Old habits die hard
Combating terrorism requires mutual cooperation.Photo: AFP
ONE of the most outstanding outcomes of the recently concluded India visit by our prime minister was the agreement with India to fight terrorism and organised crime. This has been long overdue, and we should be grateful to the prime minister that she had agreed with India on an array of agreement that includes extradition of criminals and elements charged with terrorism. We are all aware of the spectre of terrorism that haunted us in the early part of this decade, and Bangladesh was in the brink of becoming of a safe haven for the elements that have wreaked havoc on another country in the subcontinent with which we were yoked four decades before. Close to our country, eastern side of the border, we have elements that not only threaten peace in the neighbourhood, but also can potentially bring down our own stability. For years the earlier political government either turned a blind eye to this threat or indulged in the growth of these elements for short-term political gains. In not too distant in the past, we witnessed helplessly as these malignant forces terrorised parts of the country and mowed down many innocent lives. The foreign press was telling us how we were allowing our territory to be used by religious militants intent on bringing about their version of government by coercion. Yet our government that time chose to turn a deaf ear to these alerts, and continued to claim that we were safe and that these calls were nothing but false alarms. It is only after repeated pressures from our external donors that our government that period made some half hearted moves to contain the extremist elements. To our great dismay and distress, however, we find again a similar mindset surfacing to oppose the agreement that seeks to prevent the terror threat from rearing its ugly head. The agreement to save the subcontinent from the threat is being attacked along with other mutually beneficial agreement of collaboration between our two countries by the current government's opponents in false pretense of patriotism. A pragmatic, timely, and beneficial agreement is being painted as a sellout and an anti-national accord by its opponents. To me nothing is more anti-national and more self-destructive than pandering of old politics that gives sanctuaries to the armies of death and destruction created by the elements bred by hatred and bigotry. This kind of politics has been responsible in the past for the emergence of groups like Harakatul Jihad al-Islami Bangladesh, Jamatul Mujahedeen Bangladesh, Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh and Ahl-e-Hadith Andolon Bangladesh who infused political violence in Bangladesh with the language of jihad and tactics borrowed from terrorist groups abroad. It created an enabling environment for the emergence of militant groups by normalising the use of violence to express political disagreement and promoting a culture of impunity. It gave sanctuaries to the elements who were working across our border to destabilise their own government. This kind of politics thrived on only one slogan -- that of a perceived conspiracy hatched across the border with internal agents to destroy our "religion." Mark the word "religion" -- because the politics of this kind put religion above the country. There is opposition for opposition's sake, and there is opposition because of some fundamental differences in belief and ideology. The opponents of this kind articulate their differences in political debates in the established forums such as the parliament as we can see other established democracies around the world. The most dangerous kind of opposition is of a third kind. It comes from people who indulge in politics of agitation and instigation by fomenting phobias, and raising slogans to stoke people's base instincts of fear and suspicion. The easiest of these instigations -- and we have seen it in the past -- is rumours of conspiracy against religion. From Pakistan days we had seen repeatedly efforts by our masters to lay out conspiracy theories to prevent a better understanding with our neighbour and accommodations for mutual benefits. The policy of confrontation based on a publicly fed fear of an invasion by that country of our "religion and culture" allowed our masters to arm and equip a military to its teeth. Any opposition to this policy was muzzled or termed as anti-national. In fact, our first attempt at seeking equality for our language and culture was dubbed as nothing but a compromise of our national sovereignty. Any attempt to befriend the neighbour was viewed as downright anti-national. Living in peace and harmony with a neighbour is a cardinal aspect of a nation's foreign policy. One of the pre-determinants of this concept is to weed out causes of common woe, and the threat of terrorism of late has been a common woe of both our countries. Our political leaders in the opposition would serve the country better if they were to understand the fundamental conditions of survival, and show more pragmatism in their choice of slogans. They should learn that the slogans of xenophobia and threats to our religion, and stoking of fears of invasion from other countries do not show political maturity in an age of globalisation and bilateral cooperation for mutual benefits -- but old habits die hard! Ziauddin Choudhury, a former civil servant in Bangladesh, now works for an international organisation in the US.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments