Mohsin Siddique

Mohsin Reza Siddique: Graduated from EPUET (now BUET) in 1966 from the Department of Chemical Engineering, and joined the university as a Lecturer. He left Dhaka in 1968, earned M. Ch. E. and D. Eng. from the Catholic University of America in Washington D.C. He was also a lecturer in Chemical Engineering from 1971 to 1976 at Howard University in DC. In 1971, along with many Americans and Bangladeshis he helped establish the Bangladesh Information Center on Capitol Hill, which spearheaded the lobbying effort to successfully stop U.S. shipment of arms to Pakistan. He was also the founding General Secretary of the American Association of Bangladeshis in Washington D.C. formed in 1971.

Professionally, he has been involved in the environmental field, has done research in drinking water contaminants and was the Chief of Water Quality Control for the D.C.’s Water Pollution Control Program. Currently he is responsible for Environmental Planning with the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority and manages D.C.’s Storm Water Administration.

He writes on political and environmental issues.

Mohsin Siddique's Essays

In a study conducted by the Dhaka based Bangladesh Center for Advanced Studies several years ago, it was shown that agricultural production goes up after a flood. This is not surprising: Bangladesh, especially the lower Bangladesh, known as samatata among the ancients (who, according to the " Bangaleer Itihas, Adi Porbo" by Niharranjan Roy, simply meant the area that is at the same level as the sea) is made up of nutrient rich alluvial deposits, and how this 'land' came into existence. What floods bring have been the basis of its natural environment, its bio-diversity, its economic life, its social life, its culture, etc. In this place fronting the sea, at the end of mighty rivers draining millions of square miles of land subjected to multitude of uses, a land made up of continuous deposition and erosion of soft soil, flood is inevitable, and it is indeed desirable, but needless to say, not its life endangering aspects.

The question is what is new, and why so many people are affected every time such a flood occurs. One important factor is the changes in the water and land use patterns upstream in India. Extension of agriculture and fisheries, need for enhanced navigation, etc., have caused changes in Bihar-West Bengal-Orissa basin that have down-stream impact. These have created controversy between India and East Pakistan/Bangladesh for many years. It is not very useful to keep blaming India for making use of the water that is within their territory for their own purposes; people there also have to live and make a living. Neither is it useful to ignore that India's primary responsibility is to its own people. I seriously doubt that Bangladesh can bully India into compromising its own interest in this regard, unless, of course, India has something to benefit from giving up some of its interests in exchange. The wide spread anti-Indianism that pervades Bangladeshi culture surely does not help either. No doubt, the best solution to the problem is a region-wide land use and water management approach; flood impacts people in that basin as well. But, how that cooperation will happen without mutually beneficial wider political and economic cooperation, and a fundamental change in attitude, escapes me.

In Bangladesh, population growth, and the need to find more living space and means of make a living have caused drastic changes in land use. Due to that drive and partly encouraged by the popularly propagated (scientific/engineering) idea and expectation that flood can be controlled, vast number of people seem to have moved into the very easily flooded low(er) laying areas over the years, which in ancient times were avoided because of the recognized vulnerability of those areas to frequent and intense flooding. I am not sure that damages due to flooding can be eliminated in those areas without drastically changing their topography.. It is possible to do so in theory; practice is another matter.

The obvious cause of flooding is that the volume of the water that is generated exceeds the volume of the conveyance and the reservoir systems, i.e., their holding capacity. The eroded soil from the vast watershed that spreads from west to east of northern India, as well as in local areas, are continuously deposited not only on the agricultural land, but also on the bottom of the rivers, channels, canals, ponds, etc., reducing their capacity to hold the water in flood-years over the years. It seems that while the energy of the water is sufficient to cause extensive riverbank erosion, the riverbed is not eroded as much; indeed, the opposite is taking place. It is this phenomenon that is responsible for major changes in the course of the rivers, even in historic and even living-memory times. Buriganga, old Brhamaputra, etc., are examples of those. It is logical then to argue that these should be dredged on a regular basis. But, dredging of even the major rivers alone is a very expensive proposition no doubt, with serious engineering limitations to how comprehensive a program can be undertaken.

This would suggest that one possible way to increase the holding capacity is to organize it at the local levels. A low-tech approach to remove the deposited soil (and using it to augment fertilizer need of the arable land or to increase the elevation of the homestead, or even to build flood protection walls around the villages) from the channels and ponds in and around the villages could increase the holding capacities and reduce if not completely eliminate the devastating impacts of flood. Combined with various assistance programs, it would seem possible to encourage villagers to undertake annual dredging of the local khals, ponds, etc. This is not a new idea. In the past, in winter dry seasons, many villagers used to do exactly that collectively. It was also part of communal ownership of the fishing rights among the villagers: they collectively took responsibilities for the water bodies and shared the resources they provided. These were part of the village commons, along with grazing fields, roads, fruit trees in the commons, etc. It fell victim to the cold war battles that resulted in the arrival of "aid", which destroyed much of the culture of cooperation, collectivity and above all, self reliance, that sometimes sustained the villagers. However, reviving the old traditions and establishing it in a scale needed to cope with the kind of flooding the country is facing, are major organizational challenges, and hence a political challenge, even in more propitious environment. In today's context, probably a voluntary program for this is no more possible. Conceptually at least, it could be tied to economic development projects, including direct assistance programs for the rural poor. There is reason to be skeptical, however, that in the present political culture that is dominated by self-indulgent, narrow-minded suicidal politics - lead by people with myopia and dubious intentions - over national interest and pride, any one can or would lead a massive country-wide village level organizational effort that could make a significant dent in coping with the flood problem.

It appears therefore that the traditional approach to dealing with the flood problem, the most prominent feature of which is begging for help (read alms), will be the norm. As an immediate task, we do need to bring relief to those affected. It would be better, if we could help them to stand on their own feet as well and assist them in taking control of their lives and manage what afflicts them on their own. It is always better to teach people how to catch fish instead of simply giving them fish for a meal or two!

It has been my view that many aspects of social, political and economic life in the subcontinent are interconnected, and this cannot be ignored. Therefore, as much as I am not a member of BNP, and although I do not know what his thinking was on the issue, Zia's initiative in creating SAARC, I consider to be a bold step towards recognition of this interconnectedness, and in many ways the interdependence, among the states and the people of South Asia. For example, I have maintained that the labor market between the South Asian countries should be opened up to reconcile with the truth on the ground. It will help reduce human misery that accompanies the current movement of the (illegal) labor force, not only at the boarders, but also with regards to the protection of their rights under the existing laws of these countries. This is only fair, if the boundary of the capital market is also going to be opened up more and more, as seems to be the trend. I am convinced (but I am interested in hearing counter arguments) that it is in the interest of all, if at all possible ? and I am aware this is not an easy task ? to replicate the arrangements of the European Union in South Asia. It would not only be economically beneficial in the context of global competition, it would have enormous social and political implications, I think in the right direction. Reduction in conflicts and increase in cooperation that are mutually beneficial cannot but have positive impact for progressive causes in South Asia.

On the specific matter of combating communalism, I would like to appeal to uttorshuri participants from all of South Asia that we consider finding a way to make the protection of the minorities in the subcontinent a part of the SAARC agenda. I do not know what role the regional/country specific NGO's do/can play in SAARC affairs; I know that the governments and government officials dominate it. However, expenditures of SAARC deliberations are funded by public money, and it does work to adopt policies that impact all the people in the region. Therefore, I would think that the public in the region should have a right to pursued SAARC to deal with the protection of the minorities as a regional issue that affect most, if not all. If necessary, we can work through the respective legislative organs if needed, to make inroads into SAARC. Even adoption by SAARC of certain principles explicitly opposing communal violence by all states in the region, asserting the fundamental citizen rights of the minorities in their respective countries, and identification of possible steps that can be taken by the governments and the public at times of communal crisis (this is not an exhaustive list), would be a positive step.

I would hope that it would be possible to find NGOs in the region who could be brought into a coalition that could demand opportunities on the SAARC agenda to: to highlight the problem, identify reasons for the atrocities against the minorities and groups who are responsible for these, governmental and public policies, programs, actions, etc., that are necessary to eradicate this scourge from our midst.

I am sure and I hope there are good ideas among uttorshuri participants (and others) how we can use SAARC vehicle to confront this problem. It cannot be any less important than other matters of mutual interest that are the concerns of SAARC. "These are internal matters" argument should not be acceptable to the human rights activists in the subcontinent, who I am sure views communal atrocity as violation of the basic rights of the citizens of the region.

There exists an entity that deals with "regional" matters in South Asia; we ought to make (better) use of it.

It may be too late for the next SAARC meeting in Pakistan. However, it does not stop us from starting the discussion on a strategy to pursue this approach.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of the suggestion.

December 15, 2003

Any discussion of Israel that is a slight bit contrary to what the Israeli propaganda machine and the right-wing Jewish groups consider anti-Israeli is immediately termed as anti-Semitic. Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia, according to some, is fighting for his political life for answering a question regarding lukewarm support of the anti-war efforts within the Jewish community. Even the Jews who have dared criticize Israeli treatment of the Arabs under its occupation have not been spared denunciations. How is it that this has become such a toilet-talk that it cannot be discussed in polite company?

I do not intend to go into the history of creation of the state of Israel: every one reads this history in the way they like, truth not withstanding. What I understand is that the real claim of the Jewish people on the place called Israel is rooted in its religious scriptures, traditions and history. If that is the only basis (but not in things such as international law), I would argue that a sane solution of this problem would not be possible (a solution imposed by force does not fall in this category), ever, precisely because of the religious nature of the claim. I can count at least two other religions that have comparable claims also based on their religious traditions. I am yet to see religious people agree on such claims. Besides the long-standing desire of the sectarians among the Jews, the creation of the state of Israel is the result of two things: the well-deserved guilt of the Europeans who have been the leading (but not the only) purveyor of anti-Semitism for a long time; and more so, their failure to protect the Jews from the atrocities of the Nazis. I suspect that Israeli political leaders and their ideologues in the US who shape US government’s policies in these matters are well aware of this, and use it to the fullest advantage. But US do not carry the same kind of historical burden of guilt vis-à-vis the Jewish people, yet, it is completely debilitated from pursuing an objective approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict: why? I am not sure how much research-based (and not just rhetorical or crass anti-Semitic) writing has taken place on the causes and mechanisms of Israel’s influence on the American national psyche, the political establishment, electoral politics, ideologues, media and policy makers. I can’t recall seeing many reviews of books on this subject in the print media! Nor have I seen ‘pundits’ speaking on the subject on any of the talk shows. Why?

One of the interesting approaches Israel and its operatives in the US use to legitimize their actions, including keeping the analyses of the influence of Israel in the US off any agenda, has been to project itself as the victim. It spends a great deal of its resources in maintaining this image. It boggles once mind: it is the single most powerful country with the strongest military in the region. The military powers of all its neighbors combined do not add up to anything even close to Israel’s might. No one in the region, alone or with combined forces of its Arab neighbors can do any substantial damage to Israel that would humanize the way Israel treats the Palestinians. Even in its hay-day, Iraq never had enough rockets to ‘eliminate Israel’, as often claimed. Yes, Palestinians do inflict some damages to the Israeli population, but only by actions that are clearly out of desperation against a force that it can never match – a fact every one works very hard to ignore while denouncing “terrorism.” Since the primary supporters that really mattered in the “anti-imperialist” struggles, those who provided resources including arms, i.e., the Soviet Union and the World Socialist Camp do not exist any more, it would be a pipe dream for the Arabs to think of militarily changing Israel’s policy. On the non-military side, Israel affords a living standard that surpasses most of its neighbors, mostly because of the billions of dollars in steady supply of American funds. Again, total US funds that flows into Israel every year far exceeds what is given to its neighbors, combined. Palestinian economy, for all practical purposes, is at the mercy of Israeli whim, and many Palestinians are dependent on jobs in Israel for their survival. Yet, to most Americans, Palestinian lives are never as valuable as the lives of the Israelis. It is a measure of how successful Israel has been in maintaining its image as the victim.

Israel and its ideologues within the USA’s political establishment have done a remarkable job of buying off the corrupt, inept and collaborationist politicians of the Arab states. They have made the political fortunes of these leaders fully dependent on the support of the USA’s weapons and willingness to intervene, directly or indirectly, in the internal affairs of these countries. This is in spite of the clearly demonstrated contrary popular sentiments. The scheme has worked well: the visible opposition in the autocratic Arab world is often the fanatic Islamists in the region, forces that are clearly undemocratic, and hard for the secular democratic forces to support. The US and Israeli policies help the autocrats and the fanatics feed off of each other to exist. The real hopes for democracy in the region remain on the fringe and those who could be instrumental in making it a reality are resigned to live with the puppets. Yet, US and Israel continuously harp on the lack of democracy among the Arabs.

It is true that there is a great deal of sympathy for the Palestinians in the Arab world, but it is not a bread and butter issue for them (economic impact of the refugees seem to have been abated sufficiently for it to be such an issue). Israel and US’s success in making this a long duration problem may have introduced some exhaustion and diminished commitment among the supporters. The Palestinian leadership has not been successful in making their plight a sufficient political issue in the Arab countries that would lead to overthrowing of the puppets and pursuing of meaningful policies in support of their cause (e.g., using oil as a leverage). That is not about to happen. The Palestinians have not been very effective in articulating their plight to the Americans (I understand the situation is a bit better in Europe) either, in spite of Israel’s endlessly horrendous brutality against them. The reputation of the PLO and other leaders as corrupt and self-serving does not do the Palestinian people much good either. And on a different note, I am not convinced that the ordinary members of the Jewish community, a community that has suffered discriminations for a long time and has been brutalized by the Nazis, cannot be persuaded to sympathize with the plight of the Palestinian people today, and can not be mobilized against the policies of discrimination and brutalization perpetrated in their name by the Israeli government. There has been a major strategic mistake in this work.

There is no doubt that there are anti-Semites around. Anti-Semitism is the ideology of denigrating the Jewish people, denying them basic human rights because of their faith. It is racist in the way denigrating the African Americans or Palestinians is racist. Anti-Semitism is in Christian tradition; and it is also among many Muslims. In spite of the problems, it must be possible to discuss USA’s policy towards Israel, Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, its unprecedented stronghold on the politics and policies of this country etc., without pandering to the anti-Semites.

Criticism of the policies of Israel cannot be automatically equated to anti-Semitism. This practice must not be accepted any longer. It must be possible to discuss, discredit and attempt to influence Israeli policies and the disproportionate influence of the Israeli ideologues in American politics, especially when it is at the expense of its national interests vis-à-vis policies in other parts of the world, without being attacked with the epithet “anti-Semite”. One would think that it would be beneficial to all. It is hard to imagine that return to the notion that Jews are the ‘chosen people of God’ would do any good to any one!

It is commonly assumed that writing of history is enhanced by distance in time from the subject of history, for, it some how facilitates objectivity, the later being the measure of how scientific is the history that is being written. However, although with the rediscovery of Vico (1) and the recognition of the need for history to be judged scientific, disagreements re­garding interpretation and analysis of events, coincidences and personalities in history making have not diminished. Therefore, on account of the relative proximity in time to the events, and the inherent Roshomon syndrome (2) in interpretation, what follows is not claimed to be history of the period, nor is it assumed to be unchangeable. It is at best raw data. Even then it would be an unfair chronicle to simply cite the incidents without some explication, which may reveal the motives behind the actions that were undertaken by the actors. Explanations are problematic, because only the first person can vouch for his/her reasons; the rest is based on observations and assessments of others and depends on what one can only try to remember as best as possible, and thus potential inaccuracies are implied. Furthermore, this particular effort is confined to recording of a very small part of the events.

Having been born in a family which did not sit on the fence during the tumultuous period of struggle for independence from the British, but neither became famous person­alities, nor were associated with any major documented events of the period (that is, truly were foot soldiers like many in the society), politics has been a very major force in my up­bringing. Stories of revolutionaries of the thirties and forties were told and retold to us as if fairy tales; peoples' desires for better lives, primacy of justice and human dignity in social living were presented as if religious dicta; the absolute need for intellectual enlightenment was established as a priority, and the questioning of the world as presented followed as if natural. What appeared as an anomaly early on were the ideas and the realities of Pakistan. To a child the issues were simple: if religion was good, how is it that people were being killed in the name of religion? Stories of atrocities unleashed by both sides were baffling. What makes one religion better than the other, since every one believes in a divine force, differing only in names and the modes of worship? We lived as a community of Hindus, Buddhists (our ancestors belonged most likely to both religious groups - we knew we did not come from Saudi Arabia!), Muslims, Christians, etc., so why a Muslim homeland? Most painful was to see my friends leave the country; the agony of their insecurity, the sadness of their parents and elders having to abandon their centuries old homes and hearth was devastating to witness. Being immersed in the period of the language movement, the United Front era, and the subsequent social and political upheavals, miles of walking in processions, stone-throwing at the police, speeches, slogans of fury and frustration, and being tear-gassed, etc., were both outlets for expressing disappointments with the world around, and hopes for their remedy. Basically, I grew up with ever increasing anti-Pakistan feelings, and exploring the possibility of undoing the division of the Subcontinent emerged as a preoccupation. In the political involvement of later years, the need to end this absurd formation, revulsion to the morbid notion of a religion based homogenous political entity disregarding the reality of inherently heterogeneous nature of all social formations (family, neighborhood, community, state, etc.), especially in the Indian Subcontinent, and the re­sulting inhumanity and injustice, played a critical role in steering to the broader intellectual inquiries on the nature of social formations, relations and roles of social classes and groups, the dynamics of social changes, etc.

During the struggles of the sixties against the military regime, in my small way I argued for addressing the nationality question within the progressive movement, because I found the movement's position on this issue weak and opportunistic and based mostly on the fear of being labeled anti-Pakistani, and the concomitant fear of being isolated from the masses. To declare to be secular while enduring without resistance a state based on the majority of a given religious community, which turns every one else into second class citizens both in theory and practice, is fundamentally hypocritical. There was this problem among the pro­gressives, of following the masses, and not leading, at least in ideas, even if it meant some initial isolation, despite touting themselves as the vanguard! The ideology and the politics of Pakistan, i.e., exploitation of religion in pursuing political power, in my view was anti-religious, and the consequences were antithetical to the objective interests of the Bengalis, Sindhis, Punjabis, Baluchis and Pathans. Especially, it was contrary to the social and cul­tural history of the Bengalis, and their existence as a distinct, though inseparable commu­nity within he Indian polity.

The last word on the issue, following a heated conversation with Mohammed Farhad (3) in a dark (he was 'underground') cafeteria of the Engineering University on the need to end Pakistan was that I should write down the arguments for a more systematic discussion of the issues. That was sometime in early August of 1968. Few days later, on August 26, I left for Washington DC.

The family kept me abreast of politics in the country regularly. I had, and I still do have several very close friends in Bangladesh. Some were friends since high school (Tejgaon Technical High School) and junior college (Notre Dame) days; the others were acquired at the Engineering University. In all cases, friendships were cemented by, besides our per­sonalities, the intensely felt emotions about our language, literature, music, history, espe­cially the awareness of the struggles against the British, the need for openness and democ­racy, and voracious intellectual pursuit of everything. At the height of efforts to impose a Pakistani culture during the Ayub regime, Dara (4), Shipar (5) and I used to roam about in Dhaka wearing dhotis, perhaps to demonstrate at least to ourselves, that as Bengalis, we were products of the Bengali Hindu culture as well. What was heartening was that on oc­casions, when in this attire and our identities as Bengali Muslim young men were discov­ered by strangers, some of them were very appreciative of the courage of our convictions, and of our resistance to the efforts of the government and the religious fundamentalists to theocratize the culture.

All of these friends were political in various degrees, and some were more organization­ally political. They were a steady source of ins and outs of developments in the country since I left. Alamgir Kabir (6) and Mohammad Abul Quassem, a Civil Engineer (7), who was more passionate about progressive politics than engineering, a tireless and immensely en­thusiastic activist, were the two close comrades who provided the analysis of the emerging changes in the programs and processes of political developments in the country, both of the parties and the people. They also regularly and rightly reminded me that I had betrayed a commitment to return to the country and devote myself to the cause of the revolution. Both of them and many of the other political friends operated out of camps in Agartala during the Liberation War.

All of the above is to say that one was prepared and hoped for the events leading up to 1971. What I did not anticipate, although I do not quite know why, was the extent of brutality unleashed by the military and the ruling clique. The daily news of the massacre became increasingly numbing. At that time I did not know of any organi­zation of East Pakistanis in Washington DC area, and the initial reactions were from indi­viduals. A number of people, mostly of the greater Bengali community in and around the Catholic University (CU) where I was pursuing graduate studies, called for details and to inquire about the safety of my family. Some called to say that they had heard about my younger brother, a CSP and in charge of administration of a Subdivision in Jessore who had led a contingent of Bengali police to attack a Pakistani military garrison, and that sub­sequently he had crossed into West Bengal and was interviewed by the news media. (8) This was soon confirmed by a letter he sent me informing me of his whereabouts (he had ap­peared at the door of and was sheltered by Eela Mitra, a renowned revolutionary leader of the Santal Rebellion in East Pakistan), and some sketchy news about our immediate family in Dhaka. I was worried about my large extended family, and especially about my father (a government official), mother, two brothers and two sisters, all in Dhaka. I wondered how they would escape the atrocities, and accounts of that period narrated to me later did send shivers.

Arnab Sarkar, a fellow graduate student at CU from Calcutta told me about a meeting being held one evening shortly after the news of the events. It took place at the house of Sri Ranjan Bora, a librarian in the South Asia section of the Library of Congress (LOC). That evening, speeches were made praising Bangabandhu and heroism of the Bengali people, and condemning the Pakistani army. Patriotic songs were sung and guarded hopes of reunification of Bengal were expressed in muted voices. Ranjan Babu was a singer, a generous soul, an ardent supporter of every thing Bengali, and perhaps in that vain, a supporter of Netaji Shubliasli Cliandra Bose. He announced that there was no other Bengali leader who came close to Netaji except Sheikh Mujib. In conjunction with his admiration for Netaji, he held certain regressive (to me) political views; it led to uncomfortable arguments whenever we met till his death several years ago. Throughout the period of the War he gave his time, enthusiasm and other resources to the cause of Bangladesh. That evening at his home I came to know Enayetur Rahim, who at that time was doing research at the LOC. (9)

The following day I met Enayet and several other people at a small cafe near the LOC, and headed for the doors of Senators Edward Kennedy and Frank Church, both members of the Foreign Relations Committee, to ask for help. In the lobby of the Senate building we met a group of Americans who were variously involved in East Pakistan before, including Dr. William Greenough of Johns Hopkins University and Dr. David Nalin of Harvard Medical School, also there to lobby. However, here I will not go into the details of the efforts to marshal the help of the US Congress in support of the Liberation of Bangladesh.

It Is through Enayet that I came to know that one Mrs. Anna Braun Taylor from Boston had began a fast at the Lafayette Park (10) on the Pennsylvania Avenue side of the White House to protest the atrocities in Bangladesh and to focus attention on the plight of the Bengali people. She had lived in Dhaka for several years with her husband Dr. James Oliver Taylor, a specialist in tropical diseases and at that time affiliated with Harvard Medical School, who had worked at the Cholera Research Laboratory in Dhaka, where Dr. Greenough and many of the Americans who were the first American organizers of support movement for Bangladesh, had also worked. Anna had many friends in Dhaka and other parts of the country and maintained contact with them even after she left East Pakistan. She had traveled in both parts of Bengal, and always wondered about the separation of the two. A Polish Jewish women, as a child she and her mother had survived Hitler’s concentration camp (Bergen-­Belsen) during world War II, were rescued by the British soldiers, and had settled in Eng­land. She later moved to the US, and went to college here. I believe her father was killed by the Nazis. A pacifist with strong inclinations towards Buddhism, an admirer of Bengali culture, an enthusiast of Indian classical music (especially of raga Deshi Paharri), she was overwhelmed by the extent of violence against the people she knew. Though a leftist liberal at heart, she disliked organized politics, and deeply believed in the responsibility of the individuals to do their personal best to help others, and concluded that fasting was at that time the best way for her to draw attention of the American people to the calamity that had befallen on the Bengalis. Her effort was reported by the major newspapers, and did help to generate support for our cause among the Americans. Anna invested an enormous amount of her personal resources-money, time, talent and physical and emotional labor - to the cause, and gave courage and solace to many of us who lived through the pe­riod in guilt, agony and uncertainty. She was one of the Americans who had established the Bangladesh Information Center, provided resources for it, and became its first full-time unpaid staff. Actually, for a while she lived at the Center in Washington DC. (Capitol Hill, 414 Seward Square, S.E., 2nd floor). The Center was the hub of activities for lobbying the Congress to stop US shipment of arms to Pakistan and later to stop all economic assistance as well.

Enayet, his wife Joyce and their two sons, and many in the Bangladesh community visited Anna at the park often. We all felt very grateful for her sacrifice. It was during one of my regular visits to the Lafayette Park to see her (I used to help transport the things she used in her fast-vigil, e.g., placards, signs, umbrella, water bottle, etc., between the Park and her hotel), that I saw a group of young people, popularly known as hippies, holding a small demonstration outside the fences of the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. I walked over and introduced myself to a young woman at the head of the line, and joined them in their demonstration. They were members of a group of followers of Rene Davis, a former leader of the Students for Democratic Society (SDS, which played a key role in organizing the anti-Vietnam war movement in the US), and one of the people arrested at the 1968 Democratic Party convention in Chicago on conspiracy and other charges. The group was there to voice their opposition to the collaboration of the Nixon administration with Pakistan. Although they were not familiar with the history of the struggle of the Bengali people, they considered the struggle a just cause nevertheless, and were committed to do whatever was necessary to help. Their subsequent actions proved that. I was invited to their commune on New Hampshire Avenue several times, and discussed what else could be done. The general conclusion was that the best way to change Nixon's policy was to bring pressure from the American people, and the best way to do so was to dramatize the plight of the Bangladesh people. The idea was to undertake events which would be reported by the media, and therefore inform the public. Thus came the idea of a tent city, actually, a city of sewer pipes. A large number of concrete pipes were in the Park for replacement of broken city sewers, and members of this group and other radical and church groups took those over and lived in them for several days to portray the living conditions of the refugees created by the actions of the Pakistani army. This did get a great deal of media coverage. On many occasions after that, every time the Bengali community organized any demonstration in Washington DC in support of the liberation efforts, when called, they joined us, organized members of other radical groups to join, and brought many of their friends to these events.

A group of Quakers (religious pacifist group) organized a demonstration in Baltimore to stop suspected ships from leaving the port with shipments for Pakistan. Rumor had it that there were weapons in those ships. We all trooped down to Baltimore to participate.

There were boats available to try to block the ships. Some of the Americans tried to climb into the ship, but they were rebuffed by the sailors. Some other Bengalis came down from Philadelphia on that occasion as well. In a separate incident, when a Pakistani ship docked in Baltimore, a group of Bangladeshi sailors jumped ship and asked for political asylum. Along with our American supporters, we were able to get them shelter and other assistance.

It is not clear now any more, perhaps some one loosely associated with these groups, or some one brought into our efforts in one of many demonstrations, approached and be­friended me. Always garbed in surplus military fatigue, he turned out to be a small-time dealer in marijuana, and hinted of his various secret involvement. At an informal gathering in his and his girl friend's apartment on Q Street near Dupont Cir­cle one evening he asked me how the resistance movement was going, and if the movement was adequately armed to fight the well-armed Pakistanis. Though somewhat naive, and did not have much experience in these matters, I saw the direction the discussion was heading, and asked him straight out if he was in a position to procure arms if needed. He said we should pursue this discussion later. Subsequently various discussions took place on the subject, but nothing concrete happened. He then vanished all of a sudden, called me from somewhere outside of D.C., asked me to call a certain number at a certain time for details regarding what could be available, cost and delivery arrangements. I faithfully followed the instruction (I was supposed to call only from a public phone), and there was no one at the other end! I never heard from him again.

I was also approached by friends of some wealthy liberal individuals regarding the availability of financial assistance to Bangladesh and especially, arms, in exchange for rec­ognition of Israel by the government at some future date after the independence. I was as­sured that any quantity of arms could be easily delivered in the Sundarban area, and/or in the coastal areas of Chittagong, etc. My ideological orientation at that time made it diffi­cult to pursue this option, but I was prepared to explore with contacts in Agartala and Calcutta, because at the time the international material support for the movement was not very clear, at least not sitting in DC. However, the alliances became clearer soon, and it became unnecessary to pursue this route. I was relieved, because I knew that my contacts would not have been happy to know about this proposal.

While at the Center, one day a young man (11) called to say that he wanted to help. We became friends, and he devoted a lot of his tune to the cause of Bangladesh in the US. A devout follower of Chairman Mao, he argued with me and others in the commune we lived in later on, that Bangladesh was ready for a peasant revolution, and that he must go there to participate in this anticipated monumental event. In spite of pointing out the prob­lems a blond, bearded, bespectacled budding European intellectual might have in “blending” with the peasantry in Bangladesh, which his hoped-for role entailed, he insisted and ended up in Bangladesh after the liberation, and got himself and a lot of innocent peo­ple in a heap of trouble.

The Bengalis in Washington DC - Baltimore area had organized themselves in various entities to support the effort. People from all walks of life, from students to diplomats dedicated themselves to the cause. Among them there was a small group of radicals/liberals (of various shades) (12) who met often outside the larger organizations to discuss various theo­retical issues as well as analyze the workings, directions, personalities, etc., involved among the Bangladeshi groups as well as the Americans who were working to support the liberation ef­forts. Among the radicals, there were a few sympathizers of Chairman Mao, but they did not support China's policy towards Bangladesh at that tome. Although critical of the 'bourgeois nationalist' leadership of the movement, and fear of the dominance of the 'rising Bangladesh capitalist class' after independence in spite of a commitment to socialistic eco­nomic policies by the Awami League, the liberation of Bangladesh was seen as a ‘necessary historical step’ towards the ultimate goal of creating a socialist Bangladesh.

I had also established contact with Bengalis especially the radicals, in New York. Dr. Khandokar Alaimgir and his wife, leading activists themselves, provided hospitality to Enayet and me often, when we visited them to discuss strategies and actions and participate in demonstrations in front of the UN and other places. One of the most active and dedi­cated group of people was the Bengali restaurant workers of New York. At one time when there was some apparent reluctance on the part of some diplomats of Bangladesh origin to leave the Pakistan Embassies in the US, they sent messages that they would pay their salaries, if that was the reason for the hesitancy. Whenever needed for a demonstration at the White House or the US Capitol, they would drive down to Washington DC, even though it meant loss of income for them.

Prof. Muzaffar Ahmed came for a short visit, and was staying with a former Economics professor of his, who had migrated to India. I went to see him. He impressed upon me that the progressive forces must not get bogged down with 'radical' issues, but should focus on organizing support for the on-going Liberation War. He indicated that the emergence of the coalition of the political parties leading War was one of the most significant developments, and he expected this spirit to continue in the form of some kind of a national government at least for a few years after the liberation.

The most ardent supporters of our effort outside of the Bangladesh people were the Indians, especially the Indian Bengali community in the area. From diplomats to students, they provided shelters when needed, gave moral and material support. Some of them who had migrated from East Bengal to India before1971, were as vigorously patriotic as us. In discussions it often came out that they did not expect to return to their former villages - they were much too settled where they were. But as East Bengalis, they saw it as their patriotic duty to support the liberation of Bangladesh. Many were thrilled at the anticipation of being able to visit their birth places again without fear. They were proud and elated by the adoption of "Amar Sonar Bangla" as the national anthem of the independent country.

A group of radical Pakistani scholars and students, more or less affiliated with (at that time Trotskyite) Tariq Ali of UK came to our support. The initial contact was made through Fazlul Bari, a Bengali employee at the Pakistan Embassy who had quit in protest, and was working with us. We met with the group a few times at his apartment on 19th street, NW. They often joined us in demonstrations. Clearly, there was a section of Pakistanis who also found Pakistanism unacceptable, and supported the right of self-determination of the various components that made up the country, and therefore felt it necessary to support the liberation struggle of Bengalis. Tariq sent me letters and clippings of articles he had written in support of Bangladesh. Some of them in the US argued the case of Bangladesh among the Pakistani community, although I am not sure with how much success.

In the middle of all the chaos, endless meetings, lobbying, demonstrations, running around, etc., I was surprised and happy to receive a letter from a dear friend, Tayeba Ahmed Toru. An activist in the East Pakistan Students Union (in the cultural front) at Dhaka University, Toru and I met while we studied Russian language in the International Relations Department, and became good friends. She came from a talented family, was an early feminist, had hopes of becoming a stage actress, and did some acting. She used to tell me how important it was to stage Tagore’s plays in East Pakistan to preserve the integrity of the Bengali culture. The letter was written from a hospital in Calcutta. In the letter Toru reminisced about evenings at Chayanot concerts, our long rickshaw rides after class, about talks we had regarding the attitudes of Bengali men towards women; and wanted to know if I still liked Rimbaud's poems, especially the one titled Royalty! She wrote about returning soon to a free Dhaka, and asked if I really planned to return too. I wrote her back that there was a piece of paper on my wall, over my desk, in which it was written, in Bengali "Amar Dhakay ferar kotha" (I am supposed to go back to Dhaka). 1 did not hear from her any more. Later I was informed that Toru had died in that Calcutta hospital. (Actually she died in Dhaka).

At least in the world I lived in, the opposition which existed to the division of the country before 1947, and which the Muslim League tried to deny and wipe out after 1947, persisted and fought to raise the voice of reason from the very beginning. The unresolved issue of nationalism in the Indian subcontinent, which the Indian National Congress and the leftist parties of the time did not and the Muslim League could not, address became the most important, even though not consciously recognized, factor in Pakistan's politics; and it remains so even today, in the entire Subcontinent. The struggle for its resolution, how­ever, is a historical one, and the absurdity of a monolithic polity, which theocracy, no mat­ter which kind, tries to impose on civil societies that are inherently heterogeneous in na­ture, seems to become apparent only bit by bit. In Bangladesh, it manifested in the emer­gence of language movement, in the long drawn battle for secular democracy, and ex­ploded in the liberation war of 1971; and to borrow an expression from the Angolan liberation movement: a luta continua! (the struggle goes on).

What is remarkable is how this work takes place: through the conviction and personal work of individuals, those of the organized political entities, and even in the responses of otherwise non-political individuals to a catastrophe which such struggles seem to precipi­tate from time to time. The war for the liberation of Bangladesh is an example of this proc­ess. Yet, it was clear to all of us that it was in the battlefield, the actions of the millions of people who were engaged in that struggle, and the courage, tenacity and the acumen of their political leaders, and India's help, will determine the ultimate outcome. And we were confident what the outcome would be; we just felt that we had to do all we could to help the situation. And many, Bengalis, Americans, Indians, Pakistanis and members of other nationalities did just that. (Published in “American Response to Bangladesh Liberation”, by A. M. A. Muhith, University Press Ltd., 1996, Dhaka, Bangladesh.)

Notes:

(1) Giambatista Vico, who wrote “The New Science" in 1725, and is given credit for having established the science of history.

(2) A film by Akira Kurosawa in which every one has a different view of a highway robbery they have witnessed.

(3) At the time a leader of the East Pakistan Students Union who later became General Secretary of the Communist Party of Bangladesh until his death a few years ago.

(4) Sikandar Dara Shamsuddin, now at Jahangir Nagar University.

(5) Shah Md. Nazinul Alam, now a government official. (retired)

(6) A disciple of Prof. Muzaffar Ahmed of the National Awami Party, trained as an architect at the Engineering University, and after the assassination of Sheikh Mujib, an ardent admirer of Bangabandhu one of the organizers, and if I recall correctly, a Secretary, of BAKSIIAL - a political formation which broke away from the Awami League; and also editor of its news paper. He died much earlier than he needed to.

(7) Now with the government.

(8) Dr. Kamal Siddiqui, now at the Asian Development Bank. (currently Prime Minister’s Principal Secretary)

(9) Dr. Enaytur Rahim, teaches history at Georgetown University in DC.

(10) In fact she had began this at the Sheridan Circle on Massachusetts Avenue, near the Pakistan Embassy, and later moved to the Lafayette Park because the Embassy protested.

(11) Peter Custers, at the time a graduate student at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Advanced International Studies in Washington DC.

(12) Dr. Farhad Faisal, now at University of Bielefeld in Germany his wife Wanda; Dr. Nassim Rahman, now at University of Trieste in Italy his wife Juliana (deceased); Dr. Rafiqul Huda Chowdhury, now with the UNDP and his wife; Dr. Lata Chaterjee, at that time with Johns Hopkins University; and several others.

A unipolar world seems to be a lot less safe than a multipolar world. Checks and balances work better than unchallenged power.

When there is only one world power based both on its collection of advanced armaments and economic domination, it does and will: (a) unilaterally define what is right and what is wrong, and (b) act as it wishes, independent of world opinion.

The purpose of unipolar power is to seek, gain and ensure hegemony.

The only purpose of disarmament policy, nuclear or otherwise, is to eliminate all other centers of power except the US, and not to make the world "safer."

The chance of "accidental" use of force is much less than the deliberate use of force when power is in the hands of a single country. History does not support the notion of higher risk of accidental warfare as opposed to planned and deliberate warfare.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

American Democracy does not guarantee election of rational leadership or world peace neither does its democratic institutions, including the so called "free press".

Fascism usually arrives riding on the back of "elections."

There is no argument left that a Kim Jong Il is any more irrational than a Bush, and therefore, that power (weapons) in his hands is any more dangerous than power in the hands of Bush. In fact Bush has proven to be more dangerous, since he posses more destructive weapons at his disposal.

A slow but deliberate building of multiple centers of power may be the only guarantee for local and regional security. There is no reason why India, Pakistan, Iran and others should not prepare to defend themselves. China and Russia also should reconsider their military strategy: you never know if today's "friends" will be all that friendly tomorrow. Regional security alliances have become more important than ever. Yes, this means less for jobs, health care, education and all the other needs of the society. But, death, destruction and domination or even the threat of these, possible invasion are not much better!

Global security of all nations other than the super power will remain uncertain for a long time, now that US has shown its ability to produce its very own Arturo Ui.

Why did Muslims feel the need to spread Islam to India and other places? Why did the people in these parts did not simply welcome them with open arms, but resisted them as much as they did and continue to resent the conversions to this day? Why did the Crusade happen? Why do the Catholics and Protestants fight in Ireland? How about the Shias and Sunnis in Pakistan? Why do all religious people insist on adhering to their individual faiths, and continue to fight people of other faiths, as we see in many places in the world? And all of them want to convert the rest of the world to their faith. It seems to me that the answer in all these cases is very simple: every one believes that their faith is the true one, the valid one, the superior one, and by implication, that of others is not of equal importance. It does not matter whether it is the "word of g/God" or "a way of life" or any other description of a religion or a theology. Does any one see any possibility for this ever to change? I would argue that The very logic of the existence of all the religious beliefs, systems, and related customs, and to a large extent, the religious components of cultures, negate any one giving up their claim of superiority over all the 'other'. I would argue that even the most 'tolerant' religious person looks at the believers of other religions with a grain of salt. In this matter, we have an absolute and permanent impasse, and essentially, an unbridgeable schism.

What complicates the situation is that those who believed that "religion is the opiate of the masses" and thought they had a solution to the problem, their experiment in the former Soviet Union has demonstrated, that, one, you can not eliminate faith even with state power; and two, a state power that ignores existence of followers of religious faiths within its structure, does not do well.

What do we do then? One possibility is to accept doom: Godhra and Gujrat will happen, Bagerhat will happen; all such atrocities by the so called "peaceful people" will continue all over the world. The other option of course is still to find a way to somehow 'eliminate' religion altogether.

We need to admit however that the picture is not all bleak: the fact is that we have disliked people of other faiths (some time even of the same faith because in our estimation they were not following the faith the way we think it should be followed), yet we had to accept their existence and lived side by side (even if not always as good neighbors). We have also seen that short of "ethnic cleansing", which has been successful in some places, a pure community of co-religionists is not possible; people have and will (I hope) fight ethnic cleansing, wherever it is tried, although no doubt some will try again, I am sure. We have seen examples of how even the co-religionists cannot hold a state together. In one of my earlier posting on this site (on secularism) I tried to argue one way to understand this: by recognizing that all human collectives are inherently heterogeneous in composition, and efforts to impose homogeneity is fundamentally antithetical to the way people live. (Diversity in all biological systems is essential.)

I think it is safe to say that except for a few pathologically criminal minds, even those who believe that their religion is superior to others, but otherwise sane, do not think that the superiority can be established by killings, communal riots, oppression and other forms of subordination. We need to find ways to express this universal collective opposition to religious hatred leading to destruction of human lives, without suppressing people's right to believe, if they must. If we learn from experience, I think there are several things we can do. Electing political leaders who are truly committed to protecting all of its citizens irrespective of their (own and that of the citizens) faith would be a big step. In a similar political environment, it would be possible to establish laws that treat communal acts as crime against humanity, and prosecute those who perpetuate such acts consistently and vigorously. States and political leaders who promote communal violence, and even those who look the other way, if not dealt with within the country itself, can be tried at the International Criminal Court, since right to one's faith is accepted as an integral part of human rights. All of these are within the realm of political action open to secular citizens. I do not suggest that any of these are easy; but what is the alternative? Just sit and watch atrocities happen in the name of religion and other divisive identities we carry?

There is one other thing we need to give some thought to: our history as a species. At least I am unable to ignore the massive amount of knowledge that has been gathered about ourselves as a species, our origin, our fundamental biological nature and some explanation of why we do what we do at a very basic level. No, all the questions about us have not been answered, and most likely never will be. But, with the knowledge that have been gathered for centuries of studies in physics, chemistry, paleo-ontology, evolutionary biology, and evolutionary genetics, and host of other disciplines, I, along with a lot of people in the world are persuaded that neither the world (and the universe), nor we were "created" by a g/God. The universe is. The earth formed out of forces and matter that makes up the universe in a process that is largely knowable but not alterable. And life formed with chemicals in the universe, and we evolved to be humans from primitive rudimentary organic forms. It is also clear that our basic reason for existence is to live long enough to reproduce biologically, i.e., to conserve the genetic material by perpetuating it through our offspring. In so doing, and in the hope of being ever more successful in doing so, we have fought the forces of nature, invented clan, society, state, morals and ethics, purpose, culture, science, religion, spiritual life, civilization, i.e., everything else. All aspects of human life have changed, except this: our effort to survive and propagate our genetic material. From the very beginning, we have understood the need for collectives to survive. In this, i.e., in surviving and ensuring that our children will live long so that they can repeat the cycle, we have agreed and formed alliances as well as disagreed and fought wars for territory, religion, culture, ethnicity, etc. etc. The evolutionary biologist's view of history tells us that everything we do, does not necessarily optimize our biological imperative, that is because we are not a perfect machine; but we are complex enough to learn and to change, and we do so, once we recognize our failures, and often enough, to have survived as a species for several million years. But we do what we do for the same fundamental reason: to survive and to optimize the chances of survival of our progeny and of theirs.

This in fact is our common humanity, not some abstract idea. Understanding of this very basic truth about us could be the key. Evolutionary biologists in particular have been trying to convey this deeply significant and fundamental materialist and objective message for some time now, but not very many people have paid much attention.

Last updated: November 2004