Intolerant Bangladesh? How and Why

Mahatma Gandhi once said that intolerance is a kind of violence that stunts democratic growth.2

The accuracy of his observation and its relevance to Bangladesh may be illustrated by a number of crucial political events in contemporary Bangladesh. Considering Bangladesh an intolerant country may be a disquieting surprise in view of the egalitarian spirit upon which the country emerged through a bloody liberation war in 1971. In 1971, the country was slated to be an abode of human beings believing in humanitarian values. Bangladesh of today, however, appears to be an anathema to what it was supposed to be. Over recent years, Bangladesh has had, as it seems, a full share of what is loathed as intolerance. But the caveat is that it is not the country as such that is intolerant. Rather, there are numerous elements which are ubiquitous and frequently active in demonstrating different forms of intolerance, both politically and in terms of religion.

According to standard dictionary meaning (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary English Language),3

intolerant simply means the unwillingness to accept ideas or ways of behaving that are different from one’s own. When politics is a zero-sum game involving dirty tricks and scheming, it is said to be intolerant. The result is the obvious lack of tolerance among various players. This is a situation that has typically been conceptualised as an unwillingness to extend expressive rights to perceivably disliked groups or individuals. Contrarily, political tolerance may be defined as the willingness to extend basic rights and civil liberties to persons and groups whose viewpoints differ from one’s own. This is a central tenet of liberal democracy. Democracy functions relatively perfectly when there is harmony between the will of the party in power and the party(ies) in opposition.

Religious intolerance takes place when a religious group specifically refuses to tolerate beliefs and practices of other religious groups often based on misconceptions. Such religious intolerance may have intra-group ramifications based on differing ways of beliefs and practices. The dichotomy and dissonance between the shia and sunni communities within Muslims themselves may be an example of this type of intra-group intolerance. As Arnold Toynbee states, for a religious group to persecute another religion for being ‘wrong’ ironically puts the persecuting religion in the wrong, undermining its own legitimacy. But practitioners of intolerance, either in politics or in religion, are found to be blissfully unaware of this legitimacy factor.

In the specific context of Bangladesh, it is reasonable to argue that both the establishment and the anti-establishment political forces have had their share in fomenting political intolerance. Initially however, a correct beginning was made for an ideal polity with a constitutional provision for four state principles and a clear ban on denominational politics.4

Democracy, secularism, socialism and nationalism were the four fundamental state principles. On the other hand, articles 12 and 38 banned the abuse of religion in the form of religion-based political fronts and politics.5 But in the post-1975 period, Bangladesh underwent an almost 180° turnaround as these provisions were scrapped to make room for denominational politics and resurgence of anti-liberation elements including the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI). Thus, the stage was set for manifestation of bigotry and communalisation of the society and the polity. Such a trend of derailment of Bangladesh was further entrenched in 1988 as the Eighth Amendment to the constitution made Islam the state religion with the farcical provision that other religions could be pursued peacefully.6 In a volatile country like Bangladesh, if the majority religion is made the state religion, it does smack of a majoritarian arrogance. After all, Bangladesh is not Finland, where the Evangelical Lutheran Church and Finnish Orthodox Church are official state religions. In the Finnish example, there is, however, the provision of free expression of religion in Article 11 of that country’s constitution.7 The Freedom House report entitled ‘Religious Freedom in the World’8 in 2000 includes Finland in the group of countries with highest level of religious freedom. Not surprisingly, Bangladesh does not have any place in any group mentioned in the report. In 2011, the Fifteenth Amendment to the Bangladesh constitution repeated Islam as the state religion.9 Although traditionally a country of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance, Bangladesh has lately emerged as a hub for religious intolerance, sometimes with external linkages. In such a context, it remains a reasonable speculation as to whether the state use of religion for political motives has led to the growth of an enabling environment for the rise of religious intolerance more generally. And this is so despite the present government’s apparent efforts in curbing religious militancy.

A good governance deficit has led to a worrisome scenario in the realms of freedom of expression and press freedom lately. Often, progressive writers and their publishers have come under attack, some already killed and some maimed. The fanatics arrested so far in connection with these murders are yet to be confirmed as the real killers. Included in the list of the murdered ones, either shot from close range or hacked to death, are also foreigners of innocuous origin. Such killings may have their origins in conspiracies hatched at home with foreign linkages. But that they could take place due to an enabling environment created within Bangladesh is a sure sign of a deficit in law and order maintenance. Moreover, many eminent citizens known for their pro-liberation orientation and progressive thinking have received death threats from such obscurantist elements as the ‘Ansarullah Bangla Team’.10

The peak of intolerance in Bangladesh was reached when mosques, temples and churches were attacked by fringe groups. Even an occasion such as the Ashura gathering of shia Muslims was bombed11 for the first time in the history of the country. Bangladesh, in its experience as an independent entity, has never before witnessed anything like these attacks.

Besides intolerance in the societal milieu, there is also evidence of the establishment or government-related intolerance which manifests in the regime’s inability to tolerate dissenting voices or opinions. Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act12

comes in handy as a tool for the establishment to set in motion its own practices of intolerance. This Act contains provisions which attempt to curb dissenting opinions and curtail freedom of expression. Time and again, voices of concern about such provisions have been expressed by the civil society members, but to no avail. Matters came to head as the physically disabled journalist Probir Sikdar (editor of an online newspaper) was arrested and remanded under this Act in August 2015.13 But the furore which resulted from this arrest led to his hasty release on orders from the highest state authorities. Probir Sikdar’s offence was that his newspaper carried an item that went against the interests of some influential political actors in the country. It is apparent that the arrest of the journalist was not an act of the establishment itself; but it is also clear that the arresting authorities took advantage of an intolerant and thus defective Act in muzzling freedom of expression.

The worst act of intolerance is to be found in the mainstream politics of the country. Seymour Martin Lipset has noted the minimal precondition for democracy is an institutionalised competition between and among political parties. If so, Bangladesh may easily be faulted as there is no such competition, what exists instead is only confrontation between the two major players—Awami League (AL) and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). The BNP, for example, in its bid to force its demand for an early midterm election unleashed literally a reign of terror for 91 days starting from 5 January in 2015. The party was aided and abetted by its ally JI, an anti-liberation party, which has also been dubbed a terrorist outfit in one of the verdicts of the International Crimes Tribunal.14

Declared as a shutdown (aborodh), the programme resulted in huge losses in terms of both life and property. The programme, however, fizzled out inconsequentially, but left a clear mark as a negative and intensely intolerant politics of the opposition completely oblivious to the interests of the country and the people. This is not a matter of politics but a monstrosity of the same.

The party in power, that is, AL, has also not been as tolerant of dissent and contrary ideas as it should have been vis-à-vis the opposition. For instance, opposition political parties were not allowed to hold any meeting and rally specially since the later part of 2013 and onwards. Moreover, party activists mostly belonging to the BNP were arrested randomly on different grounds; in most cases, bail was rejected.

Such a confrontational interrelationship between government and opposition remains the same irrespective of the party in government and opposition. Another permanent feature of Bangladesh is the use of excessive force by police irrespective of the party in power. In such a context, two specific comments are in order. First, the government and opposition are permanently intolerant of each other. Any government behaves like the ‘winner who takes it all’. Opposition, on the other hand, is under the constant vow to dislodge the government. Essentially, politics is about a power game. But this kind of intolerant power game is not played on rules, and in consequence, democracy becomes the most obvious casualty. Second, the state and its law-enforcing institutions are increasingly becoming intolerant and seem to believe that this is a form of governance. The state is found resorting to repression in the name of safeguarding sovereignty and security. Mostly, however (if not in all cases), any threat to the government is passed off as a threat to the state.

In this context, it is obvious that present-day Bangladesh shows very clear tendencies of intolerance on the basis of social, political and religious identity. Such intolerance, however, is a phenomenon which contradicts the traditions of the country spanning over a thousand years where tolerance and coexistence with different groups were cornerstones of its civilisational ethos. Finally, the fact that Bangladesh is intolerant is something that correlates with bad politics, bad governance and extremism at home and beyond our borders.