The Shame of Kolkata
~~Sumit Ganguly
On March 30, members of the All Bengal Minority Youth Federation and various other affiliated Islamist groups held a rally in central Kolkata in support of the perpetrators of the genocide in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1971.
Their principal argument, it appears, was that they believe that those who have been indicted for war crimes did not receive a fair trial. As the noted journalist, Praveen Swami, argued in a recent article, these protesters had every right to hold a rally even if their views are utterly loathsome and, frankly, beneath contempt. The Indian constitutional dispensation, after all, does grant the right of free speech subject to some limited constraints.
Six elements about this protest require comment. First, apart from the attempt of these demonstrators to sanitise a particularly squalid period in the subcontinent’s history, this protest amounts to a calumny against the Indian forces whose actions had ended the reign of terror of a genocidal regime.
The charge of genocide had come from multiple sources. Anthony Mascarenhas, a noted Pakistani journalist, had made the initial charge in the Sunday Times, after fleeing Pakistan. However, few were as significant as that of Archer Blood, the US consul-general in Dhaka, and a significant number of his colleagues had used the “dissent channel” of the US department of state to protest against American support for Pakistan during this crisis. In that justly famed telegram, Blood had written, “the much overused term ‘genocide’ is precisely applicable in this case”.
Second, it is also appalling that the Communists in Bengal who are no strangers to holding rallies and public protests on the slightest political pretext and do not lack street power, have done little or nothing to mount a counter-protest. This deafening silence from a party that has long professed to decry any form of communal sentiment simply underscores the utter bankruptcy of their ideological stance let alone moral authority. They, like, any number of their counterparts, have their eyes firmly cocked on the very substantial Muslim voters and the possible stranglehold that the most obscurantist elements from within that community can exercise on the electorate.
Third, in an entirely related vein, the Trinamul Congress, despite its much-vaunted claims of “paribartan” (transformation) has now shown that it is no better than its Communist counterparts. In a fashion that is equally craven, it has abjectly failed to speak out let alone organise a counter-protest to this despicable demonstration. Like its Communist nemesis the Trinamul Congress, too, can ill afford to displease what it deems to be a critical constituency. Instead of standing its ground and demonstrating that it can take an ethical position it has simply caved in, once again, before the forces of communal hatred.
Other parties, such as the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party, have a limited presence in West Bengal. The Congress, which many decades ago held sway, could have nevertheless issued a token protest. However, given its acute dependence on Muslims elsewhere in the country, its silence is hardly unexpected. The BJP, given its own fraught history with India’s largest minority, has probably decided that discretion may well be the better part of valour.
Fourth, the postures of the Communists, and the Trinamul Congress in particular, reveal that they deem the Muslims of West Bengal to be an undifferentiated mass. By indulging a vocal minority who may well not reflect the wider body of Muslim public opinion they are allowing an extremist fringe to define the views of a larger community. This approach will invariably play into the hands of other communalists who will inevitably harp on the pandering to these parochial fanatics from within the community. In the end, this form of gutless behaviour will prove costly for the well-being of secularism in India as parties will all seek to outbid religious zealots.
Fifth, the failure to exercise reasonable control over this reprehensible protest also underscores the extent to which the state has lost its ability to maintain public order. Though the government did deploy substantial police forces to prevent violence it proved unable to significantly curtail the scope and extent of the protest thereby allowing the demonstrators to wreak havoc on vehicular and pedestrian traffic on a working day. Sadly, having long allowed their own cadres to engage in similar irresponsible behaviour, the government was in no position to abruptly invoke a new standard to curb the extent of the rally.
Sixth and finally, this gathering not only dishonoured the memory of the Indian soldiers who fought and perished in the 1971 war, but also amounted to a grave insult to the regime of Sheikh Hasina Wajed in Bangladesh, which, against significant domestic odds, is now finally seeking to mete out some punishment to the most egregious culprits of the first documented instance of genocide in the subcontinent.
The writer holds the Rabindranath Tagore Chair in Indian Cultures and Civilisations at Indiana University, Bloomington
Their principal argument, it appears, was that they believe that those who have been indicted for war crimes did not receive a fair trial. As the noted journalist, Praveen Swami, argued in a recent article, these protesters had every right to hold a rally even if their views are utterly loathsome and, frankly, beneath contempt. The Indian constitutional dispensation, after all, does grant the right of free speech subject to some limited constraints.
Six elements about this protest require comment. First, apart from the attempt of these demonstrators to sanitise a particularly squalid period in the subcontinent’s history, this protest amounts to a calumny against the Indian forces whose actions had ended the reign of terror of a genocidal regime.
The charge of genocide had come from multiple sources. Anthony Mascarenhas, a noted Pakistani journalist, had made the initial charge in the Sunday Times, after fleeing Pakistan. However, few were as significant as that of Archer Blood, the US consul-general in Dhaka, and a significant number of his colleagues had used the “dissent channel” of the US department of state to protest against American support for Pakistan during this crisis. In that justly famed telegram, Blood had written, “the much overused term ‘genocide’ is precisely applicable in this case”.
Second, it is also appalling that the Communists in Bengal who are no strangers to holding rallies and public protests on the slightest political pretext and do not lack street power, have done little or nothing to mount a counter-protest. This deafening silence from a party that has long professed to decry any form of communal sentiment simply underscores the utter bankruptcy of their ideological stance let alone moral authority. They, like, any number of their counterparts, have their eyes firmly cocked on the very substantial Muslim voters and the possible stranglehold that the most obscurantist elements from within that community can exercise on the electorate.
Third, in an entirely related vein, the Trinamul Congress, despite its much-vaunted claims of “paribartan” (transformation) has now shown that it is no better than its Communist counterparts. In a fashion that is equally craven, it has abjectly failed to speak out let alone organise a counter-protest to this despicable demonstration. Like its Communist nemesis the Trinamul Congress, too, can ill afford to displease what it deems to be a critical constituency. Instead of standing its ground and demonstrating that it can take an ethical position it has simply caved in, once again, before the forces of communal hatred.
Other parties, such as the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party, have a limited presence in West Bengal. The Congress, which many decades ago held sway, could have nevertheless issued a token protest. However, given its acute dependence on Muslims elsewhere in the country, its silence is hardly unexpected. The BJP, given its own fraught history with India’s largest minority, has probably decided that discretion may well be the better part of valour.
Fourth, the postures of the Communists, and the Trinamul Congress in particular, reveal that they deem the Muslims of West Bengal to be an undifferentiated mass. By indulging a vocal minority who may well not reflect the wider body of Muslim public opinion they are allowing an extremist fringe to define the views of a larger community. This approach will invariably play into the hands of other communalists who will inevitably harp on the pandering to these parochial fanatics from within the community. In the end, this form of gutless behaviour will prove costly for the well-being of secularism in India as parties will all seek to outbid religious zealots.
Fifth, the failure to exercise reasonable control over this reprehensible protest also underscores the extent to which the state has lost its ability to maintain public order. Though the government did deploy substantial police forces to prevent violence it proved unable to significantly curtail the scope and extent of the protest thereby allowing the demonstrators to wreak havoc on vehicular and pedestrian traffic on a working day. Sadly, having long allowed their own cadres to engage in similar irresponsible behaviour, the government was in no position to abruptly invoke a new standard to curb the extent of the rally.
Sixth and finally, this gathering not only dishonoured the memory of the Indian soldiers who fought and perished in the 1971 war, but also amounted to a grave insult to the regime of Sheikh Hasina Wajed in Bangladesh, which, against significant domestic odds, is now finally seeking to mete out some punishment to the most egregious culprits of the first documented instance of genocide in the subcontinent.
The writer holds the Rabindranath Tagore Chair in Indian Cultures and Civilisations at Indiana University, Bloomington
Courtesy: The Asian Age
