Old habits die hard

I have always been an avid admirer of Afsan Chowdhury's wizardry with writing analytical and objective prose both in Bengali and English. As usual, he produced another excellent piece on the state of tribalism in Bangladesh (Politics and property grabbing, October 24). I cannot agree more with Afsan that Bangladesh is yet to become a nation state. In South Asia, Bangladesh and Pakistan are two worst examples of what Hamza Alavi and others have portrayed as post-colonial states; with over-developed civil and military bureaucracy and under-developed civil society. Countries like Bangladesh have neither been decolonised nor are they free from their 'feudal'-cum-colonial hangover.

As we know, democracy does not work in societies having dysfunctional judiciary and disrespect for human rights and dignity. Otherwise what we get is "illiberal democracy" as Fareed Zakaria has used the expression. Bangladesh will have to first promote liberalism, the rule of law and respect for human rights before it can reach the threshold of democracy. Elections alone do not guarantee democracy but tribalism or 'dynastic democracy', as Bangladesh has been experiencing since 1991.

Another characteristic of Bangladeshi polity, which Afsan might have inadvertently forgotten to highlight, is its inherent peasant mentality, emanating from the ethos of the age-old peasant culture of the sub-region. Peasants believe in promoting only their own narrow factional interests (very much like the tribal), but unlike tribes, peasant communities are divided horizontally among various factions under faction chiefs — matbars, pradhans, paramaniks, sardars and their likes. We find rural/peasant factional behaviour in the drawing rooms of our politicians in posh residential areas at Gulshan, Banani and Dhanmondi. Under the influence of this tribal/peasant culture, grabbing public or private property is not that different from tribal 'occupying virgin forest land or peasants' occupying government or private properties through lathi; only difference being now firearms have replaced lathis.

If we look back to the post-Partition period (1947-1971), we see our politicians, businessmen and ordinary people (Bengali Muslims who got their 'Sonar Pakistan') grabbing Hindu property, right and left everywhere from Teknaf to Tetulia. It was considered 'halal' or 'Ghanimater Maal'! But only influential Muslim Leaguers and their cronies got the lion's share of this plunder by terrorising the Hindus who had to flee to India either by selling their properties at a nominal price or just flee with their dear ones and may be with some jewelleries and cash. Consequently, most brick-built houses in every small town, and bigger towns like Dhaka, Chittagong, Rajshahi, Khulna, Sylhet, Barisal and Faridpur all of a sudden had new sets of 'owners', mostly belonging to the Muslim League. Most of them were middle and upper middle class Muslims, mostly jotedars (rich peasants who love to identify themselves as Zamindars — which is a lie; more than 99 percent Zamindars in Bengal were Hindus). Those Muslim Bengalis who could not get any 'Ghanimater Maal' or not much during 1947-1971 period (mostly belonging to lower middle-class or lower classes) by expropriating the Hindu owners, got their golden chance after 1971. Within months of the liberation, they grabbed almost 90 percent of non-Bengali (Muslim) properties throughout Bangladesh. So, what is so surprising about Khaleda's claim on a piece of public property and Hasina's desire to get Gano Bhaban enlisted as her private residence?

Congrats Afsan for such a wonderful piece!

——————–
Taj Hashmi is a professor of security studies at the Asia-Pacific Centre for Security Studies in Honolulu, Hawaii.