In the Crosshairs of Radical Uprising

Ziauddin Choudhury

In March 2001, six months before September 11, the Taliban destroyed the famous
Buddha statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan, calling these idols and therefore unislamic.
They cared little about heritage or culture of Afghanistan. In 2015 the soldiers of the so-
called Islamic State in Syria destroyed hundreds of invaluable sculpture from Roman days
in the ancient city of Palmyra because they found these unislamic. The world was aghast
by such savagery. Is Bangladesh on the way to become third such country?

I am not here to debate the issue whether Islam forbids sculpture as an art form and
whether sculptures are to be treated as idols. I am also not here to argue about claims
made by some of the proponents of our religion that all sculpture of a living being is ipso
facto an idol and that such objects have no place in a Muslim country. I am here to pose a
question. Is banning or destroying a sculpture the only act to establish Islam in the
countrys governance, or is it a harbinger of more dire things to come?

The opposition of a certain section of the religiously inclined people to many of our
cultural traditions and practices is not new. In the past we have seen negative utterances
by heads of some religious institutions against celebrations of Bengali New Year,
bestowing of flower wreaths in monuments on national occasions, female participation in
processions, etc. Even music and dancing have been termed as unislamic by some of these
orthodox critics. But these utterances were previously mostly confined within cleric-
friendly circles of religious seminaries, or religious gatherings in far flung areas of the
country. Such oppositions were mostly ignored by the majority of our people, and our
politicians also overlooked them (as they should) since these did not represent mainstream
views in the country or a threat to the country. But that is until now.

Unfortunately, the rhetoric of the religious right that was earlier confined to the
seminaries and seasonal religious gatherings has reached a new level. It is now a voice
that even our government is forced to listen to, and appears to respect. Is this simply
because the religious right is gaining popularity or because there is an invisible shift in the
governments stance toward this group? In either case, we have serious causes for worry,
because this is not why we had fought for our liberation.

To say that what we are witnessing in our political scene today is simply a cacophony of
some religious zealots is not only an understatement, but it is shielding ourselves with
naive denialism. What we are witnessing now did not just begin with the demands of the
religious right for removal of a statue from the gates of the Supreme Court. Nor is it
peaking with threats of physical harm by this group in open forum to a well-known
activist and social leader for her defense of the secular values of our country. The clouds
of radicalism formed long ago.
The growth in religious right movement and radical ideas did not happen overnight. It has
happened over years with collusion from home and abroad. At home front, it happened
with cooption of the religious leaders in the politics of the country, starting with heads of
religious institutions and their acolytes, in pseudo-democracies of the military leaders who
overthrew our first democratic government. From abroad, it began with pumping of
money from oil rich Arab countries to old and new religious institutions and import of a
rigid version of Islam through expatriates.

One expected that with the rebirth of democracy in the country after the mass upheaval in
1990, the tilt toward religious fundamentalism and the countrys gradual shift away from
secularity would be halted. But that would not be the case. Instead, we witnessed a more
menacing form of radicalism that spawned the birth of militants who would terrorize some
parts of the country in the beginning of this century. This was possible partly because the
party in power that period had aligned itself with forces that were anything but secular in
their political ideology. In fact, following removal of secularism for all practical purposes
as a state principle from the time of the two military leaders, there was no attempt at
rehabilitating the secular image of the country either through obvert or covert action.

We have witnessed the spread of extremist thoughts and action in many activities in our
country since then. Last five years we saw killing of individualswriters, journalists,
activists, minority prieststhat were carried out by unidentified people in the name of
religion. A Buddhist temple was razed to the ground on an unfounded report of affront to
Islam by its priest. The horrendous list of crimes would culminate in the most terrible
tragedy of death of twenty innocent people in a restaurant in Dhaka last year in terrorist
hands.

Is there a link between the tragic happenings of last few years and the spread of
intolerance that we are seeing now? Is there any commonality between the people who
have been killing innocent people in the name of Islam and those who think that secular
ideas have no place in a Muslim country? Probably no, as the former requires a type of
mentality and brainwashing that a garden variety religious person will not have.
However, both kind are intolerant, a basic tenet Islam asks its followers to have.

Political, religious, or social issues that pose problems for a government are best resolved
through discussion in a forum where people can participate. In democratic countries this
forum is the parliament where peoples representatives debate the issues and come to a
resolution. The question where a statue should be located is not an issue for the
parliament, but whether a country should have statues at all is a state policy that a
parliament can decide. But expression of a persons view on it in a public forum is that
persons fundamental right which does not need parliamentary nod. That person requires
state protection if he or she is threatened for expressing their views. And such threats need
to be dealt with seriously by the state.

I can understand our governments dilemma in tackling the religious right in a Muslim
country. It is difficult to shore up secular values in a religiously biased community. It is
more difficult in a country where the constitution proclaims one particular religion to be
state religion. But there are core values of freedom of expression, equality of all religions,
and rule of law that are part of our constitution. In giving quarters to a vociferous section
of people we should not undermine these core values. Political alliance among political
parties for a common goal is not unusual. But such alliance should not compromise these
core values that guided our war of liberation. The mistake of mixing religion with politics
is what broke Pakistan. Let us not repeat such mistakes. Indulgence of one demand on
religious grounds will lead to other, and soon our democracy will turn into a theocracy.