Opinion
Who vandalise? Why vandalise?
The mind-less vandalism that we witnessed recently is definitely unwanted. But vandalism and arson have become forms of protest in Bangladesh over the years. Aggrieved people in a democracy stage protests for redressing of their grievances; it is not unexpected, but it should have been made in a peaceful manner. If we analyse the street protests in recent years, we notice that most of them turned violent and ended up in damaging of vehicles and establishments, and arson attacks.
Vandalism is the crime of destroying or damaging something, especially public property, deliberately and for no good reason (Oxford Dictionary), and is not a strange thing in our country. I can recall the first instance of vandalism I saw in my boyhood in 1969 during the mass upsurge, when high school students flattened the house of a District Board member in a neighbouring village. In independent Bangladesh, the trend intensified during HM Ershad's rule in the 80s.
Students, particularly those of Dhaka University, had taken an all-out stance against the dictator and staged numerous rowdy demonstrations along with the activists of major political parties. However, at that time, mainly state-owned BRTC buses and vehicles of government offices having red-number-plates came under attack. The government then had to change the colour of the number plates so that no one could distinguish between government and private vehicle. During the 90s, the propensity for damaging vehicles and arson attacks increased. The AL-sponsored movement during 1995-96, and BNP-led protests during AL regime, saw innumerable street protests when hundreds of vehicles were damaged or torched.
The vandalism spree got a new height post-2001 period. During the 2001-2007 not only political activists but also other elements in the society joined in the rampage. The 2006 unrest in the garments industry was one of the country's most troubled times, when damaging of vehicles and arson attacks on factories became the order of the day for about nearly two months. The garment workers at that time, and later on, turned into dominant players in carrying out vandalism. Apart from such organised forces, impromptu mobs now and then damage or destroy vehicles at any places across the country at any time. Now the question is: Who are the vandals and why do they vandalise?
There must be an organised force to carry out vandalism. Street protests of political parties, trade unions, working classes, religious groups, and other organised sections may turn violent when instigated either by the fiery speeches of their leaders or by the vested elements within the masses. But once someone initiates the act, it spreads fast among the co-activists, and the rampage continues until it is prevented or stopped by any means.
If we closely examine the people who took part in vandalism in the past, we will find that most of them were from the poorer section of the society. Most of them were street urchins, slum-dwellers, vendors, small shop owners, rickshaw-pullers, transport workers, low-paid employees of various organizations, and so on. Of course, a good number of students also made up the vandal groups. But students generally remain confined to the vicinity of their institutions.
Soon after initiation of any violent street protest, people of the above classes are seen taking the forward position. They take part in brick-batting, chase and counter-chase with law enforcers, and damaging vehicles or setting fire to them with enthusiasm. They might be political elements or members of any socially organised group, but their main identity is that they are from the unprivileged and deprived section.
By definition, vandalism is a criminal act. The law of the country also provides for stringent punishment for vandals. Despite knowing the consequences, people participate in vandalism. But why do vehicles and other inanimate objects fall prey to the wrath of the street protestors? Why this act of damaging property?
According to John Stuart Mill, the happening of any event is caused by the summation of all essential conditions of the event (Law of Causation). Interestingly, we always see the act as a conspiracy, and try to find conspirators behind such acts. We also blame politicians for instigating unrest to reap political gain. Al right. I'm not rejecting the hypothesis. But is such conspiracy or instigation enough to initiate vandalism? I think there must be some conducive condition which encourages the players to take part in such criminal acts. And the condition is the existing contradiction between the haves and the have-nots.
The glamour, splendour, and wealth around them are elusive. The vandals don't posses those. The vehicles they damage are not their's, they don't ride on them; moreover they think that there is no distant chance of having similar vehicles of their own. Not only that, they think the vehicles are responsible for their woes as they are mainly purchased with ill-gotten money or other crooked means.
They have resentment against the owners of those, but they (the rich) are very powerful and out of reach. On the other hand, the hapless are very fragile individually, but when they forged unity they turn very strong. And whenever they get the chance, they assuage their anger by damaging the 'signs of affluence'.
Then why the students of the highest educational institutions? As the most conscious section of the society, many of the students see a bleak future ahead and feel frustrated. The social inequalities and injustices also affect their minds and push them to resorting to protest that sometimes culminates into vandalism.
Bangladesh is becoming a country of unequal economy, with widening discrimination between urban and rural areas. The upper 20 percent of the people hold 80 percent of the resources, and 80 percent hold 20 percent. The rural land distribution pattern is almost the same. The upper thirty percent of the households own 71 percent of the land, while the remaining 70 percent holds 29 percent. There must be inequality in a capitalist system, but that must be within a limit. The GDP growth itself can't be dubbed as development unless a minimum quantity trickled down to the poorer section.
A country can't thrive for long nurturing so much inequality. The riches must devise ways and means to distribute wealth among the deprived sections.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments