A constitutional counter-revolution unfolded after such a significant mass uprising

Poet and thinker Farhad Mazhar delivered a speech at a discussion titled "Post-Uprising Constitution Debate: Searching for Sources and Destinations," on September 23, held at the Abdul Karim Sahitya Bisharad Auditorium in the Bangla Academy. A transcript of his address has been published for the readers of Views Bangladesh, with the first part of the discussion appearing today.

From today’s discussion, I sense a desire to approach our topics with an academic lens. However, the way I communicate tends to resonate with ordinary people. I strive to explain complex ideas in simple terms. That said, I’ll make an effort to be a bit more academic myself. I want to extend special thanks to Rashed Rahm. He provided a written account that contains many insights; I noticed this in my own draft notes, which will be quite helpful. At the end of his remarks, he praised me, and while it's always nice to receive compliments, I must admit I didn't fully understand a word of it. He mentioned, "He is only a person."

This perspective is dangerously simplistic when it comes to understanding politics. No one exists in isolation as an individual; there’s no such thing as the thoughts of an outcast. The words I express represent a particular class, political group, or society. Thus, my identity as an individual is less important than the ideas I convey.

If we grasped this concept, the headlines we see today would likely differ. The term 'Constitution,' which has been a subject of my critique for some time, underscores this point. A Constitution is a colonial concept—academically, philosophically, politically, and critically. It functions as a tool of colonial power that governs a people. Consequently, it necessitates a set of laws, which is precisely what the constitution provides.

If we were to continue this academic discussion today, the title might be "Constitution and Democratic Debate" or perhaps "Colonial Thought and Our Political Formation." When I use the term "structure" in relation to mass upheaval, I do so with significant deliberation. The word "structure" is derived from "Constitution," encompassing both legal and political dimensions.
To understand why I employ the term "structure," we must consider the situation in Bangladesh following the revolution. Are we facing a political crisis, or is it a constitutional one?

You are engaging in academic work funded by public tax money, so it’s essential to provide clarity. Those who have studied political science or economics should have addressed this question long ago. The reality is that there has been a popular uprising in Bangladesh, but is it primarily a political crisis or a constitutional one? The answer to this question holds the key to understanding the current popular uprising and the deeper issues at play.

If this is labeled a constitutional crisis, as some lawyers suggest, it often reflects a narrow, legalistic perspective. They tend to struggle with political thinking outside of their advocacy roles. Please don’t take this personally; there may be some advocates present, but advocacy can sometimes hinder our understanding.

In 1972, we, the people of Bangladesh, were unable to create a Constitution that truly represented us due to prevailing intelligence of an advocate (colonial mentality). Historically, we must acknowledge this limitation. We waited many years for a political identity to emerge after the formation of a political group in 1971. The question was how this nation would define itself within history and its political landscape. However, this potential was undermined by the Constitution established in 1972.

The debates around secularism or socialism may seem trivial in this context. We gained our independence through immense sacrifice, and we aimed to establish ourselves as a political community—this fundamental right was stripped away in 1972. Today, after many years, that opportunity has arisen once more, but it is under threat again because we lack clarity on what constitutes political rights, what a constitution is, and what structure truly means. It is essential to understand that the Bengali translation of "Constitution" does not capture its full essence; it is not merely a translation but a concept with profound implications.

The Constitution will contain various provisions. The three essential branches of government—legislative, judicial, and executive—are interrelated, and this presents a significant philosophical question. Has the West resolved these issues? No, it has not. We should engage in academic discussions around these topics.

This is why we consider it a political crisis. What is the political crisis? In 1972, we were denied the opportunity to establish ourselves as a political community. Now, in 2024, that right to re-establish ourselves is again being threatened under the guise of constitutional law. Can we allow this to happen? This is why I continually emphasize the importance of our political formation in my discussions.

I hope you all understand why the concept of structure is important. We need to clarify some basic concepts, such as the difference between the state and the government. Many people mistakenly equate the two. This distinction should have been made clear in academic discourse.

When we discuss wanting to see the Constitution functionally, we must recognize that the Constitution is not merely a functional instrument. Thus, when I refer to "structure," I am connecting it to the historical elements of my nation, including its values, ideals, traditions, and morals. I identify as a Bengali speaker, which was a central reason for my struggle in 1971. Will I abandon that identity now? I cannot dismiss it, but I see that an unnecessary conflict has arisen in my society, pitting my religion against the Bengali language. This contention lacks logic. Do I have a conflict with Islam? What was the purpose of adding the term "secularism" to the 1972 Constitution?

In a democratic society, secularism should naturally evolve. So why engage in secular politics? This needs clarification. If Islamist political parties were to claim they want to establish an Islamic state, what would be our response? I have not witnessed any secularist standing up to Islamist claims, asserting that there is no such thing as an Islamic state. If you were to write "Islamic State" on a sign in front of a mosque, what would that mean? The concept of an Islamic state is fundamentally flawed because Islam does not define a state in the traditional sense.

The concept of the state is rooted in colonial thought and derives from Western traditions. It is fundamentally a Christian conception, emerging from theological ideas. Historically, the authority of the Creator was transferred to the church, then from the church to the king, and finally from the king to the people. This is a brief overview of the historical context.

Today, for those who believe in Islam, an important question arises: why should they accept a Christian theory of governance? There may be alternative frameworks that align more closely with Islamic principles. For instance, there is no concept of a legislative assembly in Islam. When discussing the state, we must also address administration, as they are interconnected. The state embodies both power and ethics, as articulated by Hegel. It is not just an administrative entity; it represents an ethical idea with a moral dimension.

The discourse surrounding the state raises critical questions about power. Understanding power is essential. Those of us who read Lenin in our youth learned that the state serves as an instrument of coercion. This understanding led some to believe that destroying government offices and courts was justified. However, this indicates a lack of clarity in differentiating between the state and the government. The state exists in our collective consciousness, yet we often conflate it with the government. Thus, it is concerning when we engage in discussions about the Constitution without properly addressing the fundamental questions regarding the state.

As a result, we find ourselves facing a constitutional counter-revolution, even after such a significant mass uprising. Following this major revolution, you went to Chuppu, accepted power, and endorsed Sheikh Hasina's Constitution. But why did you accept it? Sheikh Hasina's entire state framework is embedded within that Constitution. By doing so, you have upheld the very structure of that state.

What is happening now? Now you are hiring people here and there, pretending to address issues while fundamentally betraying the public trust. When you claimed, "I will preserve this Constitution," how can you then undermine it by entrusting its interpretation to Ali Riaz? Isn’t that an illegal act?

Farhad Mazhar: Poet and Political Analyst