Politics and property grabbing

C'mon you guys, go easy on Khaleda Zia. She was not trying to grab a state property — her cantonment house — for herself by insisting on it as her personal property; it was an act of patriotism. Keeping up with the nobler traditions of the state, one may say. It has been established for long that unless one tries to demand some state property be declared as private property, he/she would be rejected by the supporters.
I mean just ask Sheikh Hasina.

* * *

There is a pathological relationship between power and property grabbing. Almost an atavistic linkage which states that once in power, one must try to grab property, whether belonging to another individual or the state.
In case of Bangladesh, our two great leaders have both tried to do so. Sheikh Hasina tried to have the Gono Bhaban declared her family property but had to relent in face of public opinion.
In case of Khaleda Zia, she hung on till the courts intervened and told her to move out.

* * *

During Sheikh Hasina phase, I remember a scion of the netar ghonishto buddihiojibi looking doleful and saying, "So people want her to die. They want Rashid-Faruk company to kill her. All she wants is a building! Hasn't her family done enough for Bangladesh?"
Ok, it is a great argument even if you think most people get shot at their home no matter how hard they try to hide —including her own family— by the very people who are supposed to protect them. It's about security not property, I thought. Mercifully, she turned the tables on the killers and she didn't need a house to do that.
A good court building belonging to the people is a better security than a public building becoming private. It can do the same trick.

* * *

We learnt about darkness at the time of our dawn when we were being born. The thread that runs through our history is that of looting and property grabbing, demanding equal space with suffering and bravery in 1971.
During the war phase, first the Pakistanis looted and then after the war was over Bangladeshis took up the task. During 1971, in case of Muslim property owners, there was a need of sort to prove that the property owner was pro-Bangladesh, hence a traitor in Pakistani eyes, hence ready to be looted. In case of the Hindus, being a Hindu was an automatic seal of treachery. Most Hindu property was looted or vandalised. A few survived by handing over the same to a Muslim as a guardian. Many of these guardians returned, many did not return the amanat after the war.

* * *

Post 1971 saw an incredible rise of property grabbing and looting particularly those belonging to non-Bengalis and Pakistanis and the growth of a new class managing the economy which was considerably based on the practice of taking what was not their own. The idea that the victors have right over the property of the defeated has never been more aptly demonstrated than in Bangladesh. Our psyche told us that this was ours by right. That sense continues at all levels.

* * *

Although few societies after the middle age has given blood to establish a modern tribal state, we did because we never evolved into a nation and our nation state dream became a tribal state fact.
Tribal societies will go to any length to ensure its survival and in Bangladesh, the three main tribes — the Awami League, the BNP and the Army — have evolved distinct patterns of such behaviour. It's for this reason that the AL and Sheikh Mujib think doing away with democratic practices to ensure continued rule through BKSAL as acceptable. The same tribal or counter-tribal feelings make the pre-BNP Zia to welcome back Ghulam Azam and his cohorts into Bangladesh — men who murdered — to help him stay in power.
History proves that tribalism is more fundamental to us than the sense of a common nation. If Mujib is a proposition, Zia is the proof.

* * *

When one says that the house which Khaleda lived in was a matter only for the army chief to decide, it is basically a fact. In Bangladesh, the army lives above the law and scrutiny and constitutes the most thriving organised part of the state. It is beyond the reach, eyes and even right of entry of ordinary people. They live in isolation and splendour and can do whatever they want. Their affairs can't be discussed or examined and their wealth is not even known. Every facility the state can offer is theirs to claim which is why they take every step to preserve what they have.
So to which tribe do ordinary people belong?
Why, Sir, they are like the 12th tribe of Israel! Lost in history and never heard of except in Israeli fantasies.
I mean who are these guys who don't believe in any of the three tribes and call themselves Bangladeshi?
Give me a break!

* * *

I know people know what sacrifice it was on the part of two leaders to want official property for their private use. It is probably one of the worst moments in tribal politics. Sadly, even an alliance with another tribe — the army — didn't help Khaleda Zia, and Hasina's tribe was not on friendly terms with them. Things have changed now and so in future more drama can be expected.

* * *

Shall there be a time when our tribal states will replace a nation state?
I once met an Urdu speaker from the gutted belly of Geneva camp who lived near Tajmahal Road and watched his house all day. It was no longer his and beautiful children would emerge from it to go to school and he would go with them as a paid chaperone.
I had asked him why he lived on, a destitute in front of his own home and house, now taken. He said, "I wait for someone else to take over the house."
Dreams drive both life and death.

———————–
Afsan Chowdhury is a journalist and researcher.