Sarwar Jahan Chowdhury | SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/content-author/sarwar-jahan-chowdhury-18136/ News Related to Human Rights Fri, 01 Feb 2019 06:31:34 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.2 https://sabrangindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Favicon_0.png Sarwar Jahan Chowdhury | SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/content-author/sarwar-jahan-chowdhury-18136/ 32 32 Pakistan’s two-nation responsibilities https://sabrangindia.in/pakistans-two-nation-responsibilities/ Fri, 01 Feb 2019 06:31:34 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2019/02/01/pakistans-two-nation-responsibilities/ By souring relations with India, Pakistan turned its back on Indian Muslims A region divided / BIGSTOCK There is no doubt that the infamous two-nation theory of the pre-partition Muslim League and post-partition Pakistani state has been a flawed one. The independence of a part of Pakistan as a Bengali nation-state in 1971 vindicates it […]

The post Pakistan’s two-nation responsibilities appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>

By souring relations with India, Pakistan turned its back on Indian Muslims

A region divided

A region divided / BIGSTOCK

There is no doubt that the infamous two-nation theory of the pre-partition Muslim League and post-partition Pakistani state has been a flawed one. The independence of a part of Pakistan as a Bengali nation-state in 1971 vindicates it best alongside many other kinds of examples. 

Although, it seems that the sub-continent was divided based on this two-nation theory of Mr Jinnah, in reality, it wasn’t so entirely. The then Indian National Congress, which adopted a secular all-inclusive Indian nationalism, in their view, accepted partition as a contingency measure to save the sub-continent from potential governance paralysis had it  remained one under Muslim League’s terms. 

Jinnah and Muslim League considered Congress an essentially Hindu political party, and feared that in a united India, Muslims, who are minority in overall count, would be under perpetual domination of the Hindu majority. Hence, the idea of Pakistan evolved around Muslim majority northwest of the sub-continent and the eastern part of Bengal. 

The Muslim League, the Muslim socio-political elites, and the emerging middle class of Pakistan at those times obviously considered carving out a Pakistan as a validation and accomplishment of the two-nation theory. The independence of Bangladesh and other later political developments in the remaining part of Pakistan in the west, could not eradicate this core ideal of Pakistani state; although incremental Islamization has given it a theocratic mix — certainly for worse. 

In some sense, Jinnah’s two-nation theory was close to a secular one. Jinnah theorized the Muslim nationhood in the sub-continent in terms of social and cultural values and lifestyle, and collective Muslim view of the sub-continental history and the solidarity emanating thereof.  
He hardly put emphasis on the theocratic aspect of a Muslim society. The theory postulates that Muslims of the sub-continent are one nation and that doesn’t change even after the partition. 

But the weirdest functional aspect of the Pakistani national ideal — the sub-continental Muslim nation ideal — is the lack of responsibilities of a sub-continental Muslim nation state like Pakistan towards the Muslim minorities in India and non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan. 

Ironically, the partition, expounded as the ultimate political achievement for the sub-continental Muslims, effectively cut the so-called Muslim nation into three equal yet substantial parts — one in the west wing of Pakistan, one in the east, and the other in India. 

For India, it had to leave a way smaller percentage of Hindu population in Pakistan. In the West, the partition time migration, although very painful, almost solved the Hindu and Sikh minority issue for India. 

In the East, a big part of the Hindu population of East Pakistan gradually moved to India phase by phase in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s because of both push and pull factors. 

It was considered by many politicians of both the camps in 1947 that the Hindu and Sikh minorities in Pakistan would work as safeguards for Muslim minorities in India and vice versa. But with hardly any Hindu or Sikh left in West Pakistan, and violent independence of Bangladesh from Pakistan as a secular state, this equation changed significantly. 

However, theoretically the responsibility of the Pakistanis towards the well-being of Indian Muslims remains, especially in light of their much touted concept of sub-continental Muslim nationhood. In reality, did the Pakistanis behave responsibly when it came to helping the well-being of the sizeable Indian Muslim population, now at 180 million, the second-largest national Muslim community in the world? 

The best course for Pakistan to ensure well-being of Indian Muslims would have been a real good relation with India, including extensive connectivity and free movements and good treatment of minorities in Pakistan itself. But Pakistan went the opposite way. 

Illegitimate usurpers of power in the Pakistani state made anti-India propaganda an almost constant agenda. Fabrication, exaggeration, and deliberate spread of minority-related bad news from India became commonplace. It resulted in worse mistreatment and persecution of Hindu minority in Pakistan. Waging the 1965 war against India by Pakistan brought the relationship to a massive low at that time. 

In India, although Muslims weren’t persecuted the way minorities were in Pakistan, the socio-economic condition of the Muslims weren’t good either. A few factors coalesced in keeping the Indian Muslims conservative and backward. 

The prime of which were and, still are, the absence of affirmative actions towards them by the Indian state, unlike other backward groups ie scheduled castes (SC) and scheduled tribes (ST), and their self-imposed confinement in religio-cultural orthodoxy. 

Indian Muslims have gradually broken away, over the past several decades, from the hangover of Pakistan movement of the 1940s after India’s independence and with the multifarious social and political developments in India and rest of South Asia. 

They are now increasingly aspiring to get into India’s mainstream like the SC and ST. It’s about time for India to undertake a nation rebuilding scheme. 

Many progressive Indians argue that India can protect its minority and ensure equality for them with the strength of its own liberal constitutional values and democratic, rather than majoritarian, political culture. The claim is true — but only to a certain extent. 

It’s also important to underscore the irresponsibility and hypocrisy of the Pakistanis towards Indian Muslims from the stand point of their sub-continental Muslim nation ideal. Perhaps many Pakistanis have also started realizing in their minds the falsehood of the idea of sub-continental Muslim nationalism or even the Ummah as the primary source of bonding. 

The coming together of Muslims in 1940s in one platform was more for socio-economic ambitions through political means rather than Muslim nationalism. 

Many Pakistanis may not admit it openly, but they also came to comprehend it in their hearts. It’s true that partially overlapping, with citizenship bonding, trans- national or regional community solidarity also exist ie global catholic community, global Muslims, global Hindus, South Asian Muslims, Southeast Asian Buddhists etc. 

But that ideally comes second or in later order to citizenship solidarity within a liberal progressive state. Even from this angle, Pakistani behaviour towards India, and in turn, responsibilities towards Indian Muslims were way below a moral standard. In this sense, Bangladesh also has responsibilities towards Indian Muslims in terms of how it treats its own minorities, and how liberal and progressive the nature of Bangladeshi state and society are. 

Sarwar Jahan Chowdhury is an opinion contributor to Dhaka Tribune.

Courtesy: Dhaka Tribune

The post Pakistan’s two-nation responsibilities appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
View from Bangladesh: Don’t get blinded by anti-India hysteria https://sabrangindia.in/view-bangladesh-dont-get-blinded-anti-india-hysteria/ Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:34:24 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2018/03/13/view-bangladesh-dont-get-blinded-anti-india-hysteria/ Integration, not isolation, is the solution Look to cooperation with India’s northeast BIGSTOCK   The very size of India has put it in an overarching spot in South Asia. That’s a geopolitical reality, and India’s neighbours need to deal with the fact smartly. While we often complain about India’s obsession with Pakistan — largely for […]

The post View from Bangladesh: Don’t get blinded by anti-India hysteria appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
Integration, not isolation, is the solution
Don’t get blinded by anti-India hysteria
Look to cooperation with India’s northeast BIGSTOCK
 

The very size of India has put it in an overarching spot in South Asia.

That’s a geopolitical reality, and India’s neighbours need to deal with the fact smartly. While we often complain about India’s obsession with Pakistan — largely for wrong reasons — in the sub-continent neglecting other promising neighbours, we Bangladeshis do the same too in a different way.
We fix our eyes on Delhi, ignoring Guwahai, Agartala, Shilchor, Shilong, Aizol, and even Kolkata. We fail to realize the vastness of the region, and don’t grasp the idea of the eastern sub-region where Bangladesh potentially has a central role.

After the revolutionary event of 1971 in Bangladesh, the counter revolutionary forces struck back since 1975, and manipulatively instilled harmful anti-Indian politics in the country. Even the moderate Awami League is now cautious to step too much out of that.

Bangladesh saw numerous mutually-benefial initiatives of sub-regional cooperation especially with the Indian northeast, but we kept saying “no” to them by and large.

We are obsessed with the shinier regions like Delhi, Mumbai, Agra, and Bangalore, but the economically backward northeastern states who are isolated from mainstream India, often looked to us. But we didn’t quite gaze back. To understand the dynamic, one has to look at the map of the eastern sub-region of the sub-continent.

Bangladesh separates the Indian northeast, which is more than double the size of Bangladesh geographically, from India proper. A mere few miles wide, the Shiliguri corridor, called the chicken’s neck, just somehow connects the northeast to India, and that chicken’s neck is delicately placed closed to the Chinese border, making India a bit nervous about the defense of the northeastern seven sisters.

Apart from defense, the seven sister states have other serious issues, for a few of which, Bangladesh is blamed. For the rest, they need Bangladesh’s help. The primary accusation is the infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslim economic migrants to those states, and the demographic changes thereof in those places.

This is a complex issue with partial truth and partial falsehood. The truth is, many parts of Assam’s Barak valley and lower Brahmaputra valley already had a high percentage of Muslim minorities during the 1947 Partition, and not many of them moved to the then East Pakistan, despite the strong reverse current of Hindu migration to the Indian northeast.

There were complex socio-economic and political reasons for that. There was a trend, lately under British revenue collectors’ patronage, of expert Bengali Muslims cultivators moving into Assam from central Bengal, which originally started in medieval time, to clear jungles and create farmlands.
It might have continued to some extent after 1947, perhaps till the 1980s. Indian authorities never thought it a big issue, and never tried to stop it until the agitation of the 1980s in Assam. This spontaneous migration certainly wasn’t engineered or state-sponsored, and has stopped now as the Indian authorities wanted it to, due to discontent in Assam.
 

We fix our eyes on Delhi, ignoring Guwahai, Agartala, Shilchor, Shilong, Aizol, and even Kolkata

The same might have happened to a much lesser degree in other places of the northeast, eg Tripura. However, a decade or more old immigrants at a place also have some universally recognized rights. People can’t be disenfranchised instantly. Also, the Indian citizen Bengali Muslims of Assam and other parts of the northeast mustn’t be confused as Bangladeshi immigrants.

Given Bangladesh’s relatively impressive improvement in economic condition in the last three decades, which is certainly better than Assam’s or Tripura’s, there isn’t enough reason to believe in the alleged migration in recent decades.

However, there were and are ways to compensate Assam and Tripura and the rest of the northeast by Bangladesh; which is allowing them the much-needed connectivity through Bangladesh to main India and even to the rest of the world. It would have been immensely useful to Tripura, Barak valley, Mizoram, and Manipur to connect to north and central India and West Bengal, reducing several hundred kilometers in critical distance, and saving cost and time hugely.

It could have been done under a bigger sub-regional vision package, which could have included mutually beneficial trade, tourism, investment, power supply, etc. Bangladesh, by far, is the biggest economic power in the eastern sub-region of South Asia, and it would have had the central position in the entire affair.

Similarly, allowing use of the Chittagong port by the Indian northeast, Nepal, and Bhutan would have allowed further growth of Bangladesh-centered BBIN network, enhancing Bangladesh’s positive influence in the sub-region. Bangladesh’s good gesture could have built a lasting bond with the Indian northeast, and would have neutralized the bone of contention, ie “alleged Bangladeshis in Assam.”

Being frustrated at Bangladesh, some right-wing Indian strategists are even thinking of using Myanmar’s Sittwe port, located in troubled Rakhine, for their northeast, rather than demanding again for Chittagong’s service. This is another reason for the India-Myanmar coziness, and Bangladesh’s lack of Indian support on the Rohingya issue.

But the positive development on sub-regional connectivity and economic cooperation would also have helped prevent the harmful right wing rise in the northeast, which was a long time coming.

Bangladesh doesn’t have good geo-strategists, and the ones it has can’t see things in depth or far ahead enough.

The situation might get even more difficult for Bangladesh if there is an attempt of pushing Bengali Muslims of the northeast into Bangladesh by the Indian government, as a result of right wing pressure from those areas. Does Bangladesh have any prevention strategy for that?

Sub-regional connectivity, trade, and network development around Bangladesh would have solved most of these complex problems between the Indian northeast and Bangladesh by creating interdependence.

That would have brought great economic dividends for Bangladesh, as more and more Bangladeshi products are making their way to various parts of India. East and northeast India are best placed for Bangladeshi products.

And of course, there are other mutually beneficial trade, investment, and power import opportunities.

Across the globe, integration rather than isolation is the dominant problem solving method. Are we, the Bangladeshis, on board (better late than never), or are we still blinded by cooked up and harmful anti-Indian hysteria?

Sarwar Jahan Chowdhury is a freelance commentator on politics, society, and international relations. He currently works at BRAC Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD).

Courtesy: Dhaka Tribune
 

The post View from Bangladesh: Don’t get blinded by anti-India hysteria appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
Will the moderate Muslims please speak up? https://sabrangindia.in/will-moderate-muslims-please-speak/ Thu, 07 Dec 2017 06:13:37 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2017/12/07/will-moderate-muslims-please-speak/ We all need to reflect on where we stand   Not all Muslims are radicals  REUTERS   It’s true that the size of the liberal segment in Islamic societies is generally quite small, but it’s not that the radical militant sections are any larger. The vast majority of Muslims are moderate. They are neither liberal […]

The post Will the moderate Muslims please speak up? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
We all need to reflect on where we stand
 
Will the moderate Muslims please speak up?
Not all Muslims are radicals  REUTERS
 

It’s true that the size of the liberal segment in Islamic societies is generally quite small, but it’s not that the radical militant sections are any larger.

The vast majority of Muslims are moderate. They are neither liberal in the classic sense nor are they ready to do anything dramatic and harmful for the sake of orthodox interpretation of religious verses.

However, they are somewhat religious and loyal to the religious identity — many of them even consider this identity as their primary identity. On the whole, this segment of Muslims is, more or less, average people going on about the normal course of life; although they have their idiosyncrasies and limitations.

The phenomenon of global Islamic terrorism has brought about substantial tension in the lives of these people. Some pockets of societies in the Middle East and Afghanistan-Pakistan region are more inclined to orthodox beliefs, yet most of the non-Arab Muslims residing in the West or Muslim minorities in the East tend to maintain a healthy balance between religiosity and secular life.

Not a threat 
Like ordinary non-Muslims, they are also interested in their material well being eg financial solvency, education, health care, employment, career, family, etc. But the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism has affected their lives to a substantial degree.

The primary challenge for moderate Muslims and moderate Muslim communities across the globe is how to position themselves, collectively, amidst the complexity of the current political climate — in the era of sensationalising bad news.

The moderates also have a problematic world view. Obviously, they can’t think as rationally as the liberals. They undergo a strong socio-cultural indoctrination and believe in some dogma from which it’s difficult for them to become separate, despite their lesser inclination to violence.

Even in a moderate Muslim’s mind, there are some irrational doubts and suspicion about non-Muslim people and countries — but that does not equate to violence nor extremism. Violent Islamic extremists are a recent and distinct league. Some moderates do tend to sympathise with the radicals, mostly due to their lack of knowledge or comprehension which is actually often against their intent.

Yet, these people are a tiny minority among the moderates and these exceptions can’t be used as general examples.
 

Average Muslims need to have a better collective philosophy of life and a realistic world view. There is no alternative

There is a historical context of the evolution of the moderate Muslim nations. Around the middle of the last century, it was possible to somehow cobble up the post-colonial modern or quasi modern states with tacit cooperation from this segment.

In them, both Ummah and the national identity co-existed. Muslims of Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and even some semi modernist Arab republics of yesteryears like Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq fall in this category by and large.

What went wrong?
Despite a few conflicts and wars, there was substantial hope in the Islamic world and in the global Muslim diaspora. The Muslim countries and societies were flourishing economically, educationally, and culturally — but not democratically.

Disunity among the Arabs and their lack of social progress were critical deficiencies that kept the Islamic world leaderless, disunited, and as an underachiever. An unchecked undercurrent of terrorism gradually developed out of frustration and, partly, due to the Western interventions in Middle East and Af-Pak region. Terrorism grew initially in the lawless pockets of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As the Islamic terror struck the West, Western interventions intensified, resulting in more destruction, frustration, and more terror which spread to the West as well as other Muslim countries.

Further frustration caused the Arab Spring, which ended in murderous and utterly destructive sectarian infighting. Terrorism in the Muslim countries and elsewhere, especially in the West, continued. It was deadly and unreservedly destructive — and some countries like Syria and Iraq were almost reduced to ruins. Human suffering was and still is immense especially in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and parts of Nigeria and Afghanistan.

With the spread of Islamic terror, Islamophobia spread across many Western and other countries like India, Myanmar, etc. Right wing forces of these countries started persecuting minority Muslims including the moderates.

Suddenly, the otherwise harmless moderates started feeling a sense of insecurity and disenfranchisement. In many cases, discrimination and abuse towards moderate Muslims became counterproductive and made terrorists out of some moderates. Internationally, a great sense of insecurity, helplessness, and uncertainty engulfed the moderate and stable Muslim nations.

The Rohingya crisis is a case in point.
With Islamophobic Donald Trump at the helm of the US, the sense of insecurity among the Muslims has increased and reliability on the West plummeted. In the Middle East, there is hardly any interest to stop disastrous civil wars. Geo-politics is rather aggravating the situation at the cost of hundreds of thousands of human lives and extensive collateral damages.

The media, especially in some Western and non-Western non-Muslim countries like India and Myanmar, were largely irresponsible. The Right-wing anti-Muslim forces, in their own spaces, through biased and exaggerated reports, created an atmosphere of high Islamophobia. Moderate patriotic Muslims in Muslim minority nations like India are portrayed as unpatriotic; and normalcy in ordinary Muslims’ lives has been greatly hampered.

Looking forward
Now, it’s imperative for the vast majority of moderate Muslims in Islamic communities across the globe to create a clear distance from the radical Islamists and put up social resistance against the latter.

There is a need for educating ordinary Muslims as to how multicultural and multi-faith societies function or ideally ought to function and what is to be expected individually and collectively as a community from the state and international communities.

Average Muslims need to have a better collective philosophy of life and a realistic world view.

There is no alternative if the Muslims want to lead normal lives, for there are unpleasant consequences otherwise.

Violence causes chaos and mayhem, and in the end the whole thing is a zero sum game where everyone loses.

Collective reflection on what happened or what is happening and why, and introspection followed by corrective measures are a must.

Sarwar Jahan Chowdhury is a freelance commentator on politics, society and international relations. He currently works at BRAC Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD).

This article was first published on Dhaka Tribune
 

The post Will the moderate Muslims please speak up? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>