Division and Diversity in South Asia: Bangladesh Experience

  • Dr. Mahfuz Parvez, Associate Editor, Barta24.com, Dhaka
  • |
  • Font increase
  • Font Decrease

Photo: Collected

Photo: Collected

Pranab Vardhan in his article entitled 'United States of the Past' reminds us that the mantra of 'one country, one everything' by global rulers will in the long run harm the unity of the country. All these mantras, such as opposition-free 'one country, one party' or 'one country, one leader' are actually attempts to establish a dictatorship full of the stench of dictatorship.

Similarly, dictatorship seizes everything including power at one time by shouting 'my, my'. In the democratic sphere, monopolistic authority is gradually expanded by hypnotizing the people. Dictatorship, autocracy, fascism gradually grew in the arena of democracy. Even so, a democratically elected government, demanding democratic institutions, gradually axed all power. History is witness to many such examples. They are absolutely unsustainable and terrifying for a diverse democratic country.

বিজ্ঞাপন

It is really difficult and impossible in the social and political system to take everything under the control of 'me and us'. Let's take South Asia as an example. There are multiple divisions and diversities. Although division and diversity differ from country to country, division and diversity are realities though it is not really possible to grab everything as 'mine and us'. The consequences for those who wanted to be or became authoritarian by establishing occupation were dire and deadly. And those who tolerate division and accept diversity and bring everyone together are relatively successful.

Attempts to impose a single authority on the political trajectory of South Asian countries with the slogan of 'me and us' have failed time and again. Divided and diverse South Asia is a pluralistic region. Instead of authoritarianism and fascism, coordination and inclusiveness is the appropriate approach. Therefore, it is better for South Asian countries to follow such liberal and Universalist ideology, through which the ideology of the majority or majority-centric ideology can be prevented from becoming authoritarian and fascist.

বিজ্ঞাপন

Researcher Neeti Nair's book Heart Sentiments discusses these issues in detail. The book is enriched by the debates of different opinions and paths during the constitution making of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, various relevant legal and court-centered discourses. In a deftly styled yet informative manner, the author presents a new interpretation of secularism whose main point is that the state's state behavior and religion should not draw a wall between the two, nor is it sufficient to draw a distinction. There is a need to go back to the tradition of coexistence and harmony between different religious communities (and certainly different ideological groups). Being secular means fearlessly belonging to one's community and nation. At the same time to respect and recognize the existence and position of other communities and nations. This attitude must be applied to religion and community as well as politics.

But the reality is definitely different. Despite various efforts, the divisions and conflicts of the society and the conflicts in the political sphere have not been resolved. The tendency of the majority to become authoritarian and fascist could not be completely curbed. The behavior of the state has not been neutral, pluralistic and co-ordinated. During the crisis, the bloodshed of ideological battles, leadership duels and extreme moments of ethnic riots were visible in the countries of South Asia. The structure of governance and the walls of administration have been broken down by conflict and conflict. The terrible riots that broke out in India in the months following the demolition of the Babri Mosque exposed administrative and state failure. Dissidents and minorities are constantly attacked there. There has been a lot of bloodshed during the change of government in Sri Lanka. The struggle to overthrow the government in Bangladesh took the form of a bloody battlefield from the student movement. Opponents and opponents are brutally persecuted in Pakistan.

As a result, the ideal of coexistence is affected in South Asia, which is undergoing division and diversity. The integrated and collective political trajectory is more tragic and bloody. India's democratic and secular ideology has to shed tears every day to assert its helplessness in the face of religious authoritarianism. In Pakistan, the people have been yearning for democracy against party and military authoritarianism. In Sri Lanka, Nepal and the Maldives, there is a fierce exhibition of factional competition, with which regional and international powers are intermingled.

In such a background, Bangladesh has to remember the fact every day that the existing division in the heart of the country and society has not been bridged at all. Mistrust between the political majority and the minority is still a major obstacle to nation building. Party positions, leadership disputes, ideological battles and conflicts of interest are major obstacles to peace and stability. There is no visible attempt to integrate division and diversity. Rather, even after the change of power, fierce competition for positions and power has spread from the administration to the university. The place of neutral and acceptable candidates is being taken by the politically victorious forces, which are essentially ghosts of the authoritarian and fascist past of making everything 'mine and ours'.

If the shadow of the ghost of the past is prolonged, how successful will the attempt to be united and free from the danger of authoritarianism and the dangers of fascism be? How safe can the program of nation building be? These are very important questions. Especially if it is not possible to develop the pluralist path of unity and harmony in the midst of division and diversity as a social path, the rule of the majority will continue and authoritarianism and fascism will continue the post will continue to increase gradually. Achieving the noble cause of reform and positive change may not be easy or possible unless political or ideological minority-statist divides are bridged and brought into credible rapprochement.

It is certainly true that long and complex problems are difficult to eradicate when their roots are deeply rooted. Especially if things like division and conflict exist at every level of the society; it is impossible to eliminate it in one day. Rather, mere ledger democracy without cultural improvement cannot ensure the coexistence of all. At least an atmosphere of coexistence has been created in liberal parliamentary democracy, but it needs to be furthered in various ways because coexistence depends on the discourse, discussion and dialogic practices and attitudes of the society. Starting that dialogue requires strong political neutrality and a liberal attitude. Focusing on how coexistence can be socially reinforced is really important in complex situations, rather than taking everything as a group consideration. Strengthening coexistence and stability in politics can be easy and possible only if new efforts are made for unity and coexistence by observing the history of friendship and enmity in politics and society.

Dr. Mahfuz Parvez, Associate Editor, Barta24.com; Professor and Chairman, Department of Political Science, University of Chattogram; Executive Director, Chattogram Center for Regional Studies, Bangladesh (CCRSBD).