Dhaka University
Why the "No Page Tearing" graffiti is causing uproar?
Sometimes it feels as if the country has become like a land of anarchy. No one understands when, who, why, or how something happens. It seems it's a country where anyone can do anything here. A page that carried messages of harmony and goodwill led to turmoil, and in the ensuing clashes, 33 people were injured. Such an incident could likely only happen in Bangladesh, because this nation has seemingly lost its sense of reason and logical judgment. Especially some groups are constantly trying to exploit the situation for their own gain. Otherwise, this event cannot be explained in any other way.
Excessive foreign debt erodes financial independence
In the 1970s, an American development economist visited Bangladesh. At one point, he gave a speech to the faculty members of Dhaka University. The economics department’s professors were notably present at this event. During his address, the American economist presented his views on why Bangladesh’s economic development was not progressing to the desired level. The professors in attendance listened intently to his words. At that moment, a young economics professor from Dhaka University stood up and said to the American economist, "The reason we are unable to achieve the desired level of development is because you are intervening in our economy in various ways." After a brief pause, the American economist replied to the young professor, saying, "If 80 percent of the funds for your country's development activities come from us, whose economy is it? If you were able to finance your development from domestic sources, we would not need to offer any advice." Hearing this, the young professor remained silent and sat down.
DUCSU elections: Students stage protest in front of VC's residence
Students have taken up positions in front of the residence of Dhaka University Vice-Chancellor demanding a roadmap for the Dhaka University Central Students' Union (DUCSU) elections, which have been at the top of the discussion lately.
Offering asylum to Hasina won’t improve Bangladesh-India ties
He initially joined Dhaka University as a part-time lecturer and later established the Department of Sociology at Rajshahi University in 1963. He resigned in 1968 to engage in politics and later devoted himself entirely to writing. Currently, Badruddin Umar is the president of the Jatiyo Mukti Council and the editor of Sangskriti magazine. Recently, he spoke with Views Bangladesh about the current political scenario in the country. The interview was conducted by Views Bangladesh's Associate Editor, Girish Goiric. The second and final part of the interview is being published today. Views Bangladesh: Is it possible to form any political process in Bangladesh by denying the Liberation War? Badruddin Umar: Denying the Liberation War is nothing but stupidity. Can the Bangladesh Liberation War be denied? Can what happened be denied in any way? Can you deny the British? Can you deny Emperor Akbar or Chandragupta? You cannot deny them. This idea of denying the Liberation War, it's a foolish thing. You may have criticism or opinions about the Liberation War, but how can you deny it? You cannot deny it. This tendency to deny, political situations in a country are not always the same. With changing situations, political processes also change. Recently, there has been an unprecedented change in Bangladesh due to an upheaval, which has led to the beginning of some new political processes. It is uncertain as to where this process will lead. The students who led this movement are forming a party. Now, students, as students, cannot form a political party because student status is temporary. A party cannot be organized based on student status; however, those students who graduate can form a political party. Those who are now political leaders were once students too. They were students, but now when they engage in politics, they are no longer students. Therefore, those who led the people's uprising are now aiming to engage in politics, but they will no longer be students. They have come into the general citizen's sphere. They can form a party. Now, there are two parts: one is the Citizens' Committee, and the other is anti-discrimination. How will they form a party? If they do, what kind of party will it be, that is yet to be seen. The party they form will not be a socialist one. It will be within the bourgeois system. It might be an alternative to the BNP and could stand as a stronger democratic force than the BNP. What happens, we cannot say right now, but there is a possibility that a new political force will develop. The Awami League has already lost its place. Now, this new political party will stand as the opposition to the BNP. It will form as a democratic party, but there will be no socialist elements in it. The reason is, this uprising is not a social revolution. If it were a social revolution, there would be a change in the class structure. But nothing of that sort has happened. The class that was in power is still in power. The business class, which has been the ruling class since 1972, remains enormously powerful. Whether the students form a party or the BNP contests elections, they will all stay within this structure. It is important to note that the business community is a significant force that will remain in the coming period as well. Even with elections, they will still be there. This class cannot be removed. This class is still in power. Therefore, the exploitation, torture, and widespread corruption of this class may be somewhat controlled, but neither the BNP nor the new student-led political party will be able to run without acknowledging this class. Jamaat-e-Islami also won't be able to do so. No one can. In a way, it can be said that this force must be valued and coexisted with. Views Bangladesh: You recently mentioned that the downfall of the Hasina government is something India has not been able to accept. Can India react in any way due to this inability to accept? Badruddin Umar: Can India react? It already is. This is not something in the future. No neighboring country is in a good relationship with India because of its imperial arrogance. Pakistan aside, India’s relations with Nepal, Bhutan, the Maldives, and Sri Lanka are all bad. Every country has a poor relationship with India. Bangladesh, however, is an exception. Only Bangladesh had a good relationship with India. Hasina acted like a servant of India. She was nothing but Narendra Modi’s servant. Because India didn’t give anything to Bangladesh, but whatever Modi wanted, Hasina gave. The only condition was that Hasina must stay in power. To ensure this, Modi’s India maintained relations with Hasina and the Awami League, rather than with Bangladesh. Now that this relationship has ended, it’s like removing the fish from in front of the cat. If you take the fish away from a cat, won’t it get angry? We are seeing that anger now. India is trying in various ways to demean Bangladesh. They are spreading propaganda in their media, saying, "Hasina was an elected government, and she was ousted like this?" She wasn’t ousted through a military coup; it was the people who ousted her. The people rose up so much that even Awami League members fled their homes. India is finding it difficult to accept or digest this. That’s why they have given her asylum. No one else offered her asylum. Only India did. I’m not blaming anyone, but the fact is, people hate Hasina so much that no other country was willing to offer her asylum. If they weren’t willing to give her asylum, it means they don’t like her, they hate her. So, India reluctantly gave her asylum. But even by doing so, India is not in a good position; they are in great discomfort. By giving Hasina asylum, India cannot normalize its relationship with Bangladesh. Yet, they kept her there. And since they kept her, they are using her to say various things, like making her speak on their behalf. The fact that India couldn’t digest this, even though they couldn't, what difference does it make? Bangladesh cannot return to its previous state. Bangladesh cannot bring Hasina back to power and hand it back to India. This is a situation that India must accept. What India is doing now, I would call it a sign of farsightedness. Narendra Modi, a criminal, is trying to create an unstable situation in Bangladesh because Muslims, who are in the majority in Bangladesh, are considered enemies by him. But creating instability here will not benefit India. An unstable Bangladesh is of no use to India. A stable Bangladesh is essential for India too, so they can invest, do business, and benefit from various opportunities. If instability is created here, India won’t benefit. However, Modi is acting without any real understanding, causing trouble in various ways. But this won’t last long. Those in India’s administration, who may not support Modi’s actions, are trying to stabilize the situation. So, if it’s not digested, it will lead to indigestion. Views Bangladesh: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi posted on social media referring to the Victory Day of Bangladesh's Independence War as India's historic victory. This has sparked widespread reactions from the people of Bangladesh. What is your opinion on this? Badruddin Umar: This is indeed a complicated issue. December 16th is Bangladesh’s Victory Day, but Modi didn’t say anything about Bangladesh. Instead, he glorified the role of the Indian army in Bangladesh's independence war. This man is somewhat of a man of low moral standard, and I would say his intelligence is also somewhat lacking. If he truly understood the matter, he wouldn’t have just praised the Indian army while ignoring Bangladesh. He could have mentioned the Indian army's contribution, but what would it have cost him to also mention Bangladesh in some way? However, he is such a communal scoundrel that he has denied the struggle of the people of Bangladesh. This has happened because of the Awami League. The Awami League has propagated that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was the great leader of the liberation war. This is one of the biggest lies. Sheikh Mujib remained seated at home, ready to surrender to the Pakistani army on March 25. They claim he was arrested, but of course, he was arrested. When everyone else was fleeing from the attacks, how could he, the top leader, stay at home and not be arrested? Wasn’t it natural to arrest him, especially when he was passively waiting for surrender? After the collapse of his leadership, the leadership of the Awami League crumbled entirely. Sheikh Mujib went to Pakistan, where he was not provided with any newspapers, radio, and television; he was not allowed to meet anyone, though he himself mentioned that he was given Edinburgh tobacco for his pipe. He didn’t even know the war was going on. He only heard about it when he reached London. Yet, his daughter claims he was the great leader of the liberation war. Because the Awami League had no other base, they had to rely on Sheikh Mujib's image. It’s true that Sheikh Mujib had a role in shaping his image, but after March 25, the entire Awami League leadership fled. Modi’s comments are based on this. Those who couldn’t even imagine the liberation war are now being portrayed as the heroes of it. The leaders of wars like Vietnam and Algeria led from within their countries. But the leaders of the Awami League fled before the liberation war. So, how could they lead? They fled, along with the small fry, all the way to Kolkata. Their flight left the people of the country vulnerable. If they hadn’t fled, the people wouldn’t have fled either. They thought that since the Awami League had fled, they should flee too. What did they do after fleeing? They went and pleaded to Indira Gandhi, handing over the responsibility of making Bangladesh independent to her. There is no denying these truths, but the people of this country fought on their own. Those who were abandoned by the Awami League jumped into the war to save their lives. If they hadn’t fought from within the country, Bangladesh wouldn’t have gained independence. India didn’t bring this independence, nor did the Awami League. The people of Bangladesh fought for it on their own. This narrative is completely missing from the Awami League's version of events, and that has given Modi an opportunity to make such statements. On December 16, the agreement that was signed at Racecourse Ground, who were the signatories? Although it was mentioned that there would be joint commanders from India and Bangladesh, where were the joint commanders? There were only two chairs. In those two chairs, Jagjit Singh Aurora and Niazi sat and signed. Where was Osmani? He was the chief commander and supreme leader of the Liberation Army during the war, but at the time of the agreement, he was in Sylhet. As the deputy chief commander, Air Vice Marshal (Retd.) AK Khandkar was there as an observer, standing in the back row, without even being given a chair to sit on. Doesn’t this indicate that this was an agreement between India and Pakistan, where India emerged victorious after defeating Pakistan in the war? This is why, even though Narendra Modi is a scoundrel, he could say this by leaving Bangladesh out of it. Just as Bangladesh was completely left out during the signing of the agreement, Modi has similarly excluded Bangladesh. So, no matter how much of a devil he is, his statement has some factual basis. Views Bangladesh: Despite widespread repression by the state apparatus, an unprecedented popular uprising led by the youth recently succeeded. What is your opinion on these youths?
Trending Views
