!” I won’t have any problem.
——————————————————
PS: I am a staunch Mujib supporter as he led the country to freedom and don’t feel happy to criticize him. But I have to so particularly on certain matters for the sake of posterity.

April 2015
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Mar				May »
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

BANGLADESH & SECULARISM

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!