The politics of belief and truth

While having a conversation with a pro-BNP businessman in Singapore, he raised a similar skepticism as to who were responsible for the August 17 bombings in Bangladesh. He said: "Who knows, who bombed -- but it must be a political party with national reach." This gentleman was a little discreet, but a ruling party leader in North Bengal was not so tactful; he claimed the Awami League, the major Opposition Party, were responsible for the attacks.

Why would Awami League do such things? Of course, the forthcoming Saarc meeting that Awami League for some reasons want to sabotage. Similar accusations were made by ruling party leaders last year after the brutal killing of Mr. Kibria, the well-respected Finance Minister of Awami League government. Allegations were made that Awami League wanted to spoil the ensuing Saarc meeting, and thus sacrificed one of its leaders. Let me tell you, these are not just outrageous, wild, and unsubstantiated allegations made by the morally and intellectually retarded, there are many seemingly decent folks who tend to believe these to be facts. But why?

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

In the early stage of the liberation war, a Pakistani policeman imported from the Punjab shared a "fact" with me that was kept secret from the Bengalis. The "fact" was that Sheikh Mujib was a full colonel in the Indian Army and his mission was the destroy Pakistan for which he had been working for a long time!

The policeman's belief is understandable. In order to make him do the dirty work, his bosses implanted these beliefs in his mind. We grow up believing many things that do not exist in the real world. But sometime propaganda machines -- politically motivated -- tend to create illusions and implant beliefs in our minds. I met a North Korean some years ago -- a seemingly sensible man who believed everything his supreme leader told. Socialisation may explain the source of beliefs but we need to know what sustains it. I would venture a hypothesis. Beliefs are closely related to our sense of self-worth.

Some people believe that on 9/11 there were no Jews in the World Trade Centre in New York. I was asked about this subject by seemingly sensible people. My answer was this: the US census does not have religion as a category so we do not know exactly how many Jews or Muslims live in the US let alone work in the World Trade Center. The figures of religious groups in the US are estimates provided by the respective religious communities. Given the sensitivity of the issue of religion in the US culture, it would be almost impossible to know the religious background of the people who worked in the World Trade Centre. Therefore, such a belief was highly implausible and it fits only with a conspiracy theory that the enemies of Muslims were behind the terrorist attack to tarnish the image of the Muslims.

Those who believe in that conspiracy theory find some comfort in the belief that the Muslims were innocent of the attack. I can think of many positions on 9/11 ranging from a great tragedy to a reprisal from the victims who used the weapon of the weak However, the issue at hand is belief. Why do some people need comfort in their beliefs? For some people, beliefs are close to their sense of self-worth.

But is belief simply a matter of psychology? I think not. There is a political dimension of belief. Some beliefs are politically constructed, like the example of the Pakistani policeman. Propaganda aside, what people say as what they believe can be explained by the political advantages.

The ruling party leader, a state minister, in putting the blame on the opposition Awami League is trying to create a smoke screen and to get some undue political advantage. Similarly, the opposition would like to put the blame on the government for political mileage. If you make the government look weak or, worse, complicit, it loses some legitimacy which may end up your way. Surely, these are all allegations in need of evidence.

In this blame game some people and a number of leaders show a culture of irresponsibility which has now become entrenched in Bangladesh. What is equally or even more worrisome than the simultaneous bombings in Bangladesh is the culture of irresponsibility. The capture and punishment of the bombers are easier than arresting the culture of irresponsibility. There are many factors for the emergence of the culture of irresponsibility where politicians --minus the likes of Dr. Kamal Hossain -- play a big role but the factor that has the most direct bearing is the culture of impunity.

Bangladesh has had the inglorious record of using the parliament, a noble institution for drafting laws presumably to ensure the rights of the people to live in peace and to secure justice, to pass law that gave immunity to the culprits, otherwise known as indemnity bill. If criminals are not tried and punished, if judges feel "embarrassed" to pass judgments, if sections of the police force fail to demonstrate confidence in the judiciary by becoming the accuser, prosecutor, judge and the executor all in one, if political leaders rather than being role models of responsibility make irresponsible statements based on innuendos and white lies, how can we expect to break the cultures of immunity and irresponsibility? We must return to a culture of responsibility in order to deal with endemic violence and to strengthen democracy in Bangladesh.

The author teaches sociology at the National University of Singapore.