Why what Hanif said on Dipan killing is appropriate

Ananda Das
Published : 2 Nov 2015, 11:29 PM
Updated : 2 Nov 2015, 11:29 PM

Hanif's statement that Prof. Abul Kashem Fazlul Huq, the father of the murdered publisher Dipan, didn't ask for the trial of his killers is because both he and the killers belonged to the same ideology, has made him the most (in)famous man in national politics today.

Such a statement was insensitive to say the least. But it also showed the nature of the political system of Bangladesh. He amended his statement later saying that not asking for a trial was aiding the killers. The damage was already done and the message was delivered.

Hanif came out looking like a baggage and burden for the party, and folk are wondering why Sheikh Hasina keeps him around. But of course, that is why he is there. His job is to say what most would not. It is to say the most obnoxious thing possible against the perceived enemy of the party – something that cannot be said out of the semblance of civility.

It is interesting that Hanif did not speak out against the fact that none of the killers have been arrested with none tried since the killings began. This inaction did not seem like encouragement of the killers in his mind.

But the statement of a father mourning his slaughtered son was indeed encouragement to his mind.  It isn't an accident that he thought and said what he did. He was probably saying what was on many of the incumbent party leaders' minds.  That is how politics is constructed in this country.

This simplification of the Us vs. Them is the most convenient arrangement of them all.  It relieves people of the trouble of thinking through problems – basically a relationship that is more religious than rational.

In other words, the opposition can only do what is wrong and this seems to mean nothing else needs to be discussed or done. The fact that a non-AL supporter Dipan was publishing Avijit, a non-BNP supporter, creating a little more complex connection, is probably beyond the capacity of such politicians to understand.

It doesn't follow the Us and Them matrix. And that is why Hanif said what he did. He has said many such things before and in foul language too as usual. In fact, he has no other political existence. He exists to say the rudest thing in public what many are saying in private.

This is not a particular party issue but of politics in Bangladesh because the nature of it is built around enemy identification and termination. Thus the political mindscape is more like a battlefield rather than a parliament. And thus the most useful identity for participation in this kind of politics is that of a soldier. Our politicians are therefore in some ways, proxy soldiers.

This battlefield model of politics is inevitable when the idea of governance is based on the notion that only one side can be right. Democracy in politics which is based on pluralism means everyone has a right not only to have an opinion, but to also have an opinion that is respected by others. Of course limits are fundamental and no one can hold any thought that goes against the interest of people and the state.

But that decision of right and wrong, deciding which is subversive and which is not, is decided by the court system. However, that is not where most people head to when such debates occur. It's either the streets, or the police station, or the remand centres or in some cases, crossfire encounters. In other words because political model is military in nature, it also follows the battlefield protocol.

But it is intriguing as to why this model developed in Bangladesh and why it has become established so well.

Part of that answer is in history. Bangladesh grew out of a brutal birth but the internal conflicts within that society were never resolved. The transition from a conflict-driven society to a peace-driven society never really took place, so while we were forced to learn the ways of managing survival in war times, we never really learnt the ways of peace-time.  Usually this is learnt when the three organs of the state functions effectively guided by the constitution.

But as history shows, we were never really into rule by constitution so we used amendments all the time to jump over inconvenient obstacles. The end result is that while on the surface peacetime or civilian governance prevails, in functioning it is basically war-time values, attitudes, and actions that dominate.

Had it been otherwise, we would have the simple system where everyone was accountable, everything was governed by rule of law, and just about every individual would identify themselves as citizens and not as partisans.

Which is why blaming Hanif is not fair for saying what he did or does. He is a true partisan, the one who attacks without asking questions. He is not a member of the political army for being polite and the quicker we accept that fact, the better it will be. His role is well fulfilled and in doing so, he is only doing what everyone else is doing.