When politics exposed its ominous fangs

For a blissfully long period of time, much of subcontinental politics had been kept alive and rather exciting by a mix of erudite or frothy politicians who could be credited with sustaining people's interest in public affairs. In undivided India, elections to the local bodies date back to the late 19th century. In fact, many public-spirited individuals took active interest in local body election and the union boards saw the grooming of quite a number of prospective political leaders. Common people from all faiths and denominations including those living in rural areas evinced keen interest in local politics and developmental matters.

Later, when political activities expanded to the national level along with mass participation, the situation still remained relatively convivial. Major political violence was rare. Even during the time of heightened communal tension in the 1940s, there were noticeable signs of harmony at the barricade lines. Opponents certainly were treated as competitors and not enemies. The 1960s saw intense political activism but the historic election of 1970 passed off without a major disturbance.

However, independent Bangladesh witnessed political convulsions and violence on a disturbing scale. In early February 2004, experts expressed concern about the then government's credibility in dealing with the crimes of political nature. It was feared that the issue of tackling political terrorism would cause a serious headache in the days to come. The continuing politics of confrontation was further aggravated by the addition of manifest ferocity and subversion. There was an ominously distinct shift in the mode of political protests while our pluralist existence faced a serious threat.

Against such a backdrop, the mayhem of August 21, 2004, while extremely shocking, did not come as a total surprise to political observers. It laid bare the perilous contours of our confrontational politics. One had to accept the fact for some quarters, extreme actions leading to the annihilation of political adversary became a strategy.

Violent incidents that include murder of politicians and political activists are symptomatic of deep polarisation in a society as well as its weak political institutions. Most incidents of violence in today's Bangladesh can be linked to a political context. Overt and visible violence coexists with invisible violence that destroys the identity of human beings. The visible violence, being situational and physical, can be dealt with through law and order solutions.

Cynical observers of our social scenes are of the view that violence has a functional utility for politicians. Such opinions derive legitimacy from suspected state complicity in the perpetration of organised acts of violence and the inordinate delays suffered by victims in securing justice. This delay is alarming as it sends a clear message to criminals and potential criminals that no harm will come to them in the event of a recurrence of criminal activities.

The grenade assault on August 21, 2004 was clearly an attempt to wipe out the entire leadership of Bangladesh Awami League. The damage that was caused and its far-reaching ramifications cannot be ignored. The tragic deaths and crippling injuries caused by the explosions make us wonder if the state organs investigating the incident and the then political authority realised the enormity of the attack.

We may also recollect that the investigation of the incident was not taken in the right earnest. The first indication of that was the failure to preserve the scene of the occurrence. There were allegations that physical evidence was tampered with or destroyed, and the field units did not act with the desired speed and circumspection. The question is, did this happen because of a so-called instruction from above? If then, the culpability of all concerned, high and low, needs to be established.

In Bangladesh, we need to seriously question authoritative approval or condoning of violence because such action is often construed as social approval. The so-called political circumstances have often obstructed attempts to establish accountability of the culpable individuals. There is a good reason to believe that a considerable number of officials abnegated their responsibility to protect all citizens regardless of their identity.

The disturbing reality in Bangladesh is that with the change of a political regime, the faces of the criminals and their sources of patronage change, too. At times the same criminals who had terrorised the community under the patronage of the outgoing ruling party continued their depredations with a renewed mandate from the incumbent ruling party.

Another disconcerting socio-political reality is that quite often the reasons for deteriorating law and order could be traced to the continuing patronage of criminals and bullies by the incumbent ruling party. Practically speaking, what the people see is the end result of a cumulative process of criminalisation patronised by successive regimes.

One may suspect that the systemic deficiency is located within the political parties and the machinery of law enforcement. The corrective action that people want to see cannot be taken unilaterally by the ruling party. It calls for a bipartisan approach with the active involvement of civil society. The remedy lies in cleaning our politics through a decriminalisation policy backed by the de-politicisation of law enforcement as well as the administration.

Events that unfolded after the August 21 incident indicate that the attack on the Awami League rally was an act of supreme brinkmanship that has, at least in the immediate aftermath and for quite some time in the days to come, unalterably affected the tone of political discourse in the country. The already existing trust deficit among politicians then reached a new low. The ghastly attack of August 21, 2004 has been a turning point in the politics of our perilously polarised polity.       

Muhammad Nurul Huda is a former IGP.