Join News Letter

Iraq War

Peak Oil

Climate Change

US Imperialism

Palestine

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Globalisation

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Gujarat Pogrom

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

Contact Us

Fill out your
e-mail address
to receive our newsletter!
 

Subscribe

Unsubscribe

 

Kansat, Cricket And “Caretaker”: Height Of Regression And
De-politicization Of Bangladesh

By Taj Hashmi

09 May, 2006
Countercurrents.org


The dust has settled on the cricket pitches in Bangladesh after the humiliating defeats of the home team by Sri Lanka and Australia in a row. Meanwhile, the average Bangladeshi has forgotten the brutal massacre of innocent villagers at Kansat by Bangladeshi police in the midst of the ongoing debate on reforming the unique (and absurd) “Caretaker Government” to hold free and fair elections. Witnessing the cricket fiasco and the hyper politicking over reforming the election machinery while Bangladeshi police were killing innocent villagers at Kansat is like visiting a nihilistic world of anarchy and absurdity.

What happened at Kansat, a rural hinterland in northern Bangladesh, during January and April 2006 would have toppled governments or at least brought about months long mammoth mass demonstrations, general strikes and total non-cooperation with the government for the brutal killing of twenty unarmed civilians anywhere in the civilized world. What is interesting that predecessors of these inert Bangladeshis during the Pakistani period did never shy out from coming out on the street protesting police and eventually military brutalities on unarmed civilians. One may mention how the killing of less than half a dozen Dhaka University students by police firing on 21st February 1952 kept the millions of Bengalis restive, agitating, assertive and angry for about two decades against Pakistani ruling classes, which eventually led to the creation of Bangladesh. Similarly in 1969, Bengalis took a vow to avenge the killing of Bengalis by Pakistani police and military. Cricket or elite power politics could never divert public attention from the real political issues of mass empowerment, dignity and eventually, freedom.

The Kansat Tragedy reveals by turning Bangladesh inside out how neglected are the peasants and working classes in the psyche of the elites. Peasants’ getting electricity and fuel to run irrigation pumps seems to be the least important thing to them. Not only had the ruling coalition been indifferent to the Kansat peasants’ demands for unhindered supply of electricity and fuel, but the main opposition parties and the vast majority of the urban middle and upper classes also been indifferent, if not hostile, to their demands. From the general apathy of the vast majority of Bangladeshi elites across the board during and in the aftermath of the killing it appears that most of the elite never meant what they said about the “liberation of the people” before and after the creation of Bangladesh.

What was most surprising was the celebration of the “Kansat Victory” by the ruling and opposition parties after the so-called truce between aggrieved villagers and the government. The government did not take any disciplinary action against the killers and yet everything seems to be normal throughout the country. Some intellectuals have even portrayed the peasant agitation and the brutal massacre of twenty-odd unarmed peasants as a “peasant revolution”.

The mass apathy towards the Kansat Tragedy, excepting a few general strikes by not-yet-been-corrupted students, indicates the state of mass de-politicization of the people. The vested interest groups either brain wash and hegemonize mass consciousness in the name of their parties or religion to keep them dormant/next worldly/depoliticized or to activate them politically through phony and divisive non-issues like “Bengali” versus “Bangladeshi” or “pro-” versus “anti-Liberation”. Non-political distractions like playing Bangladesh in test and one-day cricket matches against leading cricket teams of the world have also been very efficacious in depoliticizing the masses. In short, besides being a red herring, cricket in Bangladesh is also a political football of the rival political elites.

The history of cricket in the region reveals that contrary to the general perception, there is nothing so new about cricket in Bangladesh. Bengali youths have been playing the game at least since the 1860s while the game per se was introduced to Bengal about a hundred years before its arrival into the Punjab and Sri Lanka. So, the moment we see Bangladeshis over-celebrating their extremely few and far between cricket victories, we know something has gone wrong. One does not know how Bangladesh would celebrate a hypothetical victory in series of test and one-day matches against all the leading teams of the world in a year, including its winning the World Cup. We know the abysmal state of the infrastructure – shortage of playgrounds, mass poverty and lack of physical fitness of the vast majority of the population due to low calorie intake – Bangladesh is most likely to remain an underdog in the arena of games and sports. This, however, does not mean that one undermines the Bangladeshi cricketers for achieving whatever they have achieved during the past few years despite having so many problems and not having at least 500 cricket pitches for such a vast population.

The wild celebrations smack of only the collective sense of disproportion and inferiority complex of the polity. Did Pakistan celebrate in the similar manner when it defeated India and England in the early 1950s and other leading teams afterwards? Sri Lankans also did not cross the line of decency after winning the World Cup and after so many victories against all the leading teams in the world. Sri Lankan leaders and elites did not nourish (let alone expose) any inferiority complex. One should not miss the not-so-hidden message in the Bangladeshi wild celebrations, which conveys the following: “Look, even we Bengalis can defeat Pakistan and Australia”. This is not similar to what the Japanese did after defeating the mighty Russians in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904. Figuratively, Bangladesh today is not another Japan against Russia. Bangladesh’s defeating Pakistan or Sri Lanka, West Indies or India (let alone the tiny Zimbabwe) should not become such occasions of wild celebrations.

The cricket mania, a calculative political distraction to depoliticize urban youth, has been so successful that after the crushing defeat of the non-test playing Kenya by test-playing Bangladesh Bangladeshi dailies publicized the event (actually a non-event) as a “White Wash of Kenya” in the front page. If this reflects some journalists’ immaturity and arrogance, a by-word for inferiority complex, then one does not know what is predicting an innings defeat for Australia, as the media did after Bangladesh had scored 400-odd runs in the first innings only to eventually lose the match to Australia.

The ongoing opposition demand for reforming the “caretaker system” is another problematic move to resolve the problematic concept of “caretaker government” to conduct “free and fair” parliamentary elections in the country. The Awami League-led Fourteen-Party-Alliance (thirteen of them having very negligible to no political clout at all) has been insisting on having a discussion with the ruling coalition to fine tune the “caretaker system”, but is adamant not to put their heads together with any member of the Jamaat-i-Islami, which is a part of the ruling coalition. So, apparently there are two tricky problems to resolve. First, fine tuning the “caretaker system” and then doing it without any participation by the Jamaat. The opposition simply insists on not interacting with any War Criminals and collaborators of 1971.

So far so good. However, those who know the recent past of Bangladesh during the last twenty-odd years know that top Awami League and Fourteen-Party-Alliance leaders, including Sheikh Hasina and Rashed Khan Menon among others, had absolutely no problem in hobnobbing with some top Jamaat leaders, including Matiur Rahman Nizami. Not only Sheikh Hasina and Nizami were together, holding joint meetings and rallies against the first BNP government of Khaleda Zia during 1991 and 1996, but there are also eye-witness accounts of Rashed Khan Menon’s literally embracing Nizami in public meetings.

One may also point out that on the eve of the Presidential Election of 1991, Justice Badrul Haider Chowdhury, the Awami candidate, went to Ghulam Azam’s residence (the Jamaat patriarch and controversial collaborator of the Pakistani occupation army in 1971) for his “blessings” or political support as the Jamaat had thirty-odd MPs, more than ten per cent of the electorate. What is even more significant that the unheard of concept of an unelected “care taker government” by the political scientists anywhere to run a democracy for three months and hold the most important elections in a parliamentary system was a brainchild of the controversial Ghulam Azam, who became a pariah to the opposition only in the late 1991 for various other reasons.

Those familiar with Bangladeshi political culture and socio-political history know the opportunism and lack of commitment to any ideology or leader by the bulk of the Bengali (mainly Muslim) politicians. Consequently one has no reason to be surprised at their vacillation. However, what is very unfortunate for the nation is that “politics” (in the pejorative sense) has over-powered economics and common sense, decency, justice and truth. One wonders if Bengalis could successfully elect the right type of representatives in 1937, 1946, 1954, and most importantly, in the 1970’s Parliamentary Elections in united Pakistan without having this bizarre, peculiar and outlandish “caretaker system”, why on earth do they need it now?

As we have experienced in the wake of the three parliamentary elections since 1991 held under “caretaker governments”, the outcome of the elections has never been acceptable to those who have to sit in the opposition bench. So, what is the big fuss about the system, which is neither foolproof nor anything to be proud of as a democracy? Having this absurd concept of “caretaker” simply implies that the Bangladeshi polity and the voters are in regression, in a state of immaturity and that no body is trust worthy any more to hold free and fair elections in the country. One is not sure if after the next parliamentary elections in 2007, as an alternative to the “caretaker system”, the leader of the opposition (whoever she or he will be around) would be asking the UN for International Peacekeeping Force to hold “free and fair” elections in the country.

In sum, while the rich is getting richer and poor poorer at an alarming rate for the last thirty-odd years, despite all the poverty alleviation programmes through the NGOs and public sector, the bulk of the politicians and members of the civil society, intellectuals, students, bureaucrats and businessmen have been engaged in an unhealthy rat race – some to survive and some to get-rich-quick. Consequently the real problems –such as population growth, lack of health care and education, hunger and poverty, hyper inflation (about 10,000 per cent price hike since 1970), rampant corruption by politicians, businessmen and bureaucrats – have receded to the background, as designed by political, business and professional elites. The upshot is the preponderance of non issues and red herrings to distract the masses from the real issues. Hence the celebration of “Kansat Victory” in the wake of the massacre, lunatic exuberance over cricket and the phony war and controversy over the outlandish “caretaker system”.

Google
WWW www.countercurrents.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Search Our Archive



Our Site

Web