Bangladesh: Society, Politics and Literary Traditions
The geographic area that now forms what is known as Bangladesh was the larger part of a province in Pre-British and British India, called Bengal. This was also the home of a major ethno-linguistic group in India, the Bengalis. As a part of greater India, history, tradition and even researches on Bengal are therefore closely inter-linked with rest of India. Furthermore, as India was always considered an empire, early Asian travelers like Hiuen Tsang, Al Beruni (11th century AD) and later European travelers like Francois Bernier (17th century AD), or even early modern writers like Karl Marx, Max Weber and Karl Wittfogel all wrote about India with a generalization of India as a whole, although regional descriptions were also there. Therefore any look into our own historical accounts inextricably links to this unique context where social structure and stratification was shaped by the various factors not necessarily endogenous to Bengal, but as part of the centrifugal forces emanating from the rest of India, more specifically the core, the Gangetic Plains of North India. India is one of the oldest civilizations in the world, and unlike the other ancient civilizations like Egypt and Mesopotamian, India remained in the spotlight of history continuously since ancient times as successive Indian empires and dynasties were known to the rest of the world and maintained contact with many of them including far off areas like China, South East Asia; Middle and Near East. In historical terms India was always resourceful and mystical, drawing interest of travelers, preachers and conquerors. Upheavals and migratory nature of her Western neighbors meant there were a steady stream of Central Asian adventurers moving to India and many of them stayed back and created their own niche in the body politic and tradition of India. Such continuous movement of people from the West brought in new ideas, technologies, products and life styles that enriched the Indian tradition and vice versa. India is also the original melting pot, that took from outside but more importantly moulded all outsiders into her system.
Arab Muslims first captured parts of India (Sindh and lower Punjab) as early as 710-11 CE, but their rule was not consolidated for long. Almost three centuries later the Ghaznavids (of modern day Ghazni in Afghanistan) led by Mahmud of Ghazni invaded North west India in 1001 AD and subsequently Mohammad Ghori another afghan established control over Punjab and parts of Rajsthan in 1192 and consolidated Muslim rule in those parts. Ghori’s successors expanded into Indian Northern plains and by mid 13th century the Mamluk (Turkic slaves) expanded their kingdom in most of North India including Bengal, the Eastern most of the provinces. The rest is history as Pathan (Afghan) and Turkic (Moghul) dynasties ruled India from then on until ultimately defeated by the British in bits and pieces by mid 18th century.
From the Aryan invasion around 2000-2500 BCE, India experienced successive invasion from Western and Central Asia until the Mughals in 16th century, and sporadic incursions mainly for pillage after the Mughal empire crumbled. Each time the invaders perhaps won because of superior military technology and strategies as was most evident by the Arabs who brought in catapults and Mughals who brought in cannons for the first time in India. Stagnating Mughal and Indian technologies at war finally took its beatings against the Europeans, particularly the British and India truly lost its sovereignty for the first time and became colonized. The unique nature of Indian people and for all those who came here especially since Middle Ages is a sense of contentment and remaining inward looking. Thus while Central and Western Asians remained restless and invaded India periodically to establish their control, India remained complacent and failed to partake in the development of technology and commercialization of their economies. Even the nomadic and warring tribes of Central Asia who established the Mughal rule were more acquainted with money economy and commercialized the economy through money circulation rather than remaining happy with bartering. Indian society at the advent of the British rule remained essentially a huge agglomeration of villages and they were “self-sufficient village communities” and unchanging over time. This nature suited the Indian caste system well and indeed evolved to the needs of the caste system to operate. Therefore money was less relevant as each caste was producing for the needs of the entire community as dictated by their religious obligation and were reimbursed by other caste members through their products and or services. Therefore, the Brahmin at the apex of the system would provide their priestly services and receive all they needed for daily life and living. It was only the large landlords and warring caste (Khaitraya) due to their control over resource and power had some surplus to enjoy products beyond the village community. Thus, India before the British had pre-capitalist social formation and despite large scale introduction and minting of money during the Muslim and particularly the Mughal rule, Indian economy remained pre-capitalist in all its characteristics. Independent tradesmen and large scale commerce were thus hamstrung by the absence of capitalist forces and entrepreneurship so necessary for capitalist development remained negligible. Early British Administrators described Indian villages as static economic and social entity. One of the most famous of them Sir Charles Metcalf described them as “Little Republics”, self-sufficient and unchanging. However, to many other Indian historians this was a simplistic description and there were presence of some industrial a activities in suitable locations by the river where raw materials could be brought in and finished products could be distributed to the market. Nonetheless, notwithstanding the presence of few industries (of largely consumption goods) and small settlements around them could hardly spur capitalism and urbanization, and India remained truly rural, especially after the fall of the Muslim rulers.
India remained pre-capitalist and with its unique feudal structure throughout the Muslim rule, although some dynamism were brought in by Muslim rulers due to their interest in using of currency for exchange and promotion of trade to far flung areas and outside. Economic historians on Mughal India like Irfan Habib (1931-) and many others have discussed these issues at great length and among contemporary scholars Nazmul Karim has done the most exhaustive sociological analysis about the stratification issues during that period. It would be amiss if the great debate on nature of pre-British Indian social formation, particularly private property rights on land as articulated by Marx is not at least referred.
Rights to mother tongue and indigenous cultural expressions are powerful sentiments that shape the contours of political discourse. Religion in many cases is essentially exogenous and emanates from outer body consciousness. However, religion does have a profound influence upon language, cultural expressions and political practice. No where this is perhaps more glaringly obvious than in today’s Bangladesh, and it does portend a conflicting trend. I wish to write very briefly on how politics and religion in recent times has become a major driver of our cultural and linguistic rights and expressions and is that the way to go for a nation established by struggles for self determination by all its citizenry, not by a particular political ideology or religious community.
Religion dominated politics and life in general during middle ages largely in Christian Europe. In latter middle ages when Islamic power was on the ascendency the empires built by Muslims, the Ummayads, Abbasids, The Moors in Spain, Ottoman Turks, Fatimids in Egypt and even the Pathan and Mughal dynasties in India were largely hereditary monarchy and not theocratic states. In modern age, during the de-colonization period we see the creation of 2 States, Israel and Pakistan which were set up as exclusively religious homeland for the Jewish Diasporas and Muslim minorities of colonial India for those countries respectively. The breakup of Yugoslav federalism in modern times was more in line with ethnic nationalism rather than religious divisions, although Christian Serbs discriminated against largely Muslim Bosnians and Muslim Kosovars. Nation states throughout history have always emerged on the basis of ethnic and linguistic basis although some of them may have crystallized due to demarcation of earlier empires and national boundaries. Present day Bangladesh in its earlier incarnation was hurriedly and perhaps unfairly carved out of British India on the basis of religion, but once it was established ethnic and linguistic commonality turned us into a nation and such issues came upfront in the politics of Pakistan. A religion based state was found too parochial to deal with the complexity of the state of Pakistan and it lasted less than two and a half decade (most of that period being kept under the iron grips of the military). The state of Israel survives till today because of colossal external support and systematic encroachment on the rights and properties and disenfranchisement of the Palestinian non-Jews and of course due to the veneer of secularism it operates under. No one knows for how long Israel remains a quasi religious state despite the claims of Biblical prophecy. So, religion and politics does not mix, or does it? Why then the resurgence of religion based parties in the contemporary Muslim World, in India the largest democracy in the world and the increasing influence of the Evangelical groups in USA, the country with the longest tradition of republican democracy? This issue takes special significance in Bangladesh today because of the history and nature of the struggle for self-determination in the country. Even leaving aside the propagation of arcane philosophy of religion being unifying force of nationhood, the premier religion based political party in East Pakistan Jamaat-E-Islami actively fought against its own people who were waging a liberation war. They did not join the occupying Pakistani Army only to fight the freedom loving Bengali guerrilla forces but formed bands of informers, persecutors, executioners on behalf of their overlord and engaged in horrific crimes against unarmed civilians and captured freedom fighters. After the war, under a new secular constitution religion based politics was banned but most surviving collaborators went hiding or laid low and were not brought to trial. The generous general amnesty was also cleverly used as a shield by them. Unscrupulous politicians and corrupt administration were bribed (or persuaded by kinship obligations) to let them avoid justice, repentance and owning up their misdeeds and wrong politics during the liberation war. Subsequently, with regime change, they were pardoned, co-opted in mainstream nationalist right wing politics with the blessings of the military who effectively ruled the country for 2 decades. Under new Representation of Public Office (RPO) the hitherto banned Jamaat-E-Islami and other non-descript religion based parties were allowed to register as political parties. This time period gave them enough breathing space to organize and become a highly regimented ideologically (often fanatically) driven relatively small but critical force in the national politics. In the meantime, religion based politics was accorded legitimacy and a due place through constitutional changes by both the Zia and Ershad regime, changes that has proved to be the Achilles Heels to the Bangladesh politics and an affront to the professed secular ideology, one of the four principles upon which the liberation struggle was fought. The violent agitations and events during the 2014 election and afterwards including the Hefazat E Islam’s Dhaka sit in beg the question, have we come full circle? Are we to go back to the ideology that did not work for us in our first decolonized state? Shall we never have the closure on the horrific events of 1971 and move on to build the nation rather than continuously engage in the internecine conflict that destroys properties and lives of our people (mostly non-partisan bystanders), we can ill afford. There is no simple yes or no answer, although, sadly the Pundits from all camps are clamouring for this or that as they perceive fit being beholden to their narrow political interest without regard to sentiments of the people and due to respect to rule of law. The Constitution enshrines in freedom of association, speech and right to engage in political activities as it should being a democratic country. How can then we deal with the intolerant ruling party (whoever is in power), rise of extremist ideologies, regressive political philosophy of many kind (including progressive ultra nationalists) that religion based parties espouse as opposed to democratic practice? These are cataclysmic failures in our democratic body politic that we are suffering from even after 44 years as an independent nation.
The 1980s was a decade of global right wing revival and this trend always goes hand in glove with religious overtone. Mrs. Thatcher assumed power in UK, Ronald Reagan, a non-descript Hollywood actor became a very popular US president, The Iranian Revolution established the rule of Ayatollahs in Westernized Iran, increasing oil wealth fuelled the Wahabbiazation of the Muslim world led by Saudi and other Gulf Monarchies (moving away from non combative peaceful and tolerant Islam). Secular Iraq and Syria increasingly felt isolated and their power began to erode as their independent and nationalist policies did not earn them favour from neither the West nor the Petrodollar rich Sheikhdoms. In Bangladesh, Awami misrule after independence in 1971, scarcity of food and basic goods and astronomical spiralling of cost of living without corresponding increase of income led to the pauperization of the educated and rural middle class. Frustration, gloom and fatalism flourish under those circumstances and so does resorting to religiosity for solace. The government tightened its control over the economy, politics, and freedom of speech, association and exercise of political rights. Underground Marxist groups upped the ante and started a campaign of class enemy elimination and anti-state warfare. The nail in the coffin of the democratic body politic was the creation of BAKSAL and curtailment of all fundamental rights of the citizen as a way of dealing with the problems. How ironic it is that the problems created by bad governance, rampant corruption, sweeping parochial partisanship by a multi-class party at power were thought to be rectified by Soviet style state management and restrictions on democratic opposition. Alas, no one questioned where are the socialist cadres and leaders (within the multi class ruling party) to manage the socialist ethos of economy and polity. The post-independence Awami regime did not last long and was violently overthrown by some members of the armed forces resulting in direct and indirect control of the state by the military for the next 15 years. Newer and more right wing political forces were nurtured and to placate the old foe Awami League; and they all aligned themselves with religious elements and made amendments to the constitution giving it an Islamic overtone burying the principle of secularism that guided our struggle for self-determination and independence against the Pakistani rulers who steadfastly clung on to this pre-partition (British India) ideology as the determinant of Pakistani nationalism and national unity. The religious overtone in Bangladesh began during this period from mid 1970s and the political change of August 1975 ushered in this change. The field was already fertile with a large impoverished and hopeless nation who saw a serious decline in their living standards after independence and more importantly a future without hope unless one belonged to the powerful political circle. The end of quasi military dictatorship of HM Ershad ushered in a new era of democracy and hope. With a unique Care Taker Government in place, elections were held every 5 years and majority party or alliance formed government. These elections (1991, 1996, 2001 and 2009), despite the sour grapes complains of the incumbents, were the fairest in our election history. Unfortunately, this unique system, supported initially by both major political parties, to the utter dismay of common people, has been criticized by both of them and annulled by the incumbent government through their last parliament and ruling by higher court. This is systemic trait of Bangladeshi political culture, if in power ensure elections are won by your party/alliance through whichever means and we have seen that in 1973, 1979, 1986, 1988, February 1996 and 2014. This is a much bigger issue and deserves more robust analysis than necessary or possible in this paper. The only reason I brought to fore is because elections are (one of few) important democratic practice and institution that needs to be ensured in a timely and impartial manner to strengthen democratic values and institutions in the society, sans which democracy can never flourish.
When religion and politics become the overarching chapeaux, as we witnessed in erstwhile East Pakistan and recent Bangladesh (in differing forms) linguistic and cultural expressions become subservient to those forces. This is another perverse form (tail wagging the dog) according to Marxian narrative which argues the supremacy of economy, albeit the mode and relations of production as the basic structure and culture is the product as superstructure. In recent Bangladesh this is becoming a norm with dangerous ramifications for our cultural and linguistic autonomy and development.
During the 1960s and 1970s, our mainstream cultural and linguistic expressions were largely influenced by the common person’s struggle for political freedom and undiluted indigenous cultural verve. Gono Sangeet, various folk based lyrics and tunes along with the Bengali maestro Tagore and Nazrul dominated the music scene; while indigenous art forms and motifs were revived; and so were authentic and secular celebrations like Language Day (21 February), Pahela Baisakh (the Bengali New Year), local games and competitions like Kaabadi, boat race, fairs of many types etc. They are still in vogue but increasingly under pressure from certain quarters questioning their place in our society which is deemed by them as a Muslim majority one. The veracity of these critiques has encouraged the more die hard fundamentalists who finds anti Islam in everything that does not start with religion or question quasi religious practices. Free and scientific thinking and reasoning is fretted upon and proponents of such mind are castigated and dubbed as anti religion and anti Islam and take up violent means to curb them and their thoughts. Recent attacks and killings of free thinking bloggers is a case in point. On the other extreme nationalist politics of a particular strand is championed by powerful political force that calls for subjugation of all other thinking and resorts to hero worshipping. Nationalism has nothing more to give in independent Bangladesh but some of us still clinging to that idea which has passed its shelf life. It can only lead to cheap populist rhetoric of nationalist frenzy against all others and parochial thinking. A classic case of bourgeoisie antediluvian tactics of narrow partisanship that results in today’s political polarization and establishing the supremacy of a hero or an ideology over all else. The politics of today has polarized our society to the extent that only violent reprisals are preached and practiced. Opposition is not tolerated, diversity abhorred and conformity to whatever is mainstream is encouraged by all and sundry. Under such stifling circumstances linguistic autonomy and celebrations comes under threat and so does indigenous and ethnic cultural expressions. Society and culture become moribund, conformity driven and ideology laden-losing the colour and vibrancy of our manifestations that are supposed to enthral and inspire us. A tad boring and circling around a tautology of narrow minded, prescriptive diktats rather than becoming blooming smorgasbord of the rich and varied linguistic and cultural heritage we Bengalis possess.
Finally, the base and superstructure models of Marxist theory also tells us that language, culture, ought to reflect the daily lives of working people, as so cleverly portrayed by writers like Gorky, Pushkin, DH Lawrence, George Orwell, Jean Paul Sartre and existentialist writers of latter days. In our language Manik Bandhopadhya and our own Akhtaruzzaman Ilyas, Hasan Azizul Huq, Mahmudul Huq and others have demonstrated. Therein lies the beauty and creativity of writers and cultural exponents. This brings the question I posed on the interrelatedness of politics, religion and literary-cultural expressions and are they mutually exclusive or reinforcing? It is very broad question and needs equally broad canvas to portray, but as is seen now in contemporary Bangladesh, they are creating petty streams that are exclusive and resonates to sectarian audience not all of us as Bengalis or as a nation that is Bangladesh. May our polarizing politics and tendency to remain beholden to ideology or pseudo ideology be they left or right give way to a new beginning of our renaissance in language and culture.