One and a half centuries ago, John Lawrence could not have comprehended that his divide and conquer strategy would still have such remarkable implications in sub-continental politics.
If he knows of the events that are happening in Bangladesh now, he’d definitely be chuckling in his grave.
Bangladesh was born as a nation with all the recipes for success. Relatively manageable area, adequate population, national, religious and cultural homogeneity, and decent natural resources etc.
40 years down the line, we now have a population count that is a burden, we have foolishly depleted our natural resources without proper utilisation, we face shortages in most development catalysts – the problem count is quite heavy.
But despite all this, the major issue now is the loss of unity among our people.
Bangladesh can, in my opinion, safely be called a tribal state at this point in time. Bangladeshis are divided into progressive secularists, religious “fundamentalists,” ethnic and religious minorities, people who are indifferent and people who are discounted. These divisions are subdivided into Awami League and “pro-liberation,” BNP and “pro-liberation” and the “anti-liberation Jamaat.” Groups that have interests associated with each of these tribes have purposefully practiced seclusion to preserve and maximise their returns and now, these forces are on the verge of a massive, ugly, and ultimately bloody, skirmish.
Since the beginning, this “tribalism” is slowly turning towards sectarianism and people are getting hurt. Many have died already. History suggests that civil wars usually plague only newly-independent nations. The war-esque situation that we are heading into now, for me, is unique.
As Hefazat-e-Islam blockades the entry points of Bangladesh’s capital, and the national media becomes fetishist about its coverage, this might turn into a very unfortunate sequence of events that serves a bona-fide purpose for no one.
On one side we have Hefazat-e-Islam, on the other we have the Gonojagoron Moncho. The so-called religious fundamentalists and the so-called progressives. Most action and reaction that comes from the major political parties on this issue, somehow ends in a call for interim or caretaker governments. This conflict seems to me like the spokes of a bigger wheel that has the dirtiest electoral politics at its axis. The cadres of the major political parties had been hashing, shooting at and fighting each other, and neutrals, from long before 2013. On top of that, the aggressive stance of the government and law enforcement has pitted the police against the people.
There are numerous theories on how this conflict situation arose. We, the general public, often are busy analysing the cause of death rather than figuring out the correct treatment that would have prevented the patient from dying, we seem focused on simply trying to prevent further repetitions of the conundrum. The priority for us is to resolve the issue and make sure that it never happens again.
The problem is, the general public can scream for help as much as they want, but the solution currently lies within the hands of a very select few.
The people who are driving this vehicle may think that they still may have sufficient control over this.
What they forget is that at the end of both of these sections are the masses, the general population. Sparks that light fiery riots and sectarian violence, cannot be controlled or contained. We have already seen the incredible cruelty that has taken place as a result. After Bishwajit Das was hacked to death by Jubo League cadres, after police have cracked down on Hefazat men, we have also seen people going on rampage in Fatikchhori. Ignoring these signs can lead to great peril.
Hefazat’s last blockade showed signs that the government now is more intent on showing brute force rather than coming to a political solution. The Rana Plaza disaster and events on May 6 have already thrust the government under international scrutiny. Bangladesh is on the home page of most news giants and the reports are not positive. In case the two major political parties cannot come to a compromise, and elections are held in circumstances similar to that in 1996, the outcome will be further unrest, bloodshed, and violence. Bangladesh will be thrust into a stalemate.
In case the violence escalates and further confict occurs, the military will need to intervene. The prime minister has already urged the military to “play a responsible role” in any crisis. Bangladesh will go back in time to before 1991.
On the other hand, if the government moves forward with the plans to hold elections with no major opposition, we are going to face dictatorial rule anyway, and the events on May 6 will be used to legitimise the government’s actions.
Democracy, if lost in either of the aforementioned ways, would not be regained very soon. Because military governments or dictators do not usually operate with significant international support, Bangladesh could easily be influenced by “foreign” forces. So, there remains a chance that these foreign forces may be able to convene and appoint a non-elected non-military figurehead as “leader” of the nation. This leader would be free from worry about votes. He could, theoretically, disregard public interest and serve the interest of his/her “masters” beyond the borders.
On the surface, Bangladesh would be in harmony, people would live in peace and security. Underneath, though, Bangladesh would be infected. We will be devoured from the inside out, slowly and certainly. The alternative will be either medium or long term strife. Within that time, much damage will already have been done
If major political parties can come to some sort of a compromise, there will be an election that, as per the nation’s traditions, the victors will laud and the defeated will condemn. However, at least in this situation there would be a slight hope for change five years down the line.
In all these outcomes, people are destined to suffer. Then again, we have seldom been much better off. It is like having to choose the least painful way to uproot a tooth. Which path will lead to the least pain is anybody’s guess.
Most likely, the two major political parties will do anything and everything to stay in power, otherwise, they will try to ensure that the circulation of authority stays between themselves. Under no circumstances will they want to make way for a different alternative, however better or worse it may be. So, they are most likely to engage in discourse and come to a solution, regardless of the crazy, dirty politics that has preceded. Unless of course, the ruling party would be too afraid to risk a loss for fear that it would be treated the way it has treated the opposition.
Either way, the question that remains is: why have the people been divided and made to suffer? How long will the people be caught up in this struggle that they have no power to influence?
Shahtab Mahmud is a Journalist.