Minority Communities in South Asia
More Positive Assurance Needed
With the setting up of government of BJP-led alliance at the centre in India its minority communities are apprehending their uncertain political and economic future because of inclusion of certain fundamentalist Hindu leaders such as L K Advani, M M Joshi and Arun Jaitley. The role of Advani in the destruction of Babri Mosque has already been revealed. The real motive behind Joshi's Hindutva cultural project "Bharatya culture" has been reflected in the district education programme "Sarva Shiksha Abhijan" that this programme aims at imposing Hindu culture throughout India. Arun Jaitley's wish has been gradually revealed in various mass media programmes. Apart from this, BJP extremists are trying to disturb the communal harmony in West Bengal, Bihar, Gujrat, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh. However, we wish that these Hindu fundamentalists cannot be effective in future because after the demolition of Babri Mosque BJP had to forsake its agenda to come to power and the present government is a coalition government which has to accommodate the wishes of the BJP allies.
Though apparently Pakistan was created on a two-nation theory, it may not be too difficult to prove that Pakistan became a reality mainly because of (i) failure of Mohammad Ali Jinnah to fulfil his dream as a Congress leader; (ii) Jawaharlal Nehru's inadequate political foresight; and (iii) British government's wish to divide and rule to maintain economic control on the sub-continent (as long as possible). It was mainly exploitation of religious sentiment of the common people, majority of whom were poor and illiterate and as such incapable of understanding political strategies and intricacies.
Ever since the creation of Pakistan its senior politicians and bureaucrats were apprehensive of pressure from the people of its eastern part for a fair share in employment and economic activities with the rise of literacy. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who used to consider the eastern wing as an 'outpost' of Pakistan, advised them to make the western wing self-sufficient as quickly as possible so that west Pakistanis needed not to depend for anything on the eastern wing. As such all policies (at least the major ones) were formulated mainly for the benefit of west Pakistanis only. Subsequent developments, particularly during the so-called 'golden era' of Ayub Khan prove the point.
The foundation of Pakistan was based more on sentiment and less on cool logic. A modern state can never flourish on the basis of religion alone. Other than religion east Pakistanis had nothing common with the west Pakistanis. Some twenty-five years back Clarence Maloney in his book Peoples of South Asia (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc New York, 1974) rightly observed:' the disunity within Pakistan was apparent from the start. Religion proved inadequate to hold different peoples together in amity. The west Pakistani tended to look down on Bengali Muslims as second class Muslims, descendants of converts and do not in the same direct line of religious family as those who brought Islam to the country. The Punjabi Muslims see themselves as direct heirs to the ruling tradition of the Mughal territory. Thus there was deep seated cultural prejudice current at the birth of Pakistan."
Bangladesh achieved its independence through a nine-month long liberation war in which more or less all the religious minorities contributed because they hoped that independent Bangladesh would be a secular democratic state where all its people would be free to lead a peaceful life with complete religious freedom and where all will be equal before law. After independence, however, things did not proceed as anticipated. Though the then AL government could adopt secularism as one of the state principles it did not get enough time to nullify the anti-Hindu Acts (such as Enemy Property Act) imposed by the then Pakistan. Far from redressing the problems of the Hindus Zia knocked out the principle of secularism. Both Zia and Ershad were interested in the Islamisation of the constitution and ignored the problems of the minorities. In fact Zia's ill-advised policy in regard to CHT increased the suffering of the tribals there. As CHT was a political problem it was beyond the capability of a military ruler like Ershad to solve it.
Geographically Bangladesh is surrounded on three sides by India and Myanmar. India is a Hindu-majority country and Myanmar is Buddhist dominated. It may further be added that eastern part of India (bordering Bangladesh) is dominated by Buddhist Christians and tribals. It would, therefore, be most pragmatic for Bangladesh not only to tolerate these cultures but also to encourage development of their cultures so that political relations of Bangladesh with its neighbours are developed on a warmer and firmer footing. This will help her much to quicken the pace of development of trade and economic relations. It is indeed surprising that despite long experience of ruling the country for twenty years (11yrs by BNP and 9 yrs by JP) both BNP and JP are trying to raise the issue of religion in the name of so called "nationalist parties". For them it may be useful to raise the religious sentiment of the illiterate and simple voters through publicising that Awami League is a pro-Indian and secular party and as such not enough committed to protect Islam, the religion of the majority people of Bangladesh, but it would certainly be harmful for the country in the long run.
Some may argue that while communal riots frequently occur in India (which is a secular state) why Bangladesh should try to be secular in letter and spirit. There may be good reasons as to why Bangladesh should not follow India in her policy toward the minorities. The following reasons may be identified: i) the constitution of Bangladesh is not based on two-nation theory; ii) the exodus of Hindus from Pakistan was because of anti-Hindu polices adopted by the then Pakistan governments; iii) it would be improper for Bangladesh to ignore the moral and material support she received from Hindu dominated India, Buddhist dominated Myanmar and Japan and Christian democracies of UK, France and Australia and communist countries like Russia and the then East Germany; iv) it would be in the interest of Bangladesh to develop better relations with the peoples of the neighbouring states; and v) it cannot be denied that except from the Mughal ruler Akbar Hindus did not receive proper treatment from the Muslim rulers.
It may not be easy to establish absolutely amicable relationship among all the communities in South Asia because of the following constraints: (a) Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan; (b) Tamil uprising in Sri Lanka; (c) BJP-led DNA rule in India; and (d) Islamic fundamentalist dominated military rule in Pakistan.
As Bangladesh appears to be free from any such constraints as quoted above it may be appropriate for her to initiate a proposal before coming SAARC summit for adopting resolutions aiming at eliminating any existing discriminatory policy (if there be any) and not to adopt any policy discriminating the minorities in future to improve communal relationship in the region. Though we may not get immediate result from such resolutions adoption of such resolutions would increase the confidence of the minorities and will make the SAARC more meaningful and powerful.
The writer is a retired Joint Secretary.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments