Bangladesh and its religious parties
May 15th, 2012
The former leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh Ghulam Azam has been indicted by a special court — International War Crimes Tribunal — set up by the Awami League government in Bangladesh for the crimes committed during the war in then-East Pakistan in 1971. He has been charged with complicity in the “killing of three million citizens”. Mr Azam is the head of the party that adhered to its loyalty to Pakistan and allegedly took part in what is often called ‘genocide’. More precisely, his party is accused of “creating and leading militias that carried out many killings and rapes during the nine-month war”. He is the third accused put through the tribunal since 2010 after the Supreme Court of Bangladesh reverted the Constitution of Bangladesh to its original secular character. Both the Jamaat-e-Islami and the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) have dismissed the court as a “show trial”, while Human Rights Watch has said procedures used by the tribunal “fall short of international standards”. The 2010 verdict by the ‘activist’ Supreme Court of Bangladesh has become politicised because the BNP refused to accept it, somewhat similar to what the PPP has done in the contempt court verdict by Pakistan’s Supreme Court.
In 2010, the Court in Dhaka revived the constitution of 38 years ago, getting rid of the bulk of the document’s Fifth Constitutional Amendment, 1979, which had included provisions that were seen by the Court, and by others in Bangladesh as facilitating the rise and spread of religious political parties and legitimising military dictatorship. This was followed by a ban on political parties that propagated Islamic ideology. It called these parties “extra-constitutional adventurers” and suggested “suitable punishment” for them. Few will doubt that if this train of thought is followed, then the BNP too, will have to be indicted as it supports the religious parties and leans on the country’s right-wing religious vote. However, a major blow has been delivered to those religious outfits which advocate imposition of Sharia and scare the non-Muslims (a tenth of the population) of Bangladesh with discriminatory laws. Nearly 11 Islamic parties are likely to fall under the axe of the independent Bangladesh election commission which will decide who participates in the next election. Bangladesh is divided down the middle over what kind of state it wants to be. One half is reacting against the way the army took over after assassinating the founder of the state, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, in 1975, and inserted verses from the Holy Quran into the Constitution’s guiding principle, in 1979. This step legalised the religious parties under the Fifth Amendment. Unfortunately, Bangladesh’s right-wing elements became involved in the Afghan war that brought the Taliban into power. Linkages in Pakistan facilitated the training of many more in the madrassahs of Karachi.
The Awami League came back to power in 2008 — the same year the PPP won in Pakistan. It has survived a coup within the Bangladesh Army, which kind of mirrors the fact that army officers alleged to be linked to the Hizbut Tahrir are on trial in Pakistan. The Awami League government has moved to normalise its relationship with India just like the PPP, expecting nine billion dollars in direct investments from New Delhi. But another parallel with Pakistan may not be very positive: the activism of the Bangladesh Supreme Court. There is nothing wrong, per se, in the courts being ‘activist in nature’; it is only after the polity politicises their verdicts that justice becomes impossible to enforce. Already, the BNP has prepared its agitational agenda for the next election.
It is remarkable how Pakistan and Bangladesh have trodden the same kind of path. Pakistan was taken over by its army after its establishment; so was Bangladesh. The military in Pakistan changed the constitution to legitimise itself through Islam; so did the army in Bangladesh. And after 2008, both armies have no stomach to interrupt civilian rule and impose their own junta.
Yearning for water
May 15th, 2012
The issue of growing water shortage in our country is unfortunately discussed far too rarely and is hardly given the coverage — on, say, the electronic media — that it deserves, compared to some other issues. Yet, we should be giving far more serious thought to the water crisis we face, given that it could have serious ramifications for us some years into the future, and most certainly for our future generations. Already, the dwindling flow of water in the Indus has led to a crisis in the south of the country, as farmers in Sindh complain of insufficient water to sustain crops and the encroaching sea (the sea takes giant bites out of coastal areas as the size of the Indus Delta shrinks).
A report released by the UN last year described Pakistan as one of the world’s “hotspots” as far as water shortages were concerned and warned of a rapidly worsening situation, exacerbated by global warming and climate change. The rapid melting rate of Himalayan glaciers is also giving rise to global concerns. We simply cannot afford to sit back on our heels and watch in silence any longer. Within some 50 years Pakistan has turned into a country where water is vanishing fast as compared with one where it was once plentiful. The existing sources are badly contaminated and water-borne diseases kill more and more people each year.
The problem can be addressed only if we make it a priority as far as relations with India are concerned. In many ways, the water crisis has far more significance for the lives of ordinary people than the question of Kashmir or terrorism. As experts say, the 1960 Indus Water Basin Treaty, signed at a time when India and Pakistan both had abundant water, is now outdated. A new agreement is required. Tensions such as those that exist over dam construction on the Indus River by India need to be eradicated by creating an environment within which an amicable formula can be devised. This is the only way forward. The alternative is disastrous. We also need to build greater inter-provincial trust, create cooperation based on justice and promote the notion that water is a precious resource which must not be wasted or contaminated in any way.