Dr Yunus has to follow liberal Western ideology

Dr MM Akash, an economist and thinker, recently talked with “Views Bangladesh.” The former professor of the Economics Department at Dhaka University discussed the ongoing political and cultural situation in the country. The interview was conducted by economic writer M.A. Khaleque and “Views Bangladesh” associate editor Girish Goiric.

Views Bangladesh: Islamists wanted Professors Samina Lutfa and Kamrul Hasan Mamun to resign; however, the government dissolved the entire committee. What is the reason behind this?

MM Akash: The government likely observed that there was an imbalance in this committee, making it politically challenging for them to manage. In other words, it was not politically acceptable. If the government continued to work with this committee, more proposals might arise that they would find politically untenable to pursue. Why is that? Because within this government, the political influence stems from three key forces.
One group is the anti-discrimination student society, another is the BNP, and a third force is Hefazat-e-Islam. Additionally, there is a more distant force: the leftists. I believe that the leftist and anti-discrimination forces will likely support these reforms to some extent. Among the anti-discrimination students, there are various factions, including Shibir and others, leading to differences in opinion. If there is a divergence, we can assume that one faction will support the reforms while another will oppose them.

There are also students sympathetic to Samina Lutfa and others within the anti-discrimination student community. Therefore, a portion of these anti-discrimination students will want to keep them involved and support the reforms. The leftists will also be on board, along with followers of folk Islam—those scholars who don’t overly politicize religion and follow the traditions of Lalon, Baul, and Fakir. Common rural people who do not want to use religion for political purposes might not object much either. The main opposition will come from those who are devoted to political Islam.

First, there are groups like Jamaat-e-Islami, Islamic Chhatra Shibir, and individuals like Mamunul Haque. Although Hizb ut-Tahrir engages with modern science, they might also oppose these reforms. The challenge is that while the BNP is somewhat modern, they may secretly be against such reforms; however, to win future elections, they need to stay aligned with this coalition. Therefore, they might either agree to these reforms or remain silent. Overall, the balance seems to be shifting against the reforms.

I believe the current government has seen this as a potential danger. If they were to exclude Samina Lutfa or Kamrul Hasan Mamun, it would be perceived as a targeted removal. Now, by dissolving the entire committee, they can claim to have eliminated both sides. This might be a strategic political move for them.

Views Bangladesh: Previously, we saw members being removed from the constitutional reform committee, and now the entire committee has been dissolved. If the government continues to dissolve committees like this, what kind of problems do you think it will face?

MM Akash: If this pattern continues, people will begin to doubt the government's intentions. Questions will arise about whether they are opportunistic. People will say that the government has no clear objectives, policies, or strong positions; they simply want to stay in power. To achieve that, they will shift their stance based on whatever is politically advantageous at the moment. As a result, the country will suffer, and the principles we expected from reforms—such as moral integrity and ethical development—will be compromised.

Views Bangladesh: Professor Ali Riaz has now been made the head of the constitutional reform committee; however, there is a debate about whether the constitution needs to be rewritten. Many believe that instead of a complete rewrite, it could simply be reformed. The question is, is there any law that allows this government to completely rewrite the Constitution?

MM Akash: This government was appointed to manage state affairs by the president. The president has not been ousted, which means the establishment of this government is within the framework of the Constitution. This government has not come to power outside of constitutional means. Therefore, we can assume that the C onstitution, which existed before, is still in effect. This is what gives legitimacy to the current government. If that is true, then the Constitution itself outlines how it can be amended. An unelected government may have the power to amend laws, but it does not have the constitutional authority or legal right to amend the Constitution itself.

For this reason, I believe the government should implement those reforms that are not against the Constitution, or which the Constitution can approve. In this context, the electoral law can be amended, its rules can be revised, and the codes of political law and behavior can be updated. Banking reforms can also be carried out. Additionally, some laws can be enacted that do not contradict the written laws of the Constitution. Specifically, the first third portion of the constitution, which outlines the fundamental principles, states that amendments require a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament; these cannot be altered.

Therefore, I do not understand why Ali Riaz is saying this. He has read the Constitution; he knows. So, he should state that he has come to power through revolution and that he seeks revolutionary reforms. This is what Farhad Majhar suggested. Farhad Majhar stated that Mr. Yunus should have stood at the Shaheed Minar and sworn an oath, declaring, "I am a revolutionary government." All anti-discrimination students would stand by him, and then, just as Lenin did after the October Revolution or Mao after the Chinese Revolution or Fidel Castro after the Cuban Revolution, everything could be restructured anew. Had that happened in Bangladesh, then Ali Riaz's statements would have been more acceptable.
We see and know that Dr. Yunus is not that kind of person. When he was chosen, it was clear that he would have to operate within a framework following liberal Western ideology. In liberal Western ideology, the Constitution is very important; constitutional politics is central. So, I don't understand where they expect to find a golden opportunity!

Views Bangladesh: Recently, there has been a debate in Bangladesh regarding transgender issues. A group of Islamists demanded the dismissal of the current government's curriculum reform committee, which was subsequently disbanded. Can you comment on this?

M.M. Akash: We need to understand the context and the internal dynamics behind the demand for Mamunul Haque's proposal and why the government accepted it. What kind of debate took place internally? The point of contention that led the government and Mamunul Haque to agree that these individuals should not be included is crucial for us to understand.

I believe the point of debate was regarding transgender issues. There was an article in the textbook about transgenderism, which had already been a subject of controversy even before this new government came to power. The discussion revolved around the idea that Islam does not have any conflict regarding hijras; however, there is a debate when it comes to a woman wanting to become a man or a man wanting to become a woman—what we refer to as transgenderism.

The article addressed both hijras and transgender issues, leading to some contention. It later became clear that it could also be interpreted as transgenderism. This was about the transition from Sharif to Sharifa, which indicates that this is indeed transgenderism. In other words, if Sharif is a boy who wants to become a girl, does Islam view transgender individuals in the way it is being suggested? Does Islam indeed not approve of transgenderism?

I am not an expert in this area, but it could be derived from the Quran and Hadith that Islam does not approve of it. I take that position, although others might analyze and interpret it differently, arguing that Islam does approve. Without delving into that debate, I assume that Islam does not approve of it.

If that is true, then would modern science or scientifically-minded people accept it? In my opinion, they would not. Because science has advanced to the point where a sheep can be cloned into another sheep, transitioning from male to female or female to male is now possible. When modern science can do this, and if an individual wants to make such a decision, it does not harm anyone else. If there is harm, it will be to that individual, and if there is benefit, it will also be to that individual.

The first principle of human rights is that individuals have the right to perform actions that do not affect others' benefits or harms; however, there can be benefits or harms to the individual. For instance, there has been a debate about whether individuals have the right to commit suicide. Some countries allow it, while others do not. The question is whether suicide harms anyone else. Another question is that the person who commits suicide suffers harm, as their life is lost. Some may argue that the death of that person would harm their parents, siblings, and family, which should not happen.

The distinction here is that, in the case of suicide, a dead person cannot be brought back to life; however, regarding the right we are discussing—whether a man becomes a woman or a woman becomes a man—if that individual suffers any harm, they can be reverted back to their previous state. This is not an irreversible step. Therefore, it can be considered a matter of individual rights. Personally, I endorse this right. (To be continued)