By Farooque Chowdhury | Dhaka

Dynamics

Contradictions in the East Pakistan society determined the trajectory of dynamics of socio-cultural-political struggle in the land. The contradictions were in (1) rural, (2) urban, (3) industrial, and (4) in ideological, cultural and educational areas. It was in the areas of (1) economy, (2) politics, (3) ideology and culture, and (4) society. The contradictions were between (1) the rural masses of people and exploiters, (2) the industrial workers and industrial enterprise owners, (3) the people and capitals and its ruling machine. These were class struggles – struggles between classes. These contradictions manifested in different activities, forms and organizations; in resistances and rebellions. [Principal contradiction, and principal aspect of the principal contradiction aren’t identified here.]

Alfred Comyn Lyall, a British civil servant, historian and poet, identified the Baangaalees as “unwarlike people”. “By their racial nature, Macaulay believes, the Bengalis are a people who almost begged to be conquered and ruled; their weakness created a power vacuum into which the bold East India Company adventurers rushed.” Macaulay writes: “Whatever the Bengalee does he does languidly […] he seldom enlists as a soldier. [….] There never, perhaps, existed a people so thoroughly fitted by nature and by habit for a foreign yoke.” Macaulay had more “finding”: “The physical organization of the Bengalee is feeble even to effeminacy. He lives in a constant vapour bath. His pursuits are sedentary, his limbs delicate, his movements languid. During many ages he has been trampled upon by men of bolder and hardier breed. Courage, independence, veracity are qualities to which his constitution and his situation are equally unfavorable. His mind bears a singular to his body. It is weak even to helplessness for purposes of manly resistance”. Orme made another “accurate” observation: All natives are of “effeminacy of character”, but that the Bengalis were “still of weaker frame and more enervated character”. Bishop Heber conveys similar evaluation. In the 1820s, the Bishop noted that Bengalis were regarded as “the greatest cowards in India”. He added: The “term Bengali [was] used to express anything which was roughish and cowardly”.

Alfred Comyn Lyall, a British civil servant, historian and poet, identified the Baangaalees as “unwarlike people”

Although the colonial masters and their theoreticians consistently depicted the Baangaalees as “coward”, “born to be ruled”, “ever-loyal”, “hungry for yoke”, etc. the Bangladesh people shattered the “myths” colonial masters manufactured as a tool to control this people; and the “myths” were shattered through the people’s years of resistance and rebellion. The Baangaalees heroically stood up to bravely break the shackle of slavery, and courageously challenged a state as they defied the ideology the state imposed on them, and the state. The people took up arms, organized their armed struggle, and waged a victorious war for getting liberated. It was in 1971. The people composed a history.

The world imperialism opposed the people’s War for Liberation, and the imperialist opposition was of geopolitical significance. The masters stood as fools with their observations on the Bangladesh people. Imperialism failed to dictate the course of the war the “unwarlike” Bangladesh people waged for their liberation.

How was the history made by the “effeminate Bengali” people? What’s the dynamics?

There’s the General Law of Rebellion in case of all peoples in all lands: People don’t allow fear to be the principle of government, and don’t allow rulers’ arms to command people’s life. Rulers may inflict fear, temporarily, depending on historical and the prevailing socio-economic-political conditions, among a part of people. Rulers’ swords can turn victorious temporarily; and power of the rulers’ fear-spewing muzzle depends on historical and the prevailing socio-economic-political conditions.

A change was going on in mass-psyche in pre-independence Bangladesh as classes in antagonistic positions were in constant conflict with their respective interests that had political manifestations. An ideological, political, cultural, etc. shift was active among the people. Feudal, capitalist, colonial and neo-colonial, and even imperial ideas, and progressive and radical ideas were in constant contradiction. It was a long struggle spanning years.

“‘Law,’ from slave patrols and courts to statutes and appellate decisions, was a tool of empire.” Referring to other studies Brophy identifies law as “a vehicle of control”. The Bangladesh people experienced Pakistan law as the tool of the state and as a hostile existence. But, that tool gradually got exposed, and turned blunt. Its fear-generating power lost steam.

“‘Law’ functioned to bring order”. The Bangladesh people perceived the laws of the Pakistan state as a brazen bull unleashed to bring order for the ruling regime, as those, laws, were used against them, and people neutralized that bull by pinning its horns.

Macaulay believes, the Bengalis are a people who almost begged to be conquered and ruled

The people were gaining political and organizational experience as they were organizing and waging their economic and political struggles, as class struggle continued. Their social being determined their consciousness. It was a period of transformation, transition also, in politics, and in mass-psyche.

The ruling elites with its capacity for cooption considered their state as an absolute form of force ever victorious over the Bangladesh people. However, class struggle was turning intensified, and the state was experiencing defiance by the people. A number of contradictions galvanized class alliances while a few isolated another part, the dominating part, and the dominant ideology was losing ground.

People don’t stall down, don’t give up hope, don’t cease struggle – it’s a part of the General Law of Rebellion

A few classes/segments were taking/gaining lead in the process. So, the questions need answers: What the classes/segments were those? How the task was being carried out? What was its political manifestation? What happened to the forces that claimed working for radical change? What were the factors and forces active in all the camps, behind success and failures? There was/were law(s) governing the changes in the pre-independence Bangladesh. What was/were that/those law(s) and how were those working?

People don’t stall down, don’t give up hope, don’t cease struggle – it’s a part of the General Law of Rebellion. “Fight, fail, fight again, fail again, fight again … till their victory; that is the logic of the people, and they too will never go against this logic”, writes Mao. The way people fight is part of the General Law of Rebellion.

Class interests with historical capacity and possibilities interacting/contradicting in the reality prevailing at that historical period governed the political attitude, alliances and actions of the people. Political forces representing the people, its parts, and political forces interacting with the people to uphold either the people’s interest or self-interest had to move within respective class interests and class alliances. These aspects are part of the General Law of Rebellion.

The questions raised above lead to look at pattern of politics classes/segments were carrying on in the pre-independence Bangladesh, and at interactions between the classes/segments that were getting generated from respective interests.

Rebellion is defined in many ways, from narrow to broader perspective. Citing Professor Richard A. Falk, Anthony Cullen refers rebellion as “a situation […] characterized as a short-lived, sporadic threat to the authority of a state.” Heather A Wilson and Lothar Kotzsch add their explanations on the issue of rebellion. There are domestic violence, upheaval, armed activities by gangs organized by imperialism, and national liberation movements. International Law and the Use of Force by National Liberation Movements, and Anthony Cullen’s The Concept of Non-International Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law discuss the issues. Rebellion, others consider, as “the act of resistance by one or more individuals to lawful authority acting within the limits of its power.” “Rebellion is, at bottom or in principle, a refusal of obedience, which manifests itself either by violence and assault, or by passive resistance.” The definition broadens as it’s told: “When peace officers act outside of their right, or exceed their power, resistance is not rebellion. It broadens further as it says: “Rebellion […] goes much farther than contesting the acts of a police officer; it calls in question the very government whose orders he executes; it raises against the government the same objections, of incompetency, or of exceeding its powers […].”

Government is part of a state. The Bangladesh people questioned the Pakistan state, and rose against it as the state was incompetent, exceeded its powers, denied people’s rights, endangered people’s life, liberty and peace, threatened the way of life the people were aspiring for, and, even resorted to genocide to keep on its unlawful acts unimpeded. The Bangladesh people’s rebellion thus turned justified.

The Bangladesh people resorted to both – passive, non-violent, peaceful and, forceful – of the methods for resolving the contradictions the people were encountering. These form parts of the General Law of Rebellion in Bangladesh.

Bangladesh people questioned the Pakistan state, and rose against it as the state was incompetent, exceeded its powers, denied people’s rights, endangered people’s life, liberty and peace

Rebellion is, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary says, “The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.” To authority/government/state, revolting against their unfair economy and politics, against their tyranny, against their unjust acts and actions is traitorous while people consider rebellion as a just, rightful, essential act to redress grievances and unjust circumstance, to safeguard peace and prosperity. To the authority, etc. all laws they impose and processes they initiate are lawful while people consider many laws, etc. unlawfully enacted as those lacked people’s consent. The contradiction between the conflicting views carries elements of the General Law of Rebellion. The people in Bangladesh properly handled the contradiction as relevant political process created rationale and legitimacy for the act of their rebellion.

Power of all sorts energizes the General Law of Rebellion. With destructive power, authority of all sorts strengthens logic behind the General Law of Rebellion as the authority loses legality and legitimacy, acceptability and credibility to rule. The people in Bangladesh perceived the state of Pakistan has turned destructive and, at one stage, the state used carnage as a tool to subjugate the people.

The Bangladesh people’s perception came from the reality of humiliation, exploitation, deprivation, disparity and repression, murder at mass level, and the reality of imperialism. The logic for rebellion found its ground even before a drop of blood was shed.

Thomas Paine asserts in Common Sense: “Arms as the last resource” when “period of debate is closed”. Paine expects a new horizon as Common Sense declares: “By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new era for politics is struck – a new method of thinking hath arisen.” The Bangladesh people found the period of debate closed by the Pakistan military junta in the late-March, 1971, and relevant issues were referred to arms, as the junta unleashed a genocidal campaign against the Bangladesh people; and the military campaign was let loose without any provocation by the people. With speed and spread, with brutal force and meticulous implementation, the genocide was unprecedented in continents. The period was with the Pakistan state’s treachery, betrayal, brutality, and arson and murder at mass scale, and the Bangladesh people by resorting to armed struggle heroically created a condition to make a historic forward march towards a new era for politics for a humane, democratic, peaceful, prosperous life, and for an equitable control over and distribution of resources. It was a historic destiny. The new era for politics was long with treacherous turnings, costly compromises and backlashes; but, ultimately, it was a people’s era for politics, a part of the War for Liberation. And, the rebellion revolved forcefully. The working class challenged the state machine although in terms of age and experience, the working class was comparatively younger, which is another aspect of the dynamics of the struggle. Grievances the people had were much in all areas of life, beginning from economy to culture and politics. Motive behind the people’s demands was simple and humane: getting free from suffering, hunger, exploitation; a better life with health care facilities and housing; a fair share of the fruits of their labor; a space for practicing democratic rights. Denial of these demands and suppression of workers made them aware of their rights to organization, assembly, expression. It was lessons from life: class struggle and struggle for production.

The struggle was, at its initial stage, sporadic, isolated, on the one side. On the other, the struggle covered all the people. The first types were economic struggle turning to political struggle. The working classes initiated these. At times, white-collar employees also initiated such type of struggles. The type of struggle was, at times, cultural having impact on life and livelihood of all the people; and, at times, the cultural struggles turned political. The same happened with economic struggles. Gradually, these two types of struggles joined together. It was slow, at the beginning. At times, these cooled down due to coercive measures or deceptive moves by the ruling regime, and on other occasions, many number of these struggles gained victory/concession from the state/authority. But, as a whole, the right-denying, coercive system prevailed making the people anguished and discontent.

A part of the political leadership unceasingly and steadfastly upheld aspiration of the people. Thus this leadership gained acceptability and acceptability among and legitimacy in the eyes of the people. On the contrary, the state was gradually losing ground – loss of acceptability, credibility, legitimacy, and the ideological basis.

There was a horizontal and vertical spread: classes opposed to the state were joining hands as their aspirations, interests and demands were of similar type, which was a vertical connection, while, horizontally, the people were widely and massively getting connected and mobilized. On the opposite, the state was getting isolated in both ways: vertically and horizontally: its support base was being squeezed and it was getting isolated from the ground – the common people. The state, on occasions, appeared suspended.

Two opposite forces with opposite interests – the people and the ruling regime/state – were moving towards a collision course having different power, capacity and velocity. The class forces gathering in the two opposite poles were basically different. In the ruling regime’s pole (RP), it was the ruling classes while the poor, the working classes, the middle class was in the people pole (PP). The two poles had different power. The RP was all-powerful at the initial stage while the PP was having less power at the beginning. For example, a number of movements were pressed or muzzled down, Other than a few moments of equilibrium; there was imbalance of power from the very beginning, which sustained throughout the entire period. Imbalance favoring the RP was from the initial moment, and it was longer in the entire period. Imbalance in favor the PP was at the later part of the period. The RP was making assaults all the time while the PP took time to counter-charge.

The PP had to traverse a zigzag path, and, it took time to gain momentum, to attain required velocity to subdue the RP, to push it out. On a coarse plane, stern hostilities from inimical class forces, bulwarks-trenches-fence structures the hostile classes set up/dug/erected – it was time consuming for the PP to gain momentum. But, it succeeded, at last. The gained momentum was, at the later stage, so forceful that the RP couldn’t out-maneuver and subdue the PP.

Within the PP, forces were interacting – interactions between the PP’s part, which had both positive and negative effects; but, at last, all parts joined in unison and made the last charge on the RP bastion. The victory was gained.

Within the RP, similar process of interactions between its parts was active; but with a basic difference from the PP. Parts of the RP were getting immobilized, and competition, intransigence and incoherence, to many extent, developed between a few of its parts, which consequently weakened the RP. It was a weakness/incapacity of its leadership; and a failure to reconcile competition between its parts. The competition is inherent in the parts. It’s competition of interests. One part’s interest was different from another. There were backward moving forces while others were aspiring to take further steps. One of the RP leadership’s failures was failing to reconcile this opposite pulls within the camp. These opposite pulls were inherent in the camp as the parts were having opposite interests, which was a contradiction.

One common character was in both of the poles – the RP and the PP. It was motion of change. But the slow motion was in opposite ways – the RP was losing its credibility, acceptability and legitimacy slowly while the PP was gaining acceptability, credibility and legitimacy slowly. This slow motion was at the initial stage. After change in equilibrium, the motion changed. The motion of RP’s loss and the motion of the PP’s gain increased; it increased rapidly, and the rapidity was so fast at the last stage that it appeared the RP crumbled like a house of cards.

The RP’s assault on the PP was all through the period, since creation of the neo-colonial state. It widened the assault by hitting the culture – first it was the language, which was followed by practices, etc. Assaults in the economic and political areas were also from the beginning of the state, as the system the state was organized to safeguard was anti-people. It hurt the landless and poor farmers, industrial workers, and middle class – the people. The political leadership of the RP was representing the property interests that harmed and hurt the PP. The language and culture issues cemented the PP. All the classes/segments within the PP found that their base was being torn down. The RP’s losing of legitimacy began.

This was the dynamics of the Bangladesh people’s cultural and political struggle. (Concludes)

________________

Courtesy: Counter Currents (Posted on 03/10/2023)

The post The emergence of Bangladesh – Part- III first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Farooque Chowdhury | Dhaka

Struggle

As in most societies and lands, the people in Bangladesh also unceasingly confronted dominant powers – its ruling system, economy, politics, ideology and organization. The struggle began at the very beginning of Pakistan, a neo-colonial state. The neo-colonial state was created by the imperial masters of Britain in mid-August of 1947 by trifurcating the sub-continent in South Asia; and today’s independent Bangladesh was, as the eastern wing of Pakistan, a province of the state. The province was initially named Poorba [mostly spelled as Purba, east] Banga, and later on, changed to East Pakistan. [“Bangladesh” and “East Pakistan” has been interchangeably used in this essay.]

In mid-October 1947, workers of a cement factory in Chhaatak [also spelled Chatak], then under the district of Sylhet in the northeastern part of Bangladesh, stroke. Their demands were political in nature. The demands included withdrawal of retrenchment order issued on a number of workers, increase in minimum wage, dearness allowance, introduction of monthly wage system instead of a daily-basis system, provident fund for all, paid weekly holiday, annual leave, provision for medical treatment and regular food ration, brick-built house for all, end to retrenchment.

Thus, two months after the creation of the neo-colonial state, a struggle ensued. It was a legitimate and just struggle. It was an economic as well as a political struggle. The legitimate demands went unfulfilled for years and across industries.

To the exploited, the state’s ideological basis, which the ruling classes propagated, faced questioning. The questioning began within months. On March 20, 1949, Azizul Islam, a trade union (TU) leader, said at the 1st annual conference of the East Pakistan Railway Employees League held in Dhaka: Every citizen has a share in the wealth of a state; and level of luxury should be lessened. Ishaq, another TU leader, said: They are branded as communists whenever who raises demands for food, shelter, etc. The disparity in the living standards between the 90 percent and 10 percent people in the country must be removed as early as possible. On April 6, 1949, Abdul Hye, a TU leader, said in his address welcoming a minister: We hear assurances that the Pakistan administration would be run on the basis of the great Islamic ideals of equality, brotherhood and freedom. But the government of Pakistan, by ignoring these promises, is trying to crush the labor organizations by all possible means. Nurul Huda, a TU leader, in his address at the 3rd annual conference of the All Pakistan Postman and Lower Grade Staff Union, held in Sylhet on September 12, 1950, said: Reactionary elements denounce all as communists and traitors whoever tries to inform people about the plight of the workers. Simultaneously, radical demands began to surface. At the 2nd annual conference of the East Pakistan Trade Union Federation, held in May 1-2, 1949, Amar Banarjee, a TU leader, made demand to nationalize essential industries and abolition of zamindari system. Zamindari, reining rural life at that time, was part of the ruling regime. [“Ruling regime”, “ruling classes”, “state”, have been used interchangeably in this essay although “state” is different from “ruling class/(es).]

The fishers of Sunamganj, the Naankaars in Sylhet, the Shaotals [mostly spelled as Santal] and Haajongs, indigenous people, and tenant peasants in the north, northeastern, southwestern and western parts of the country continued with their struggle. In these struggles, tens of thousands of peasants participated. In a number of struggles, the peasants armed them, and faced the brutal force of the state machine.

The ruling classes/state made assault not only on the Baanglaa language, but also on culture of the people

In 1948, students of Dhaka University began movement demanding Baanglaa as one of the state languages of Pakistan. The Baanglaa language issue was being discussed by a group of intellectuals even before the 1948-movemet, and before creation of the neo-colonial state. The issue related to livelihood increasingly pulled in wide section of the people. Then, arrived the historic Language Movement in 1952. The Language Movement engulfed the entire East Pakistan. Thousands of people from different walks of life including laborers and low-paid employees joined the movement. The issue of language turned as an issue of livelihood as an alien language would have hurt the people, especially the commoners’ everyday life including income and access.

The ruling classes/state made assault not only on the Baanglaa language, but also on culture of the people. The ruling classes/state identified commoners’ culture as alien – Heendooaanee, Heendooistic, [mostly spelled as Hindu] – consequently, harmful to Pakistan, which the ruling classes claimed as an Islamic state although the ruling regime allowed to run interest seeking capital, gambling including horse race, wine trading, belly dancing, all considered unacceptable to the Islamic ideology. Many of its members indulged with these, profited from these. The ruling regime’s assault was in the areas of alphabet, words, songs, poetry, literature, spiritual songs, symbols, dress, gestures and style of address, utensils, names of persons and places, historical figures, curriculum and syllabus, book at pre-secondary and secondary levels, institution, etc.

But, the people, especially the downtrodden had their way of rejection. While the ruling classes/state continued with imposing its ideology and culture, the commoners, especially the poor persisted with their attitudes, practices, expressions, salutations, utensils, vocabulary, songs, dramas, fairs, festivals and celebrations. Thus it was found the people, especially the working people were singing their songs without changing words and messages while working, crossing vast stretch of plains with bullock carts carrying agro-products, fishing, rowing, tilling, sawing/logging, finishing roof construction, etc. everyday economic/production activities, in celebrations and festivities in their family and community, and during their leisure hours. Some parts of the practices of the people irrespective of creeds crossed creed line as they resorted to humble submission or sought redressing of some anomalies/irregularities or complaints against injustices inflicted upon them. They were visiting shrines of sages, carried on rites with appeals/complaints. The sages, died long ago, a hundred or a few hundred years back, belonged either to this creed or that creed; but that creed identity couldn’t desist the commoners irrespective of creeds to seek solace in the sages’ shrines. The practices the commoners used to follow include praying, rendering devotional songs, sheennee/sheernee and maanat, offering of food/milk/animal/candle/incense stick, etc., tie threads in banyan tree roots. There’s no segregationist and supremacist attitude in these practices, which are part of commoners’ culture – humanism, fraternity, tolerance. It’s completely opposed to the ideology, culture and politics the ruling classes and its ruling machine – the state – were trying to impose on the commoners as part of its dominance game – dominate and exploit the people. The cultural activities, festivities, ceremonies, practices the people followed were not a few in numbers; rather, these were hundreds around the country. These were not once or twice or on occasions annually, but in everyday life. These were not only practiced by the male members, but also by the females irrespective of age. This persisted all through the neo-colonial period although the ruling regime persistently tried to inject its ideology and culture in mass psyche. The ruling regime had its band of preachers regularly pushing poison of supremacist, segregationist, divisive, hatred-filled ideas, explanations, and through these, sectarian politics into thousands of common brains. But the ill-efforts turned futile as the people experienced discrepancy between the claims and practices of the ruling regime. The ruling regime’s credibility gradually turned nil. This was evident in acceptance of call for political struggles by the people. It was a rejection-acceptance process: people rejecting the ruling regime in the realm of ideology and culture, and accepting the culture conducive to their political struggle.

One economic-political aspect was a burning example of the people’s rejection of the ideology of the ruling classes. Mahaajan, moneylenders in the rural informal credit market, was one of the central characters and points of contradiction in the rural East Pakistan. They were mischievous and brutal, crude and cruel, powerful and profit-hungry, an embodiment of exploitation in the rural areas. The landless and the poor peasantry were victims of these creatures for generations losing their produce, land, homestead and dignity. With the creation of the neo-colonial state the identity by creed of these creatures changed as they, the newly emerged Mahaajans replaced the old, mostly with different creed. The newly emerged moneylenders following new creed were connected to the power structure of the neo-colonial state. Along with the local government leaders, local level political operatives and big landholders, the moneylenders formed an atrium that sucked whatever they could from the poor and middle class rural populace. It was a nexus, a part of the power system, and a pillar of power in the rural area. They also patronized thugs threatening and tormenting the poor populace, and dacoits and cow thieves. In areas of the country cow thieves were a major problem to the peasantry relying on oxen for tilling their croplands.

Most of the time, the power-person was the same – the same person lending money with exorbitant interest rate, holding huge chunk of land, got hold of local government leadership, local political operative of the ruling political party. This was major contradiction in the country, mostly rural in terms of economy and population. The victims could identify the camp – persons with power, persons torturing, persons grabbing, persons feeding on interest, persons propagating the ruling class-ideology that claimed that that was against interest seeking, against be-eensaaf [mostly spelled as beinsaf, injustice, opposite to eensaaf, justice], against segregation, for peace, equity, and fraternity. The fact was exposed. Therefore, in the rural society, one of the contradictions was between the people and the powerful, local agents of the state, and the powerful was always with the ruling regime.

While this scene persisted in the rural life, a part of the middle class – radical, progressive, humanist, liberal, modern, educated – was against the culture of the ruling regime as the part perceived that that dominating culture was anti-human, irrational, sectarian segregationist and supremacist, which hinders struggle for emancipation as the struggle demands unity of all the oppressed. This perception and ideological position led the part to oppose the ruling regime’s ideology and culture. That was a conflicting path. From the very initiation of the neo-colonial state, the conflict ensued. This part, which included actors, artists, authors, educationists, journalists, lawyers, playwrights, poets, singers, teachers, regularly and unceasingly carried their ideological and cultural activities and struggles. The messages they conveyed to the people was opposed to the ruling regime’s ideology and culture. The messages reached the masses of the people in the urban, industrial and rural areas. Rabindra Nath Tagore was a point of opposition by the ruling regime as the regime considered Tagore as alien to its ideology, state and symbol. This led the regime to ban Tagore in the country. Songs by Tagore were banned from state-run radio. Nevertheless, the people, especially its intellectual part waged a long and successful struggle to practice Tagore – read-learn-listen from Tagore, render his songs, enact his dramas, read his poems and stories, discuss him. On occasions, big protests, weeklong cultural program – in the form of celebrating Tagore were organized. These were participated by thousands of people. Even, Sharat Chandra and Bankim, two of the leading Baangaalee litterateurs, were discouraged. But, Sharat was one of the most read by the literate Baangaalees. Cultural organizations including schools teachings songs, etc. carried on learning and popularizing songs by Tagore and other Baangaalees including Atul Prasad, the creators of songs the ruling regime considered alien to the ideology the state upheld. Celebrations of Baanglaa New Year were also an area of challenging the ruling regime’s ideology and culture. Over years, participation of people in these celebrations increased. These helped prepare a platform to begin the journey to emancipation. With organizations and activists spread around the country, it was a wide activity. In many cases, the persons carrying on the ideological and cultural struggles were also political activists and leaders active among the peasantry, industrial workers, teachers and students, and most of them were communists, and the rest were influenced by the communist ideas. Many of the cultural activists took their activities directly to peasantry and industrial workers, a base of political struggle. The cultural activists reaching the rural and industrial areas were communists or communist-idea-influenced. In urban areas, from the provincial capital to small townships, the same pattern of cultural activism prevailed.

Political literature opposing the ruling regime’s ideology and culture, and exposing the hollowness and lies with that ideology and culture by dissecting those was also coming up, and that was accepted by the educated part of the forward-looking middle class and intelligentsia that included teachers, one of the conveyors of ideas. The literature was mostly created/produced by the communist intellectuals, students, youth.

Along with these, there were struggles by the blue- and white-collar employees: industrial workers, railway workers, postal and telegraph staff, bank employees, teachers, dock workers, tea garden laborers, textile and jute mills workers. These struggles were many in number, sporadic/well organized, small/large, localized/industry-wide, days-long/weeks-long. Not all these strikes were for once. Workers of a few trades/industries/establishments repeatedly stroke. Thousands of workers and employees joined these strikes. A few of these strikes were so effective that army was mobilized to carry on essential work. During at least one strike, telecommunication and telegraphic communication between the eastern province and the western province went out; and the western wing was the place the central state machinery was sitting to rule the entire country. Workers from different trades including the beeree [mostly spelled as bidi, indigenous hand-made cigarettes made with tobacco and tree leaf] workers repeatedly stroke in different districts/areas of districts. The beeree workers’ struggle spread after the 1965-Indo-Pak war, as the government banned import of beeree-making leaves from India, and the workers, thousands in number spread over the entire province, faced unemployment. That was a push against the cottage industry producing beeree, and patronizing machine-made cigarette industry – a struggle between man and machine. The man were having wage bare minimum, even, at cases, below-bare minimum while the machine owners, a few in number, were profiting millions of coins, and that were also at the cost of workers, the workers in the cigarette industry producing surplus value. It was an extirpation of a huge labor for the sake of increasing profit by a few. This thousands, victims of a cruel excision, had a culture, gained perception from the reality of class dominance, and the reality pushed them to the ground of conflict with the dominant interests; and there, the state and industrial capital jointly took stand against the thousands of working people. Their demands turned political; their struggle for wages turned political, although their slogan, in cases, apparently appeared economic.

Traditionally, the Bangladesh people lived in communal harmony. A part of the ruling classes tried to infuse communal contradiction within the masses.

Students’ political activism and movements were part of student life. In 1962, students organized a movement on an academic issue, which ultimately turned into a countrywide movement that was joined by thousands of working people including boatmen and rickshaw pullers. A significant development that was. The movement, first opposition against martial law, was long, consisted of discussions in educational institutions. The issue of the movement was connected to commoners’ livelihood. Students carried on many other movements, and all of these were, essentially, against the politics-ideology-culture of the ruling classes and related or closer to the people. Thousands of students around the country joined these movements. The students’ carried on cultural activities in different forms and organizations. A few of these were countrywide, and the rest were localized. But, all these carried uniform messages: for the people, for democracy, against rulers-exploiters-autocracy. The messages were secular and progressive. A number of students went to rural and industrial areas to organize the peasantry and industrial workers.

Communal relations played a role in the mass psyche, and struggle of the people. Traditionally, the Bangladesh people lived in communal harmony. A part of the ruling classes tried to infuse communal contradiction within the masses. At areas and at times, the ruling classes succeeded partially, but ultimately, it failed to entangle the people in its communal-contradiction-conspiracy. At the initial stage of injecting the ruling classes’ divisive politics among the people, it pulled the following sections into spewing of communal hatred and organizing riots: (1) a part of those migrating to East Pakistan, (2) a part of the emerging middle class, and (3) a part of thugs working as tool of despotism. All the three groups were connected to the political leadership of the ruling classes. On the opposite, the communists, despite facing brutal persecution by the state, and other humanist forces in the urban and rural areas tried to their capacity to resist and subdue the communal politics, especially the communal riots the ruling regime organized. At one point, it was a force to reckon with, and the force succeeded, to much extent, in thwarting communal riots. In areas around the country, progressive forces organized groups of volunteers, who kept watch on communities threatened by the rioters moving along creed line. The anti-rioters chased back rioters whenever the goons came to charge. The massive procession with the banner Baangaalee Rookheeaa Daarao, Bengalis, oppose this riot, in Dhaka was historic. It was led by the forces opposing the communal politics of the ruling regime, and participated not only by students, youths and progressive political forces including the communists, but also by huge number of commoners from different walks of life, national level political leaders and prominent editors and journalists. In areas, outside of the capital city, similar initiatives including sheltering and securing the target/victims of riots were also present. These incidents played in the mass psyche, and, at later phase of political mobilizations. Overwhelmingly, the political mobilizations turned non-sectarian as it broke the sharp teeth of sectarian politics of the ruling regime. The people mobilized themselves for greater political struggle crossing sectarian line.

Political struggle, to the extent space available, within legislative chambers including the Constituent Assembly of the Pakistan state was carried on. The issues for the political struggle included abolition of separate electorate system, Moslem-Hindoo-castes identified as lower, etc., and introduction of universal franchise, governor general’s and governors’ powers, amalgamation of provinces in the western wing into one, state language, food problem, parity between the eastern and western wings of the state, preventive detention, abolition of zamindari system without compensation, budget, capital city, fundamental rights, salary of governors, equality between all citizens irrespective of belief, etc., imposition of martial law, central government’s power limiting within the areas of currency, defense and foreign affairs, and rights to expression and rights of press.

There was also struggle for (1) autonomy of East Pakistan, and (2) a constitution reflecting democratic, secular aspiration of the people. This was inside and outside of legislative chamber. The demands the pro-people political forces raised were contrary to the policies the ruling classes implemented. The people experienced that the ruling classes impose undemocratic-exploitative policies and politics while preach an ideology and culture that calls for equity, rights. The gulf of difference between the policies implemented and the preaching disillusioned the people. People lost trust on the preaching. A breach appeared.

On the other hand, the ruling classes and its state machine identified all that the Baangaalee people stood for, the vocabulary used, the cultural practices followed as alien, India-provoked, Hindooaanee, harmful to the ideology and culture the state stands for, of lower standard and despised. It was an atmosphere of mistrust, an anti-people political culture. Another breach appeared. It, even, mocked NAP, abbreviated version of the National Awami Party led by Maulaanaa [also spelled Maulana] Abdul Hamid Khan Bhasani, a left-leaning peasant leader with a huge mass-following preaching radical politics, as “Nehru Aided Party”. The ruling regime regularly branded the Left-progressive-communist activists and leaders, even humanist intellectuals and educationists as “Indian-agent”, and many of them were put behind bar with allegation of “security threat to the state”. But, the commoners didn’t lent their ears to those brandings. Rather, they, with their politics, were having acceptance among the masses of people. The breach – the ruling regime’s propaganda and the rejection by the people – showed the regime’s dwindling influence.

These breaches gradually widened the already existing gap between the people and the ruling classes. An atmosphere of hostilities in the areas of culture and ideology gradually engulfed the relation between the ruling classes and the people. This influenced the people’s political attitude and actions.

The struggle was also carried on outside the legislative house. A significant part of that struggle was extra-constitutional that made historic turning points. A part of press was voicing the people. Literature was feeding ideas to the people, arming them.

The 1965 Indo-Pak war, Tashkent Declaration on ceasing Indo-Pak military hostility, 6-point program for autonomy of East Pakistan and following political developments on the national stage influenced psyche of the masses of the people in the country.

The 1969-mass upsurge was significant in the socio-political scape of the country. It was unprecedented in terms of coverage, participation, force and speed

People’s struggle in one area mostly goes unnoticed. It’s people’s everyday struggle in places of production and residence, and in market. In all the three places, people encounter hostile environment and authority, which is hostile, threatening, repressive, coercive – antagonistic. It went on for years. It was people’s everyday struggle, and part of life. The people identified it, perceived it as unbearable, and went against it. In the rural areas, one type of literature was a regular sort of amusement of the commoners. Someone, a village bard or a literate person, composed satirical long poems describing scandals of or injustice committed by a powerful person in respective locality. The poem was printed as a booklet with a very small price tag, and was sold in haats, weekly village market place, or in motor boats or trains. The commoners enthusiastically and cheerfully bought those crudely produced cheap booklets; then, one person to read it loudly while group of persons sitting in a circle heard it. They enjoyed it as it depicted a powerful with a touch of mocking. It was their one way of expressing disgust and disdain to the powerful.

The 1969-mass upsurge was significant in the socio-political scape of the country. It was unprecedented in terms of coverage, participation, force and speed. Hundreds of thousands of people joined the movement initiated by the students. It toppled the dictator Ayub, compelled the authority to retreat, and attained universal franchise, a right long denied. From late-November 1968 Maulaanaa Bhasani, called upon the poor peasantry to gheraao [also spelled gherao], seize, the corrupt local level officers in charge of infrastructure development work and the land revenue offices. In many places, this gheraao movement began in December. The movement initiated in rural areas had its impact on the working class in industrial areas, and the gheraao turned out as a regular incident, almost daily, from the early 1969. It rapidly spread out to industrial areas of the country. Civil administration was rendered ineffective. Agitating people raided houses of local government members to press them to resign. The gherao virtually crippled the administration of the province. Civil machinery was paralyzed, as the government was unable to control the situation. Not a day passed without some type of strike, or demonstration. Labor unrest “fiercely erupted”; and, it was so great and forceful that labor was totally out of hand. By means of the gherao, it demanded and secured promises of increased wages and other amenities. Scarcely a factory, commercial establishment or workshop was not aflame with meetings, demands, agitation, and strikes. It seemed possible that economic breakdown might become complete. The movement was clearly not amenable to control through legal procedures and formalities. The exploiting classes and their allies, broadly the upper classes, fuelled the force. “While workers on strike were being shot dead on the orders of bureaucrats and capitalists, the latter’s [the upper classes] wives were attending expensive fashion parades at luxurious international hotels […]” The 1960s witnessed retrogressive labor laws including ban on the right to strike. The imposition of a compulsory adjudication system deprived workers of their due right. In near-mid-May 1969, the government admitted to past failures and announced a new industrial relations policy in July 1969. The new policy said, “The Government was aware that the previous labor policies had failed.” For a period of almost five months, from early November 1968 to the end of March 1969, there was a radical uprising all over Pakistan participated by some 10-15 million people across both East and West Pakistan.

“Until 1969, the government helped supply industry with cheap labor by suppressing trade union activity. This kept real wages constant or declining until the strikes at the end of the Ayub regime in 1969.” “In spite of […] restrictions, working class militancy erupted in a number of long drawn out strikes. Between 1965 and 1968, 1.03 million man-days were lost in strikes. Of these, 587,000 man-days were lost in 1967 alone.” Industrial workers gradually joined political movement. Concepts of a society free from exploitation were gaining ground among the industrial workers. Decades of ideological-political work by progressive political forces contributed to this development among the industrial workers. Industrial workers gradually began raising political demands, and the demands were turning sharper, taking radical character. “In the three main movements against Ayub in 1962, 1964 and 1966, and in the election campaign of 1964, some elements of the working class were involved. [….] The industrial workers […] came to the forefront of the political movement […] in early 1969. [….] Their accumulated grievances against repressive labor laws and declining real wages began to find expression in a spate of strikes demanding higher wages and improvement of working conditions.” “Working class consciousness and militancy inevitably grew with the size of the modern industrial labor force. [….] Instead of merely abstaining from work, the workers occupied […] [enterprises] and confined the owners/managers within the premises until their demands were conceded. Gherao engulfed virtually every industrial center and even spread to commercial enterprises and offices. [….] Between 1968 and 1971 the number of unions in [East Pakistan] increased from 411 to 1174. At the same time man-days lost from strikes increased from 154,840 in 1968 to 366,901 in 1970.”

The sense of deprivation, experience of suppression, aspiration for a better life in a democratic environment, spirit for struggle were articulated in the demands of the economic and political movements

The tidal bore in 1970 made a change in the political spectrum and perception of commoners including the industrial workers and the peasantry. The ’70-tidal bore took away half a million lives. The Baangaalees found the Pakistan rulers indifferent to the Baangaalee people. Even, not a single political leader came to see devastation wrought by the ’70-sea surge and sympathize with the helpless Baangaalee people. Maulaanaa Bhasani raised the issue of indifference in a mammoth Dhaka public meeting. A Dhaka Baanglaa daily headlined Maulana’s utterance: Oraa keu aashenee, none of the political leaders from the western wing of Pakistan came to witness plight of the Baangaalee people. The rift was visible.

The sense of deprivation, experience of suppression, aspiration for a better life in a democratic environment, spirit for struggle were articulated in the demands of the economic and political movements. The industrial workers were imbued with a dream for a happier life as far left student activists turned labor organizers increased their political-organizational activities among the workers. One of the slogans popularized by the left student activists was Tomaar aamaar mantra, samaajtantra, our mantra is socialism. It was a dream for a society free from exploitation. Related publications also presented similar facts. During this period, a group of student and political activists, radical and followers of Mao Zedong, raised the slogan srameek-kreeshak astro dharo, saadheen janaganataantreek Poorba Baanglaa kaayem karo, “workers and peasants rise up with arms and establish independent, people’s democratic East Bengal”, and srameek-kreeshak astro dharo, Poorba Baanglaa saadheen karo, “workers and peasants rise up with arms, make East Bengal independent”. Their activities spread to different regions of the country, and those focused on the poor peasantry, industrial workers, urban poor, and students and youth.

Immediately after completion of the 1969-mass upsurge, a book provoked a huge part of students to initiate a movement, which was directly a rejection of the ideology and culture of the ruling classes. The book Pakistan, Desh O Kreeshtee, Pakistan, the Country and the Culture, was imposed at secondary level. The authorities’ motive behind imposing the book was to inculcate the students with the culture the authorities deemed fit. The students spontaneously opposed the book and rose in resistance. The movement, short lived but successful, spread across the country within days, and compelled the authorities to withdraw the book. Progressive students, who were opposed to the culture-ideology-politics the state was imposing, led the movement, known as Desh O Kreeshtee Aandolon. The movement shows the depth and width of rupture the ruling classes had with the people they were dominating. This was the last student movement of East Pakistan secondary school level students in unbroken Pakistan state. The movement, cropping out spontaneously and very swiftly, is significant as the secondary level students directly rejected the ideology and culture the ruling regime was trying to imbue in young mind.

Verdict that the people of East Pakistan gave in the 1970 election was unequivocal: Get free from hunger, deprivation, repression; have a democratic life. The mass psyche rejecting the ruling class-ideology, culture and politics was years in preparation. “As early as of 1st March [1971] the working class leaders and other student leaders gave the call for an independent Bangladesh [at] a mass rally of workers and students.” Masses of people started taking active role in political life. Faceless “idiots” appeared bright in processions, on the streets, in agitations. So, Bangladesh found many commoners turned courageous fighters. The prevailing political environment and mass-mood was sharp with contradictions. Enayetullah Khan, a leading editor in the country, portrayed: “The city of Dhaka is ringing with the cry for national liberation [….] The slogans which rent the air with resounding echoes from all quarters demand absolute liberation [….] Rural Bengal is preparing itself for a militant and protracted struggle under the leadership of the left radicals committed to a people’s democratic order.”

The war began. “As the [liberation] war intensified it was the students and workers, now joined in increasing number by the sons of peasants, who came in their thousands for training in the camps. It was they who suffered the privations of the training camps and then with rudimentary training and weapons went out to risk their lives against the Pakistan army.” The spirit is not covered with confusion. It was the masses of people, millions in number, joining the War for Liberation. Bangladesh was glowing with glory. And, the Pakistan ruling elite-“mind” full with incapacity to perceive the sociopolitical process, dumbness and stupidity to the brim, tried to stand against the tide of time. It was idiocy. But, history stood against the shrewd-looking idiotic Pakistan ruling elites only waiting to be denied by time and a war for liberation by the people of Bangladesh. It was a time with bravery of and sacrifices by the masses of people. (Continues)

______________

Courtesy: Counter Currents (Posted on 02/10/2023)

The post The emergence of Bangladesh – Part II first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Farooque Chowdhury

Contradictions don’t spare life, individual or collective, or class. And, people’s life, spanning survival and struggles, don’t sit immobile. So, there’s dynamics in people’s struggle that moves on the matrix of class contradictions, and the matrix is complex. None, neither individual nor combine, neither production nor distribution, neither ideology nor economy, neither songs and dramas nor fairy tales and musical instruments, neither life within home nor in production-places – croplands, forest, riverine-estuarine-marine fishing grounds, factories – and markets can escape contradictions; and contradictions have respective dynamics, symmetrical and asymmetrical.

The Bangladesh people, different social classes as its constituents, had the same in their life, in their struggle for survival and emancipation in the post-mid-August-1947 – end-December-1971 period. While the classes constituting the people interacted with each other with respective class interests, the constituents and the people as a whole interacted with its opposite pole – the dominating interests, the ruling regime, and the ruling regime had constituents – classes/segments combined with common interests, ruling machine and its parts the common interests assembled, modus operandi and its parts, rules formulated, weaknesses and fractures of these, and historical limitations the common interests inherited.

The interactions, within the camp and with the opposite camp, were in different areas, forms, and characters. The areas included economy – labor, capital, production, distribution, consumption, surplus, appropriation, expropriation, accumulation, reproduction, natural wealth, etc. The forms included legal, illegal, constitutional, extra-constitutional, formal/institutional, informal/non-institutional, unarmed/non-violent, armed/violent, cooperation, cooption, conflict. The characters included antagonistic and non-antagonistic. These formed a complex environment.

This was evident in the post-mid-August-1947 – end-December-1971 period, a period of struggle against the neo-colonialism.

Culture

Culture gets lost whenever it’s defined and demarcated narrowly, whenever it’s perceived as isolated from class and class struggle. Confining culture only within the areas of literature and arts like novels, drama, poems, dance, song and painting misses the rest, which is the major part, the part influencing/shaping the other part. The issue of culture can’t be isolated from the issues of basic and superstructures.

Long held aspirations of a people can’t be out-casted from the expanse of culture. These aspirations manifest in the realm of culture. These aspirations include emancipation from exploitation, freedom, recourse to injustice and repression, democratic life, peace, prosperity. People keep these aspirations alive from generation to generation. Recourse from natural calamities like draught and storm, loss of crop, famine, scarcity, economic and financial setbacks, etc. enter into the sphere of culture. Hatred and resistance – individual and class while class hatred and resistance is more powerful and effective – to highhandedness/torture of the powerful don’t stay outside of the sphere of culture. These appear not only in forms of song, drama, dance, but also as expression, and in vocabulary and symbol in commoners’ everyday life. Class struggle reverberates in culture, and in these forms and tools of culture.

There’s fundamental relation between culture and politics. Ruling classes use culture to impose its ideology for the purpose of controlling all classes hostile to it

Pierre Bourdieu shows the way classes use culture in respective way in defining status, and legitimize power. In food, literature and art, home decor, etc., Bourdieu observed differences in judgments of taste among classes, which has political significance in a class-divided society.

There’s fundamental relation between culture and politics. Ruling classes use culture to impose its ideology for the purpose of controlling all classes hostile to it; and to control, ruling classes manipulate collective, at class level, and individual, at micro level, consciousness. Ruling classes regularly use culture to advance and cement its politics among people. This, at times, turns out vulgar melodrama. The ruling regime manufacture shallow/superfluous/superficial entertainment to distract the masses of people from the ruling regime’s illogic, anomalies, and injustices it perpetrates and lies it propagates. People’s view, attitude, traditional knowledge, aspirations, perceptions of reality that includes demands for a better, peaceful and stable life, hostilities of the system, etc. are manipulated in favor of the ruling system. People are kept over-engaged, thus making them tired, so that they can’t reflect their experiences of work, gains, losses, dispossessions, etc. It’s manipulation of brain, in Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe’s king-speak, magaz dholaai, brainwashing, which leads them to perceive the “reality” ruling classes let them to perceive. But, the tact is not unlimited Inc. – without limit and bound. It, with the passage of time, as contradictions sharpen and people’s conscious engagement with class struggle intensifies, turns blunt, ineffective and useless. Consequently, people oppose it. A struggle ensues. It turns out as a contest over political space – a contest between people and ruling classes.

Classes, class struggle and contradictions impact and shape culture. At times, political struggle manifests in cultural arena, and it’s through struggle. Culture, at times, turns area of political struggle. Activities related to culture takes political form whenever it mingles with people’s struggles for (1) production and taking share of the production, (2) rights and emancipation, and (3) whenever local authorities and its hirelings can’t fulfill people’s demands. The rights include not only basic/fundamental/human rights, but also environmental-ecological and cultural rights.

Classes, class struggle and contradictions impact and shape culture

Culture can’t be considered as an object or activity isolated from historical context, and economy, to be specific mode and relation of production. It’s a folly to define culture suspended from nowhere, as it grows and evolves with/within a context. To “critically comprehend a cultural text or practice”, writes John Storey, it has to be located “historically in relation to its conditions of production.”

Referring to “Marx’s conception of history, contained in the now famous (and often deliberately misunderstood) ‘base/superstructure’ model of historical development”, Storey writes:

“Marx argues that each significant period in history is constructed around a particular ‘mode of production’ […] [E]ach mode of production produces: (i) specific ways of obtaining the necessaries of life; (ii) specific social relationships between workers and those who control the mode of production; and (iii) specific social institutions (including cultural ones). At the heart of this analysis is the claim that how a society produces its means of existence ultimately determines the political, social and cultural shape of that society and its possible future development. [….]

“The ‘base’ consists of a combination of the ‘forces of production’ and the ‘relations of production’. [….]

“The superstructure consists of institutions (political, legal, educational, cultural, etc.), and what Marx calls ‘definite forms of social consciousness’ (political, religious, ethical, philosophical, aesthetic, cultural, etc.) generated by these institutions. The base ‘conditions’ or ‘determines’ the content and form of the superstructure.”

He explains that the “base also includes social relations and class antagonisms and these also find expression in the superstructure,” and, to take away misunderstanding, cites Frederick Engels’ letter to J Bloch:

“According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence, if somebody twists this into saying that the economic factor is the only determining one, he is transforming that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (that is, of things and events whose inner interconnection is so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree.”

Thus, interpreting culture in a narrow sense is utterly unavailing to understand it. Struggles of the people of Bangladesh show this fact. (Continues)

______________

Courtesy: Counter Currents (Posted on 01/10/2023)

The post The emergence of Bangladesh – Part I first appeared on Sindh Courier.