Who knows what else is to unfold in the sadistic drama episodes of our surroundings?
The loud voices we hear, if not listen to, tell us stories that could be reckoned as anything save hard facts. Their clients and patrons believe the people are adequately bewildered, keeping their ‘movements’ confined to a narrow strip between home and workplace.
Conspicuously, Professor Abul Quasem Fazlul Huq’s negation to seek justice after his son’s murder, says it all. It speaks of a different story, a real-life story. Seeing his face on the media, many hearts were broken but other than the ill-fated wise man, others could hardly demonstrate how they felt about a complete loss of hope in a society.
And Mahbubul Alam Hanif’s reactive statement – Arefin Faisal’s father refrained from demanding justice as ‘he believes in the killers’ ideology’ – says it all, too. It speaks of a dominant pattern of the story. It shows the culture of demonising any dissenting voice. Yes, he regretted later on, but not because he was sorry for the foul play but because his mentors foresaw possible public repercussions to the distasteful comment, be it even quiet.
The soft-spoken professor’s assertions, notwithstanding his personal tragedy, are of little importance to the regime. Knowing full well, he preferred a silent protest, as reflected in his way of showing ‘no confidence’, symbolising helplessness of the nation.
The debate on whether there is IS or not, has overshadowed the value of life – the loss of life in violence no longer touches many hearts. Rather, efforts to disprove each other’s ‘conspiracy theories’ undermine public security. An ‘imagined threat of a tiger’ is also a threat as perceived by any sane person.
What is IS, by the way, at least the one we are debating on? The advanced citizens have reasons to think whether those who complain of or reject the IS phenomenon, are serving the same purpose, offering the same labyrinth for the Bangladesh people and their foreign friends.
The complainants, if we say so, hint at the local offshoot of what is reportedly active on the civil war-torn Middle East scene.
By IS, those who of late deny its existence in Bangladesh perhaps mean the outfit with base in Iraq, Syria or Libya, especially with colour of their cadres other than of Bangladeshis, the image of tall masked men walking with hostages along two sides of the Mediterranean, who have not been seen fighting for a territory anywhere in Bangladesh so far.
Both are right then! Both have changed their positions, er... they have overtaken each other’s positions, from delivery of message to the receiving end, just in recent times.
Until recently, the locals were crying out about the fear of militancy – an accusation which was taken seriously by a number of important countries, both in the Western and the Eastern hemispheres.
Even when Western countries saw potential of lower level insurgency in Bangladesh, ministers and senior leaders of the ruling party constantly highlighted their relevance in power politics to prevent or combat militancy in the Muslim-majority country.
Now when reports of IS’ claims of responsibility of killing foreigners came from abroad, the sermons from the rulers have suddenly changed course. After much damage to Bangladesh’s image, they have probably realised they themselves too are losing the game and might lose further if IS presence is proven. So, the issue of militancy, the way it was presented earlier, is no longer sellable.
They once spoke of militancy to divert local and global attention from the impending political crisis over elections and then again to overcome deficiency in democratic legitimacy. Now reports and claims of militant attacks are described as plot. Again, the home minister termed recent killings as isolated incidents.
However, there is no dispute that these are terrorist attacks in which innocent people lost lives. You argue they have nothing to do with the political crisis. No matter whoever are the players, are they not taking advantage of the vacuum on the political front?
Almost everywhere – in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya and Nigeria – violent extremism has come to the surface as a by-product of prolonged political impasse, especially absence of space for the people to ventilate their grievances.
In Bangladesh, the rival political actors are implicated, more often than not, before investigation, in fact immediately after clandestine attacks. The blame is also passed on to international quarters nowadays.
If the public memory works, they would see more than one player as culprit in these attacks. If the people are asked to forget each of earlier claims, they would not find eventually anyone to be considered culpable. This oblivion is the result of too heavy burden of contradictory information and this has led the people to be tolerant to many negative vibes.
The key actors relentlessly talk about everything except how to come out of the crisis. So, to millions who dream of an unlikely solution, it is all the same if they make allegations about IS or dismiss it as a phantom. It is nothing but credibility of political statements which is in question.
