Writing on the wall: What does it mean?

Municipal laws probably prohibit such writings on the wall, as sometimes one can see signs that read writing on the wall is prohibited! This type of warning, as in case of other types of laws, is honoured more in breach than in observance. Political underlings or advertisers indulge in this type of activity in gay abandon, which in a civilised society offends what is known as civic sense. However, such writings are not uncommon in the so-called developed or industrialised countries. Someone who lived nearly two decades in a European country recalls that he once read writing on the wall, which said "Prime Ministero Bastardo!" But that would be in bad taste and this type of writing is not perhaps seen in Bangladesh.

Writing on the wall acquired, from the viewpoint of civic sense, a new meaning during the martial law regime. It is said that during the martial law regime of 1969, then Chief Martial Law Administrator (CMLA) Yahya Khan, as was generally the convention, a meeting was convened for CMLA to address the Secretaries to the government (the lousy civilians as is the jargons used by the Army to describe the officers in civil employ). The CMLA addressed the Secretaries to make home the point that martial law was imperative to save Pakistan's integrity as a nation and all that. The CMLA then posed a question: "What do you think will be the impact?"

It is said that at least one 'lousy civilian' spoke in a forthright manner. He was Qudrutullah Shahab. He replied by saying that "we have seen martial law in the past. The immediate impact is face lifting of walls by removing the writings on the wall." He had to, it is reported, go abroad to escape the wrath of the CMLA. This is an anecdote that reveals two aspects. First is the popular practice of writing on the wall by political underlings and others. Secondly, and more importantly, the fact that writing on the wall, even after the writing is removed, has a much deeper connotation.

In fact, the term "Writing on the Wall" is perhaps equivalent, in terms of connotation, to the Bengali expression 'Ashani Sanket' or ominous signs. The origin of the expression can be traced back to the Hebrew Scriptures (Daniel 5). It is said that one night, Belshazzar, the Chaldean King was having a grand feast with all the wise men and lords of his kingdom.

Under the influence of the wine, Belshazzar commanded that they bring in the vessels of gold and silver that his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem, so that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them. So they brought in the vessels of gold and silver that had been taken out of the temple, the house of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. They drank the wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.

Immediately the fingers of a human hand appeared and began writing on the plaster of the wall of the royal palace, next to the lampstand. The king was watching the hand as it wrote. Then the king's face turned pale, and his thoughts terrified him. His limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together. The king cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the diviners; and the king said to the wise men of Babylon, "Whoever can read this writing and tell me its interpretation shall be clothed in purple, have a chain of gold around his neck, and rank third in the kingdom."

Daniel interpreted the "Writing on the Wall" which all the wise men and lords of Belshazzar's kingdom could not decipher. Soon after the interpretation given by Daniel, Belshazzar was slain and the kingdom was taken over by Darius. Belshazzar's vision of a hand leaving words written on a wall of the palace, interpreted by Daniel, announces the incoming disaster. This is why in English literature and poetry, the phrase "writing on the wall" has become synonymous of something announcing a catastrophe of some kind.

The Biblical reference as above outlined needs to be understood in the context of the state and the society in Bangladesh. The recent anti-Qadiani movement spearheaded by a section of people which led the government to ban one of their published books followed by demands that Qadianis be declared non-Muslims is a writing on the wall in another form. The Prime Minister rejected the proposal to declare them non-Muslims as reported in some leading dailies. Immediately after this, it was declared that the persons interested in anti-Qadiani movement would go for further agitation on Friday, the 16th January 2004. As a prelude to this, as part of the preparations for the movement, a huge procession was brought out on January 15 at around 5 P.M in Dhanmondi. The procession almost covered the entire length of Old Road No. 27 of Dhanmondi from Sat Masjid Road to Rapa Plaza. This was perhaps another form of writing on the wall. A senior citizen who witnessed this recalled that the worst form of violence centring on Qadianis, which occurred in Lahore in 1953. A limited martial law had to be imposed in Lahore by calling the army out to stop violence against Qadianis. General Azam Khan, later Governor of the then East Pakistan, led the operation to restore law and order in Lahore. By all accounts available, he did it in no time. It is an example of the way coercive powers of the State come into full play to protect citizens of a different religious denomination from irrational attacks by others. The citizen also recalled that a few years back he saw the crude form of writing on the wall. The writing read "We are also Talibans, Bangladesh will be Afghan."

Some of the biggest arms haul in Joypurhat and some other places, the bomb blasts in Ramna and in Jessore that killed many people who were at the site to enjoy cultural functions may well be seen as part of a different ideological movement, wedded to the cult of religious intolerance. The latest one of such violent incidents was in the Holy shrine of Hazrat Shah Jalal in Sylhet followed by the bomb blast in a bus load of persons who were coming to attend a religious function in Dhaka. It is too early to say whether all of such violent incidents are part of the same ideological movement. The signals, however, are loud and clear. Bangladesh may be forced to face such 'music' unless these efforts are nipped in the bud as they run counter to all the values, which led to the birth of Bangladesh.

Indeed, based on such values, the original constitution included 'secularism' as one of the fundamental principles of state policy. The word secularism was, however, deleted by Proclamation Order I of 1977. The said order also deleted article 12 which contained the words 'secularism and freedom of religion'. No research has as yet been carried out about the circumstances that led to this type of amendments.

In the chapter dealing with fundamental rights, the constitution prohibits discrimination on ground of religion (Articles 28 and 29). But these are more in the nature of public rights. However, freedom of religion forms part of the fundamental rights in article 41, which reads:

Subject to law, public order and morality

- Every citizen has the right to profess, practise or propagate any religion.

- Every religious community or denomination has the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.

No person attending any educational institution shall be required to receive religious instruction, or to take part in or to attend any religious ceremony or worship, if that instruction, ceremony or worship relates to a religion other than his own.

In the present day context, we do not need any wiseman like Daniel to interpret the safeguard clauses of the constitution in respect of freedom of religion. The words are very clear and specific. However, periodic organised violence against some religious communities, attacks on their lives and properties not to speak of bomb blasts in innocent cultural functions and holy shrines tend to make a mockery of the words that adorn the chapter on fundamental rights. It is this aspect that needs objective and unbiased interpretation.

It is unfortunate that, as reported in the press (Janakantha, January 18, 2004), one of the senior Ministers has given his opinion that anyone who supports Qadianis is an infidel (Kafir). If this is true, it only points out to Daniel's interpretation of the word "Peres" which means "Your Kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians". This is so because the Prime Minister had already turned down the request of some quarters that Qadianis be declared non-Muslims.

It is important that the recent chain of events (not just about Qadianis) that affects stability and order in society and pose a threat to fundamental rights be taken serious note of. One can only take satisfaction from the fact that both the Head of Government and the Leader of the Opposition appear to agree on the issue. At least they are not divided. But the overriding issue of maintaining stability and order remains a big question. The division of opinions within the government as reflected by the Prime Minister's actions and the opinion reportedly articulated by a senior Minister must not make room for those who have no regard for constitutional sanction that protects freedom of religion.

A M M Shawkat Ali, PhD, is former Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture.