Islamic fundamentalism in Bangladesh

Mr. Harrison is an influential voice and many policy makers pay attention to him, and in this case may stir some interest among the conservatives in the US as well. It is clearly aimed at influencing the upcoming elections in Bangladesh, by modulating the US policy towards the country and to have some impact on how the elections are conducted. Also, one cannot be oblivious of the fact that in some cases the US has indirectly participated in elections by making resources available (Nicaragua, former Yugoslavia after the break-up, etc.), especially when it is able to find a willing taker with good potential for success. Whether the Administration will involve itself in the electoral process will obviously not be a matter of public knowledge! The group of people who wield power in Washington D.C. suffer from extraordinary attention deficit disorder in subjects that do not meet the neo-conservative (more like neo fascist) worldview. To them Bangladesh is at best a minor irritant. Characterising Bangladesh as a 'moderate Islamic state' is part of a low-cost strategy to keep it (along with Pakistan) in the camp. In case of Bangladesh it does not take much to do so: he US need not feed any ambition of Bangladesh to be a superpower (like India) nor is it necessary to contribute to for regional strategic military balancing activities (like Pakistan). It is not an irritant in matters of import quota: the garment industry is doing well on its own. Overall, Bangladesh is a low-maintenance entity for the US. Nurturing a cordial relation with the present regime, including coalition partners is not entirely out of character for the US, especially if its utterances can help fend off criticisms that might attract the ire of the anti-terrorist bandwagon in the US Congress, given the aversion of the Bush administration to any partnership with the elected representatives. Neither is there any contradiction in that some in the US maintain close contact with the Awami League as well. One often forgets that the "US" is not a unitary, homogenous entity: different organs of it do different things, but for a single purpose: protect US interests and/or not allow US interests to be jeopardised.

What is lacking in Mr. Harrison's write up is any insight into the society itself, and especially into the success the Islamic parties have already attained in changing it, including the "opposition" (there is growing concern among some regarding the way Mrs. Sheikh Hasina is trying to outdo Mrs. Khaleda Zia in portraying herself in appearance to be more Islamic!), and the reasons for it.

He failed to note that during the Awami League rule, the minorities did not do all that well. He also ignored the fact that the Awami League was the first to legitimise the anti-Bangladesh Jamaat's entry into national politics by forming a coalition against the BNP. Yet the most egregious omission is the failure to note that the Awami League and its coalition partners have made no commitment to restore the secular components of the country's constitution that were changed by the ideological partners of the Jamaat and under pressure from it. These provisions of the constitution were the single most important gift the Father of the nation left for the country,

The tragedy of Bangladesh is much deeper. For the foreseeable future, the choice is between lesser of two evils, i.e., that it has to choose an evil. One 'progressive' friend in Dhaka pointed out that the only reason she supports the Awami League is because people like her might have a bit more 'space' to move about if it comes to power, not because it is has the ability or political capital to reverse the trend towards fundamentalism by adopting some policy or programme of a cultural revolution.

Islamic fundamentalism is a serious threat to the country's future and it is important to focus on it. It is also important to focus on whys and hows of the failure of secular politics in the country.