Strategically Speaking
Deal with the frankenstein
It was a pathetic sight. It was a despicable display of use of a religious and venerated place by the so-called protagonists of Islam, to vent their anger at the government.
What we witnessed last Friday, inexplicable acts of violence and vandalism, by people believing that whatever they were doing was to safeguard the interest of Islam. Their protest was against what they believed to be certain provisions of the recently declared women's policy being inconsistent with the provisions of Islam related to the issue.
What they failed to realise was that their violent behaviour was itself inconsistent with the teachings of the religion whose interest they were claiming to protect. Little did they realise that their vandalism had done little to enhance the image of Islam, if anything, their actions, beamed worldwide on the electronic media, have helped reinforce the misperception of those that are disposed to see Islam as an intemperate religion where violence happens to be the only expression of dissent and no room is ever given to those perceived as opposed to their views. Mosques become bastions of protests -- a result of malicious thoughts demonstrated through depraved actions.
Their actions have served Islam very badly and must have made those that are prone to paint Bangladesh as a country going down the road to radicalism very happy indeed. Ignorance and wrong political motivation have much to do with all that transpired on the Friday afternoon, which witnessed pitched confrontation against the law enforcing agency directed by alleged supporters of some Islamic parties, although I am loathe to believe that those we saw on the street wielding bamboo staffs and throwing brickbats at the police, are actually what they claim to be, and I am even less convinced that the party that they claim to belong to really believes in the tenets of Islam and the teachings of the Holy Prophet.
One is at a loss to reason what their protest was about. If it was against the said policy, which its opponents believe proposed equal share in the inheritance rights of both men and women, then there is enough ground to believe that it is either ignorance or some other ulterior motives that have motivated these people to resort to violence.
On both counts there are reasons to be concerned. There is nothing worse than actions, particularly destructive ones, initiated on the basis of wrong premise or ignorance of facts. The situation is more compounded when the issue is one that has to do with the deep-seated belief and practice of the majority people of the country.
If there are other compulsions stemming from ulterior motives that led to them resorting to the hostile acts, merely legal actions against the perpetrators of the violence is not enough. What is it that they want to achieve and what is the benefit that they would want to derive from an already unstable situation caused by a degree of political uncertainty and spiralling prices in the country?
But if these radical elements are responsible for the violence that we saw, the government must also shoulder its share of responsibility for allowing the situation to develop in the way it has in the first place, and then to see it pass last Friday.
Since the policy was declared -- a policy that is not this government's brainchild, but an inheritance from the past regimes, expressions of dissent were heard from the religious parties in the country. And to my mind these were based on misperception of the provisions that they believed were in contravention of certain Islamic decrees. And in this regard I have no reason not to take the advisor for religious affairs at her words when she said in unequivocal terms that the proposed policy does not have anything that is anti-Sharia. And it is only a policy and not a proposed ordinance. However, one must admit that reports, appearing in certain newspapers the day after the announcement regarding the proposed policy was made, did convey the impression that there were indeed certain provisions that were inconsistent with the existing Islamic law. But that was clarified subsequently by the relevant advisor.
And that is what begs the question. Why did the government fail to convince those that were apprehensive about the proposed policy? And why is it that it did not take adequate measures to dissuade or prevent these parties from taking precipitate action that they were threatening they would take, following the announcement of the proposed policy?
The handling of two matters has raised questions about the government capability to address serious issues.
The undue haste with which the government constituted a committee formed of religious scholars gave one the impression that it was not sure about the substance of the policy. That it did not anticipate the reactions that it might generate suggests that adequate time was not given to study the issue. One wonders whether it was for this government to announce a policy that required to be studied in details before it was finally formulated. And if inputs of the Alems are being sought now why were they not sought during its formulation and before it was announced?
Its handling of the religious parties has raised the question whether the government is not too soft on them. While holding of public demonstration under the EPR is prohibited, these parties seem to do it without any hindrance. Not only in the recent instance, on a few previous occasions too, demonstrations organised by some religious parties were allowed to traverse many kilometers of the road despite police presence. One would like to ask why these elements were allowed to stage demonstrations last Friday outside Bait-ul-Mukarram in the first place. And it is from these demonstrators that the attack on the police was launched initially, before the mayhem started, lasting almost 3 hours.
There may be genuine reservations about the policy. And many that have doubts about it are not all radicals. If there are suspicions about the provisions than there is a more Islamic way, a more civilised way of addressing it -- and that is through dialogue. And the government must initiate a discussion on the issue without delay or make public the proposed policy in its entirety.
But for the government it is important, too, to remove the public perception about its being tough on some political parties while softening its attitude towards others.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments