The main problem in Bangladesh is inequality

Is there any need to state the obvious that poverty lies behind all of our problems and failures? Take, for example, family planning. It is true that a small family is a happy family; but a greater truth is that a wealthy family is automatically a small family.

There is no guarantee that a small family will necessarily be a happy one. Illness, quarrels, resentment, children spoilt by overindulgence—these problems may still exist. They do exist. Many people have not married at all, and from the perspective of family planning, they are ideal. But such men or women, especially women, do not consider themselves ideal individuals enjoying heavenly bliss. If you talk to them, you will be saddened. Many of them are embodiments of sorrow.

Exceptions can exist in every case, but generally it can be said that family planning programmes have succeeded among the wealthy. Among the poor, they have failed. That is why population growth remains unchecked, despite all efforts.

The programme is failing to achieve notable success. Middle-class families, too, are now more aware than before, and even their families are becoming smaller. But the middle class is also wealthy, compared to the vast numbers of poor people.

Poor people cannot think about next year, often not even about the next day. In the morning they think about what to eat at noon; at noon, what to eat at night. They simply do not have the capacity to think beyond that. They believe the future does not exist. Such despair robs them of all kinds of initiative. Poor people do not dream of a better life; not even at night, let alone during the day. They think—this was my father’s life, and his father’s before him, and this will be mine, and my children’s. Futureless, unaware, and irresponsible—one cannot expect much from such people, certainly not family planning. The field workers of family planning programme understand this, but they rarely speak of it. They know that acknowledging it will do no good—only harm.

Now there is no longer the same interest in education as before. Especially in higher education. The reason for this is also poverty. People are seeing that education yields no benefit. There are no jobs. No prospects for income. Naturally, a deep despair has taken root among the student community. Disinterest in education and, conversely, attraction to violence are simply two different expressions of this same despair.

Religious extremism is also connected to poverty. Poor people have nothing to rely on—no shelter, no justice, no promise of a future. In such a mental state, engagement with worldly affairs becomes impossible. We know of Bidyasagar. Had he been a poor village Brahmin dependent on others, it would have been impossible for him to be a secular thinker. Because he wasn’t, he could be worldly-minded. Others weren’t. They recited mantras and worried about whether they would receive alms or not.

Our overwhelming tendency to abandon worldly life and hurtle toward the afterlife, even while still alive, arises from nothing other than the wretchedness of our worldly existence. We are constantly being evicted, and as refugees, we negotiate land prices in the afterlife. This hollow spirituality, this fakir-like detachment, this indifference—it is all very real; and it arises from very real causes. There is no supernatural inspiration behind it.

And poverty is not new—it is ancient. This ceaseless poverty has bred such an inferiority complex in people that even if their condition improves, they remain poor in their minds. Envy, distrust, guarding petty interests, quarrels, and conflict—not only do these become occupations, they also turn into main sources of entertainment. People have no other forms of joy, apart from arguments and fights.

Nowadays, we even sell our poverty at home and abroad. But we cannot sell our impoverished mindset. No one will buy it. We are not materially deprived, yet anyone seeing us will think we are deeply impoverished. Even if we are not asking for help, it will seem as though we are. Haven’t you seen such people—those who are well-off yet seem destitute? I believe you have, as I have. When poverty becomes a part of someone’s culture, it is nearly impossible to overcome. Money cannot fix it. It cannot be undone in one generation. And what were we, the previous generation? What did our fathers and grandfathers leave behind—except poverty? Why call it merely a disease—poverty is a very severe and complex illness.

But that does not mean we are in favour of indulgence. No, we are not for excessive luxury or waste. What we want is a healthy and prosperous life—one that includes joy, leisure, and creativity. There is no creation in shallow luxury—only taking, not giving. We also know that poverty is a relative concept. But still, if we Bangladeshis do not understand what poverty is, who else will? Poverty and democracy are naturally antagonistic. Democracy and poverty are fundamentally different in nature. A key aspect of democracy is sharing with others; but what do poor people have to share—except scarcity? Scarcity is indivisible, it remains with its owner. Try to share it and you will find none to take; they run away at the sound of its name.

Democracy is both open and private. Democracy is strong, poverty is weak. Democracy connects people, poverty isolates. Democracy is outward-looking, poverty inward-looking. Democracy fosters dialogue, poverty breeds quarrels. No, democracy and poverty cannot coexist. More importantly, if poverty exists, democracy cannot. Not only is there vote-buying and snatching—there is also no real human connection. The homeless are the most obsessed with home—they are always searching for one. They do not come to the open field, they do not seek understanding, or cooperation with others. When ministers say that poverty is the main enemy of democracy, they are absolutely right. No, not the Awami League, rather poverty is the main enemy.

But they do not say what causes poverty. No, they don’t. When they do speak, they avoid the real issue and talk nonsense. They downplay the main cause and harp on the trivial. They say the cause of poverty is our laziness. That we do not work. We shirk. They say it’s our population. So many people—who will feed them? What we have is consumed just in feeding them—how can progress occur? How can poverty be eradicated? Others say it’s nothing else—it’s our corruption. Thieves. The country is full of them. A gang of looters. They need to be whipped. These things they say—but they neither see nor admit the real cause of poverty.

Other causes certainly exist, but the main cause is inequality. It is this inequality that creates and has created poverty. No, poverty does not cause inequality. The reverse is true. People say, and are saying, that competition is good. Yes, of course—it is good. There is no progress without competition. But who is competing with whom? That must be seen. If someone is thrown into water with their hands and feet bound and then told to swim and race with others, they will surely fail—they will drown. Before asking someone to swim, you must free their limbs. Only then can swimming be discussed—otherwise, it is nothing but a cruel joke. Most people in the country are in this bound state, thrown into the waters of poverty. Their condition is not one of swimming to shore, but of drowning.

Because of the inequality in the country, most people are failing to become productive. They cannot be included in work. The population becomes a burden, not a resource. The education system is collapsing. Family planning—don’t even mention it. There are no jobs. The country is flooded with unskilled people.

The capital that exists is in the hands of a few. These few see no future in the country. So, instead of investing, they are sending their capital abroad. These same wealthy people then import foreign goods. They arrange smuggling. As a result, a local market for domestic products is not developing. Patriotism among the rich is steadily declining. At the same time, they are rapidly embracing consumerism. The competition is not in production, but in consumption. Capital accumulation is thus being disrupted—at every step.

The main problem of Bangladesh is inequality. Poverty arises from this inequality. The rich exploit the poor, prevent them from becoming capable, and consume what they gain through exploitation. Whatever remains, they send abroad. The poor can produce nothing else, only despair and children. So they become even poorer. Crime rises, is rising, and will rise further. Dependency on foreign nations increases, is increasing, and will increase further. This is the image of Bangladesh. There are thousands of other problems, but they are all tied to inequality. The root of the knot lies there. And democracy, which we speak of, is based on the principle of equality of rights and opportunities. Without this, the question of democracy does not arise. If we assess how much equality of rights and opportunities exists in Bangladesh, we will know and understand how much democracy there is, and what its future might be.

Inequality existed in British times. The British and Bengalis were not equal. Inequality existed in Pakistan times. Punjabis and Bengalis were not equal. Inequality exists in Bangladesh too. One Bengali is not equal to another. The main difference is economic. We expelled the British, drove out the Pakistanis—but still, we have not been able to eliminate inequality. And that is why the hardship continues. There is no peace, no progress. To move forward, one must walk on two legs. If one leg is lame, what happens cannot be called walking. Yet we are running. There is fear we will soon collapse from exhaustion.

It is not that there is no effort to eliminate poverty. There is, the government is active, there are scattered NGOs. But nothing is working. Because there is no effort to reduce the real cause of poverty—inequality. If one pulls at the symptoms without knowing the root cause of a disease, will the disease be cured? We are seeing that it won’t.

We want democracy. But democracy will not come if poverty prevails. And poverty will not go if inequality remains. The two are thus linked. During Pakistan era, 22 families used to exploit the people; now perhaps 2,200 families do. And they are Bengalis by identity. There is no sign that poor Bengalis are thrilled by this Bengali identity. On the contrary, signs point to an explosion. The journey is not toward reducing inequality. The journey is in the opposite direction—hence the growing threat of explosion. Let us not forget this. Many think they will escape. But escape where? Across which border, swimming which sea?

Serajul Islam Choudhury: Thinker and Emeritus Professor, University of Dhaka