I learnt from a recent news story on Google that during the oath-taking ceremony of a military academy in Turkey, a dozen new army officers refused to take the oath in its Islamic garb and shouted slogans in honour of Mustafa Kamal who had introduced the modern secular state in Turkey.President Tayyeb Erdogan was livid with anger and he reportedly vowed to ensure that they are not taken into the army.
One is surprised that after such a long time since the fall of the secularist government and the storming into power by a popular Islamic upsurge in Turkey Ataturk is still alive in the minds of educated youths.In the body politic of modern Turkey the tug-of-war between the two tendencies and their supporters is still going on though seldom as openly as in this incident.
The recent tussle between these two tendencies in Bangladesh has not become serious because nobody wants to give up hope of renewal.But the snag seems to be that both modernity and secularism seem to be unavoidably linked to the hated Hasina regime.But a recent news from Dhaka that ‘civil society groups’ there who had boycotted the birth centenary of Mujibur Rahman ‘father of Bangladesh’ celebrated with aplomb that of Jinnah to whom East Pakistan the predecessor of Bangladesh,jolts one to the wide chasm between the two traditions,discourses and outlooks.
Seizing the opportunity the bigoted religious lot and the hard-core orthodox elements are raising such demands as changing the national anthem on the ground that it had been authored by Tagore an Indian, and expinging Mujibur Rahman’s name from Bangladesh’s annals.
But the fate of Pakistan which had chosen to tread such a path is there for all to see.Which is that modern democracy and religious orthodoxy do not and cannot stick together.
The liberation of colonies had brought disaster in the wake of a blessing.Colonial economy was by nature based on ruthless exploitation of the colonies’ resources by the imperialist countries.All the instruments of production were owned or controlled by the imperialist countries.Hence the rise of a national bourgeois class was rare and even when a group of businessmen and facilitators developed they largely remained agents of imperialist chains of supply and demand.Few acquired the skills and understanding as well the outlook to start independent production of industrial goods.In certain African countries a handful of undergraduates formerly in the employ of colonial governments had to bear the burden of creating the foundations of a modern economy relatively independent of foreign control.
In India a prosperous business class had flourished in Mughal India.Mostly Hindu they survived the imperialist take-over of the country and had gone on to start modern production facilities while being watched from a corner of the eye by imperialist monitors.Part independent part comprador; i.e. subordinate to imperialist capital they managed the transition to modern industry and commerce with relative ease,though still tied to some extent to imperialist technology and finance.The lack or scarcity of capital after imperialist loot and appropriation and the deformation of native economy in the interest of colonial imperialist economy explain the difficulties faced by the newly liberated nations driven and prompted by their urge to modernize.Further,in countries like India a feudal class in occupation of land in the countryside also remained under patronage of imperialist masters. Their persistence in liberated lands also severely enfeebled the prospects of democratic liberties. Masses of pauperised men in bondage cannot be firm foundations of a modern democracy.
In Bangladesh the flight of erstwhile zemindars to India who were largely Hindu and with some exceptions mostly plebian merchants by origin also left much land open to plunder by rich folks.Mujib’s followers by virtue of their closeness to power easily filled the vacuum by seizing land and turning businesses into government-backed monopolies.
But since there was little scope for selling goods to a foreign market except at dirt-cheap rates, both as labour in sweat-shop factories and consumers of primary goods the common people of Bangladesh groaned under the burdens imposed on them.Little wonder the common people not only hated the Awami League like leeches but also found orthodox Islam much more congenial than the ‘enlightened’ liberal ideas of the former.Which is of course a pity.For it made room for a resurgence of hard-lined Islam and later for the rise of dreadful rise of demented Jehadist groups funded indirectly by petro-dollars dispensed liberally by a joint cultural venture of Saudi Arabia and that great champion of freedom all over the world to choke off the ever-present threat of Communism.As Prince Salman the virtual ruler of Saudi Arabia candidly admitted a total of $750 billion was spent over thirty years in that Godly cause under active guidance of CIA that noble crusader of democracy.
That is also the reason why there is no love lost between that dedicated champion of democracy and the type of military dictatorship represented by the likes of Gamal Abdel Nasser,Saddam Hussain and Colonel Gaddafy,who tried by force to uproot feudalism and orthodoxy gone toxic and introduce social uplift,equality of women and modern science and secularism;thus bypassing the path through rise and endeavor of a national bureaucracy.
In Pakistan we have an original mixture of patriotic and pious generals who both own vast landed estates run by feudal networks and huge monopolies of industrial and commercial firms and hordes of hard-liner bigoted zealots who demand your head if you even whisper that there are many people in the world who believe that Jesus Christ rather than Mohammed is for them the true Redeemer.
Hence the tussle between secular democracy and intolerant orthodoxy is going to be quite tough and long.It might lead to frequent spells of dictatorship by either camp.But one hopes in the process that ill-fated country will emerge from the shadows cast by a dark history and be led towards genuine freedom by the people of Bangladesh themselves.
Hiren Gohain is a political commentator