Syed Tosharaf Ali :
When a nation is going through a crisis, it is unrealistic to expect that domestic and foreign opportunists will remain idle. Dr. Yunus, using his wisdom and intelligence, has been trying to establish a national consensus. But this is by no means an easy task.
Although the country is Muslim-majority and relatively less diverse in terms of language and culture, its political history has long been divided into two major streams.
When there is a shared sense of historical experience, building national unity and solidarity becomes easier; but when differences persist, it becomes increasingly difficult.
The great Mughal Empire played a valuable role in building India as a united state. Later, the British colonial rulers strengthened that unity further through rail communication and telegraph networks.
However, their method of governance was based on the Roman policy of “divide and rule,” which ultimately made a united India impossible.
Efforts were made to keep people of different languages, religions, races, and cultures united within a federal administrative structure, but those efforts failed.
Finally, when India gained independence in August 1947, it was no longer united.
Had a federal state been formed on the basis of full autonomy for Muslim-majority regions, it would have been much better. But instead, two Muslim-majority provinces – Punjab and Bengal – were divided.
Lord Mountbatten carried out this operation after gaining the consent of Congress leader Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who was initially reluctant to partition India.
The partition was executed through a tripartite consensus among the Congress, the Muslim League, and the British government. Punjab and Sindh got their own capitals, but East Bengal was deprived of one.
Calcutta and Murshidabad went to India. The great leader Jinnah lamented this outcome as a “moth-eaten Pakistan,” though he still celebrated the achievement.
Among Indian Hindus, the partition of India created deep resentment. While such a reaction might have been temporary, in reality they never truly accepted the division. It has remained an enduring source of bitterness in their words and writings.
Nehru, however, achieved two goals through this “surgical operation”: first, it permanently removed the political influence of Punjab and Bengal from all-India politics, and second, it spared him the constant need to compromise with the Muslim community, which he had found difficult during the interim government.
Perhaps this was also why he did not allow the Cabinet Mission Plan to succeed.
The new state of Pakistan had a peculiar geographical structure. The eastern and western parts were separated by more than a thousand miles, with India lying in between. Except for a shared religion and a common struggle for independence, there was little to bind them together.
It did not take long for disputes to arise over the question of state language-sparked by Jinnah’s speech. If Bengali had been granted equal status alongside Urdu, this conflict could have been avoided easily.
Another alternative was to continue using English as the central government’s language. A commission could have been formed to resolve the issue or the final decision could have been left to a future parliament. Despite having multiple options, a stubborn attitude prevailed instead.
Economic interests often serve as a strong unifying factor for a population. But the nature of capitalist economies is uneven development. As a result, economic disparities between the two parts of Pakistan kept growing, undermining religious unity.
A new wave of nationalism, centered on language, literature, and culture, began to rise. The 1965 Indo-Pak war demonstrated how militarily vulnerable East Pakistan was.
Against this backdrop, the demand for autonomy emerged as a path toward greater economic and military security. Calls for “national unity and solidarity” could no longer suppress that demand. Even the military power proved ineffective in 1971.
In truth, Pakistan’s two regions could not remain united because justice was denied and there was no peaceful, democratic mechanism for change.
After the Liberation War, there was no fundamental change in Bangladesh’s politics.
The wartime divisions between allies and opponents, and the politics of hatred, have continued to eat away at the nation for over half a century. These old divisions remain the biggest obstacle to building a united nation.
Added to this now is the deep conflict between the oppressed people and the tyrannical fascist rulers of the past fifteen years, along with their accomplices.
What we see as ideological disputes in politics are, at their core, struggles over economic and class interests – an essential truth one must grasp to understand politics.
In developed countries, the number of political parties is small because their large-scale industrial and financial bases support major parties.
In contrast, in a small-scale economy like ours, many small parties represent small, fragmented interests, while the major parties represent corporate interests.
Since the July uprising, efforts have been made to introduce various reforms, with the involvement of many wise and capable individuals.
They have provided valuable recommendations on a range of issues. Meetings are being held with political leaders to build consensus, and it is hoped that the final outcome will be promising.
Reaching such consensus on key issues will greatly help the nation move forward. However, much will depend on the patriotism and sense of responsibility of those who are entrusted with implementing these recommendations. Their love for the people will be the ultimate test.
Here are a few brief points directed to the government that will come to power in the future:
1. Climate Change: One of the biggest threats of our time. Its impact is already being felt. A Climate Fund must be created immediately to assess and mitigate its damage. The government must be transparent about how and where this money is spent – there can be no lack of accountability.
2. Expatriate Contribution: Migrant Bangladeshi workers – men and women – are the main source of foreign currency. Because they send their hard-earned money home, the government can import essential goods and pay interest on foreign loans. Yet, the question of how to utilize their experience and technical knowledge should also be considered seriously. A Diaspora Council should be formed for this purpose.
3. Policy Reform: Policy-making processes must change.
4. Open Data: Instead of making decisions based on assumptions or estimates, an Open Data Platform should be created so that everyone can understand why a particular decision is being made.
5. Cultural Strength: Cultural identity should never be neglected. The majority of this nation’s people are deeply influenced by Islamic values and literature. Building national unity based on these cultural and moral foundations will be both easier and more effective.
6. Education Reform: The education system should focus less on exams and more on teaching students the skills they will need in the future.
7. Technology in Schools: Artificial Intelligence (AI), Robotics, and Biotechnology should be introduced at the school level.
8. Decentralized Development: Development should be shifted away from Dhaka by building mini-capitals in major district towns. This will reduce the compulsion to migrate to Dhaka for work, lower unemployment, and promote balanced growth. In short, decentralization must be the key to sustainable progress.
