Prof. Imtiaz Ahmed began his lecture by attempting to define Bangladesh. He invoked notions of territoriality and psycho-geography for the purpose. Going by the 400 year old Eurocentric understanding of a nation based on territoriality, Bangladesh is a meager 55,126 square miles stretch of land. However if one transcends this view and tries to construct Bangladesh based on psycho-geographical parameters, then Bangladesh would have a far greater reach and impact in international relations than its territorial dimension allows it, as this dimension includes components like the diasporic reach of a nation. Bangladesh thus makes its presence felt in the international arena through its widely dispersed diaspora, which spans the globe.

According to Prof. Ahmed Bangladesh sought to take on the label of a small state owing to its relative smaller size and population vis-à-vis India. This was despite the fact that it did not fulfill the criteria of a small state as set by either the Commonwealth or the IMF-Word Bank based on population size. With a population of more than 130 million Bangladesh has slowly begun to shrug off the tag of a small state. However, it still continues to grapple with some of the security dilemmas that small states confront. One such challenge is to deal with a big, powerful neighbour. While acknowledging its existence due to India’s help and support, Bangladesh remains wary of its identity being subsumed by its dominant neighbour. Bangladesh has also sought to go beyond India and South Asia by forging ties with the Islamic world. Its solidarity with the Palestinian or the Iraqi people should be viewed in this context.  Thus, the diaspora and the Islamic Ummah have become the defining characteristics of Bangladeshi identity. 

Prof. Imtiaz also touched upon many crucial aspects like issues of governance and representation, role of NGOs, problems faced by the minorities, and growing fundamentalism. He addressed the issue of governance under the broad rubric of ‘governmentality’ as government has been central to all activities in Bangladesh, irrespective of whether the regime was civilian or military. He blames colonial rule for this centrality and undue fixation on ‘government’ as the agent of change and the prime mover.

The polarized polity and civil society is another colonial baggage that Bangladesh is grappling with. Despite a rich Gandhian legacy, it is difficult to organize consent because of the prevalence of a polarized and violent civil society. Speaking of outside influences, Prof. Ahmed drew attention to the inapplicability of the concepts of ‘secularism’ and the ‘Westpahilian state system’ to realities in South Asia. The imposition of these Western concepts in toto, without customizing them to suit the specific needs of the countries of the region, has plunged South Asia into turmoil.

On the question of minorities in Bangladesh, he listed two groups that fall under this category: 1) the non-Bengali speakers and 2) the non-Muslims. This is reflective of the importance accorded to language and religion in the creation of a unique Bangla identity. The bhadro class or the Bengali-speaking upper class enjoyed vast privileges compared to their non-Bengali speaking counterparts in the formative years of Bangladesh, as the country was created on the basis of linguistic exclusivity. The non-Bengali speaking hill peoples were the biggest victims of this majoritarian trend. Many of them migrated to India in a bid to avoid persecution at the hands of the Bangla elite, triggering a chronic refugee problem which lasts to this day. 

However, post- 1975 Bangladesh witnessed an upsurge in religion as the defining character of its identity. ‘Muslimness’ came to prevail over language. The two prominent parties – the Awami League and the BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party), both Muslim majoritarian parties, used religion to garner support, sway public opinion in their favour and win votes. This led to a steep rise in fundamentalism and religious extremism. Another vice that has gripped Bangladesh is “mastanocracy”. Mastaans or ‘middlemen’ have come to occupy the ground between the alienated voter and the ruling class. Democracy has lost its true meaning because of the activities of anti-democratic elements like the mastaans. With mastaans becoming the central element in the political process of the country, Bangladesh is faced with a variation of Gresham’s Law, in which the bad elements drove away the good ones.

Enumerating the pivotal role of NGOs, Prof. Ahmed stated that the power of “non-governmentality” came into being because of a strong NGO culture in Bangladesh. The history of “NGOisation” of Bangladesh is as old as the history of Bangladesh itself.  He attributed this development to the circumstances prevalent at the time of the formation of Bangladesh. Since the state was virtually non-existent at that point of time, NGOs came into being to fill the vacuum thus created. Bangladesh has many prominent NGOs like BRAC (Bangladesh Rural Advance Committee), Gramin, and ASHA, to name a few. They have made noteworthy contributions in various spheres like education, health, rural development and above all women empowerment, a field hitherto neglected in most South Asian nations.

With a polarized polity and civil society, a soft state image and “mastanocracy” becoming the defining features of Bangladesh, the speaker suggested remedial measures in the following areas:

• Issue of Representation – Decentralize the system of representation through the establishment of Provincial Parliaments.

• Concept of Government – Degovernmentalize the government, including the manner in which NGOs function.

• Depolicing Society – Emphasizing the importance of freedom of education and information dissemination, the speaker supported people’s right to choose and spoke against the practice of censorship.

Finally on the issue of improving relations with India, Prof. Ahmed suggested emulating France and Germany, which overcame traditional hostility to form the European Union. This was possible through sincere and sustained efforts at various levels like regular dialogues between officials, exchange of students and cultural interactions.

Discussion

• The war on Iraq has brought the left- and right-wings in Bangladesh together for the first time and this has troubled the Americans. During the Afghan war, only the right-wing had opposed the US, while the left-wing had remained silent, torn between the facts that they opposed the Taliban on the one hand and opposed American imperialism on the other.

• Owing to the close ties that the Bangladeshi elite had with the US, the impact of 9/11 has been such that opposition has been mainly to the Bush administration and its policies in particular, rather than to the US in general.

• Following the fall of the army dictatorship in 1991, the student community in Bangladesh had become slowly apolitical. The “NGOisation” of Bangladesh was another contributing factor. Universities had also, become increasingly regime-centric – when the government changed, the university authorities too changed.

• India’s image has changed from that of a friend to that of a ‘threat’ owing in large part to the doings of Bangladesh’s leaders following 1971. The Awami League itself originated from the Congress Party in India. The fact that Sheikh Mujibur Rehman had spent the better part of the war for liberation in prison with no contact with the outside world left him unable to distinguish between the true leaders of the struggle and the opportunists who got on board later. The latter were responsible for alienating the people. And since India was closely associated with the Awami League, it too was a victim of that party’s misdeeds. India also did not do what it could have particularly with respect to ensuring changes in the educational system in Bangladesh.

• The NGOs receive nearly 18-20% of foreign funds flowing into Bangladesh and therefore, wield enormous influence. Owing to the large number of retired government bureaucrats joining them a large number of NGOs are highly “governmentalized” structures. At the same time, there are some like Grameen which are also extremely dependent on the force of personality of its founder, Professor Muhammad Yunus.

• The influence of the bhadroshontan, the elite in Bangladesh, is widespread and can be found in all sections of the government, the military, academia and the NGO sector.

• The diaspora is largely non-elite, and sometimes even highly skilled expatriates performed non-skilled or menial jobs. Nevertheless, they maintain strong links with the mother country and are intimately linked by linguistic and cultural ties.

• The “mastanocracy”, is largely responsible for the criminalization of politics in Bangladesh. Contrary to popular belief, the mastaans came from the well-to-do classes as well and were well-entrenched in Bangladeshi society. The very structures of Bangladeshi government lent itself to criminalization.