The attack on Dr Zafar Iqbal on March 3, only proves that religiously motivated extremism of the violent type, whether manifested in individual or group actions, continues to find its practitioners in society. And we are at a loss to determine how best to combat them effectively. The scourge is not a new phenomenon, nor unique to our country, but it has gained in salience in recent times.

SOURCE: THE BRISTOL CABLE

The current spate of this phenomenon is not the exclusive preserve of the Islamists. There are other hues of this exclusivist ideology. Some term it as rabid nationalism or nativism. What has been happening without our knowledge while we have been occupied with tackling Muslim extremists is the growth of extreme nationalist fervour of another kind on both sides of our borders. Even more worrisome is that, while in Bangladesh we can take comfort in the fact that the Islamic groups here have not been allowed to morph into a politically significant force, because of the secular psyche of the majority Bengalis, in both India and Myanmar—India in particular—the liberal and secular way of life is being gradually overtaken by another form of extremism where people in saffron are calling the shots. It cannot be lost on the discerning liberals that extremists in one country take comfort in the rise of their kind in neighbouring countries. That, they think, not only justifies but reinforces their existence. In Myanmar too the “Buddhist bin Ladens” have garnered enough strength to influence the ruling junta. Government sponsorship of these groups is very evident in the fact that when political dissent of any kind is prohibited in Myanmar, thousands of Buddhist monks openly flaunt their pathological dislike for a particular ethnic group boldly, proclaiming that any supporter of the Rohingya is their enemy. These demonstrations, when the Myanmar military is engaged in Rohingya pogrom, are significant.

But let us shift focus to our own country.

The attack on Dr Iqbal, apparently by a single individual, mimics the “lone wolf” syndrome. But in this particular case it is difficult to say with certainty if he was actually acting entirely on his own convictions. If that be so what motivated him to attempt to take another man’s life and declare him “anti-Muslim”? One wonders if he has read any of Dr Iqbal’s writings or heard his speeches seriously enough to make his conclusion. And even if the narratives did not agree with his views, can he really seek recourse to as extreme an action like killing a man? This is the fundamental question that confronts our society, and it must be tackled immediately. But, can whatever strategy that we might devise, if we are able to put together a cogent workable plan at all, really see an end to the phenomenon completely?

The question is prompted by the fact that combating violence, is not quite the same as fighting violence motivated by ideas rooted in misperceptions and distortions of truth, and projecting narratives from the scriptures totally out of context.

Ideological extremism has the uncanny capacity of self-perpetuation, fed by minds that are at best ill-educated. An uneducated or even half-educated mind is malleable particularly when religion, or misinterpretation of it, to be more exact, is used as the means to bend the mind. And that is more so in the case of individuals who may not belong to any particular extremist or jihadi organisation but is self-radicalised, motivated by what one comes across in the various media platforms and the activities of the violent radical organisations or individuals inside and outside his country. And in the age of the IT, propagation of thoughts, most often distorted to influence the minds of people like Faizur, has become so much simpler. No wonder the internet and the online platforms have added another new dimension to warfare to the already existing three. In addition to land, air and sea, the strategic planners have to factor in the online battle in their plans.

Some experts totally discount the notion of the “lone wolf”. They opine that anyone who is stimulated by any group to resort to violence in the society, makes him or her a part of the group, at least ideologically if not organically. But be what the nature of that link may, that individuals and groups use religion to infuse violence in the society for a political end is enough reason for us to address the issue seriously, particularly how we approach the issue of religion in the context of the phenomenon that we are seeking to neutralise.

The two issues we have to contend with in this regard is the distortion of religion by extremist groups to instigate others to perpetrate violence, and individuals who become the arbiter and the judge, jury and executioner, basing his verdict, as in this case where Dr Zafar Iqbal was declared anti-Muslim by his attacker, on his own interpretation of Islam due to his poor knowledge about the religion.

The question is how we position ourselves best to face this situation. This relates to religion, and one feels that there ought to be open discourse on such matters which should not be restricted to the confines of the mosques or places of worship, or the four walls of one’s home, but be a matter of discourse in other social forums also. We need more of open discussions on it, not less.

Brig Gen Shahedul Anam Khan, ndc, psc (Retd) is Associate Editor, The Daily Star.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

While the normal diplomatic lines of communications must never be disrupted, we cannot pretend as if nothing has happened between the two neighbours. PHOTO: STAR

By Brig Gen Shahedul Anam Khan ndc, psc (Retd)
Nov 2 2017 (The Daily Star, Bangladesh)

And yet the approach of the government has demonstrated exactly that. The home ministry’s statement to the media stated that the purpose of the minister’s recent visit to Burma was to attend a meeting on cooperation between Bangladesh and Myanmar on border and security matters. And therefore one would not be wrong to say that the government has so far treated the Rohingya issue as a border and normal law enforcement matter.

However, according to the home minister’s statement on Oct 12, “Our main agenda in the discussions will be repatriation of the Rohingyas who have entered Bangladesh and stopping a recurrence of such events,” is a matter which to my mind should have best been left to the foreign ministry, and the foreign minister’s visit to address the repatriation issue would have been in order.

To my mind the Rohingya and security does not fall within the ambit of the home ministry’s remit, unless of course the Prime Minister, who also happens to be the defence minister, had tasked the home minister to talk these issues too. But again, the usual caveat that Myanmar foists on the progress to the path of a quick resolution of the problem is the 1992 Agreement. And only recently Myanmar made the most ludicrous comment that Bangladesh is delaying the process of repatriation to attract more foreign aid. So whatever Suu Kyi says is subtly countermanded by the Generals. The devious mind of the Myanmar general puts even the satanic innovations to shame.

That Aung San Suu Kyi is not in charge in Myanmar has been all but clear for a long time. She does not call the shots, and is quite happy to let the military run the affairs of the country. For a person who is supposed to have fought for democracy and the rule of the people in her country, that is an odious compromise for her political survival. It is not really the rule of the people but a sham democracy with the Nobel Laureate for Peace in the shop window—displaying to the world the “face of democracy” in Myanmar. It is virtually a military rule in the guise of democracy. And it is not the parliament but the military who calls the shots in Myanmar. Therefore, it is not the anointed leader but the real powerbase that should be targeted for the resolution of the Rohingya issue.

That, one understands, is a tall order to achieve. Given the deep-rooted strategic-economic interest of some regional and supra regional powers in Myanmar, the reasons for the unwillingness to take action against Myanmar despite the renewed ethnic cleansing of the Rakhine are clear. The US intention to explore ways to impose sanctions on Myanmar is perhaps more substantive than what has been expressed or done by most countries except for the EU. Tillerson’s message to the Army Generals was meant to convey a message. But any demonstrated firm action on the country is going to be restrained by India and China, the two most influential countries that can bear upon the Myanmar military, both with different and conflicting stakes in that country. And this has been amply demonstrated by the Indian call to the US for restraint following US Secretary of State’s veiled threat to the Myanmar Generals. And whatever faint hope there might have been of passing a resolution on the matter by October 31 in the Security Council, the last day of France’s presidentship of the Council and who had circulated the draft to all members of the Council was dashed, because neither Russia nor China had consented to the draft.

But while we are calling upon the international community to assume a more stringent posture against the military regime in Naypyidaw, our business-as-usual posture with Myanmar will certainly dilute the gravity of the situation. First it was the visit by our food minister to that country to purchase rice, in the midst of the persecution and exodus of the Rohingyas which was creating the most severe problems for Bangladesh. While the normal diplomatic lines of communications must never be disrupted, we cannot pretend as if nothing has happened between the two neighbours. That would convey the wrong message to the world, and certainly to the military junta in Myanmar.

And now we have the MoU signed during the home minister’s visit. We are not aware of the details of it, but if the comment of the Myanmar government’s permanent secretary for home affairs following the signing of the MoU is anything to go by, it shows that not only has the ball been deftly sent back to our court, it reads as if it is Bangladesh’s responsibility to stop the Rohingya exodus. The onus of the problem has been made to devolve on us by very intricate and skilful use of language. The two statements merit dissection.

The comments interestingly read, “The two sides have agreed to halt the outflow of Myanmar residents to Bangladesh”, and “form a joint working group”. And, “the two countries agreed to restore normalcy in Rakhine to enable displaced Myanmar residents to return from Bangladesh at the earliest opportunity”.

Excuse me! How is it up to Bangladesh to halt the outflow of the Myanmar residents? Unless of course Myanmar allows Bangladesh forces to sanitise the Rakhine State. And notice how subtly Myanmar avoids referring to Rohingya as “citizens” by terming them “Myanmar residents.” And how is it Bangladesh’s responsibility to restore normalcy in the region. Is that the preamble of the proposed Joint Working Group? One wonders whether we have unwittingly become a party to the resolution of the conflict in Rakhine. This is a question the policy makers should seriously ponder on and provide an answer to.

Brig Gen Shahedul Anam Khan ndc, psc (Retd) is Associate Editor, The Daily Star.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

A BGB soldier stands guard near some Rohingya refugees at Ghumdhum in Naikhyangchhari upazila of Bandarban on August 27, 2017. Photo: Anisur Rahman

By Brig Gen Shahedul Anam Khan ndc, psc (Retd)
Aug 28 2017 (The Daily Star, Bangladesh)

The very fact that Myanmar has termed the recent militant attack on its security forces as being the work of “extremist Bengali insurgents” underlines the very crux of the problem. It restates their position on the Rohingyas, their unwillingness to accept the ethnic minority for what they are. Rohingyas, who happen to be Muslims, are as Bengali as Americans are English. And this attitude of rejecting one of its own has underpinned Myanmar’s policy regarding the Rohingyas. 

It bears restating that the Rohingyas have been living in Arakan, now Rakhine State of Myanmar, for centuries. Regrettably, it was with one stroke of pen that a minority group, an integral part of the Burmese culture and society, being its citizen, was made stateless by the Burmese strongman and dictator Gen Ne Win. That, we understand, was his reaction to his abortive attempt to force the Rohingyas out of the western province into Bangladesh permanently. He managed to push out nearly one third of the total Rohingya in Arakan, a good 300,000 of them, by a military operation codenamed “Operation King Dragon”ostensibly for the purpose of checking illegal immigrants, in 1978. And this was by an anti-Rohingyain character. But strong international reaction against the ethnic purge forced him to take back most of those from Bangladesh. That policy of expulsion having failed, he resorted to a legal expedient—the Citizenship Law of 1982.

History must be recounted to put a perspective to the issue. The current spate of violence that was started last October is a strategy that Myanmar has used and continues to use to clear its territory of one of its ethnic minorities, made stateless by a government fiat. The Rohingyas have been described as the most persecuted stateless people in the world. That the Rohingyas are ghettoised and have had their movement restricted is nothing new. Their movement has been controlled since 1964 through a law which restricted the movement of the Muslims of Arakan especially prohibiting the movement out of Akyab District towards east. Thus, the Rohingyas were put into a sort of incarceration since 1964.

The latest extremist attack of August 25, which merits the strongest contempt, is also a cause for concern for Bangladesh. Recall the fact that it was the killing of several Myanmar security personnel by the militants that triggered the violence wreaked on the Rohingyas in the name of fighting insurgency in October 2016. That action came in for criticism from the local head of UN refugee agency who went so far as to characterise the killings as ethnic cleansing.

For Bangladesh, the Rohingya problem has cast it between the devil and the deep sea or a Catch 22 situation if you like. While on one hand it cannot officially open its doors to the persecuted Rohingyas, it can neither forcefully turn them back into uncertainty. Strategic compulsions preclude the former stance, it being very unadvisable since that would encourage the Myanmar government to continue to create conditions to leverage all the Rohingyas permanently out of their homeland, and fulfil its longstanding aim. But hosting a large number of refugees will impose, and it already has, adverse security as well as socio-economic consequence on Bangladesh. Although Bangladesh is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, it has acted under the obligation of the customary international law and the principle of non-refoulement not to reject asylum seekers at its border when they are escaping persecution in their homeland and trying to seek security from threats to their lives and liberty. Technicalities cannot be impediments to humane behaviour.

It has been our position that since the situation is of Myanmar’s own making, it should be for it to resolve it. But that Bangladesh cannot remain an impassive neighbour because it has been directly affected by the developments in the State of Rakhine has been demonstrated by the government’s expressed position on the issue.

Amidst all the killings in one part of her country, the silence of Su Kyi was very deafening and all that she could say about the atrocities of the security forces was that they were working as per “the law”. However, a redeeming feature in the entire pathetic situation was the setting up of the Annan Commission in August last year to “find a sustainable solution on the complicated issues in Rakhine State.” And if it was not a ruse by Su Kyi to placate international opinion of Myanmar’s Rohingya policy, then the government of Myanmar should recognise the merit of the recommendations of the Commission which was handed over to its President on August 24 and act on it.

It is about time Myanmar realised the error of its Rohingya policy. If anything it has festered extremism among the younger members of the Rohingya community. This cannot be allowed to happen. We must make it abundantly clear that our stake in the region is not only humanitarian. If it is allowed to simmer it would adversely affect us in equal measure. And that we cannot allow to happen.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

Brig Gen Shahedul Anam Khan ndc, psc (Retd) is Associate Editor, The Daily Star.

It was beyond the imagination, even of the many diehard ‘Trumpians’ who, reportedly, were invoking a miracle for a Trump win. Donald Trump has proved the pundits wrong. He won by a big margin on electoral votes while most pollsters had given it to his opponent and many outside the US were hoping for a Clinton victory. For him, the road to 270 was tortuous with many permutations and combinations and lots of ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’. He belied all statistics to get to it. It is remarkable too that he has pulled it off despite the fact that several top ranking Republicans had deserted him and several among them did not even vote for him.

Supporters of then Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump cheer as they watch the election results during election night. PHOTO: AFP

While history was made eight years ago when the Americans sent a Black man to the White House first time in its 240 years history, by electing Donald Trump, America has created another kind of history; he is the first not to have held any public office, to be elected to the office of, admittedly, the most powerful presidency in the world.

Come Friday, January 20, 2017, there will be in the White House a fickle minded man with an erratic and wobbly mind with a finger on the nuclear button. By his own admission, Trump is not a politician. And at every opportunity he berated and excoriated politicians, blaming them for everything that is wrong in the country. But the US electorate has expressed their choice which must be respected but it is a choice which many in the rest of the world thinks would be a disaster for the US and the rest of the world. After all, a US president is not just a US president. His strategic, economic and social policies, if we go by his articulations, will have deep ramifications all over the world, as much as within the US.

However, what has surprised many people is that a candidate for the White House, who started on a negative note by abusing minorities of every hue, Latinos, Mexicans, black Americans, Muslims, war veterans, even a handicapped journalist, and made no secret of his deeply misogynistic attitude, and who objectifies women, should not only get the party ticket but go on to win the election. Is it American politics, the American society, or the system that this can be ascribed to? Or is that America is not yet ready for a women president?

We are glad that the election is, mercifully, over, mostly because it was perhaps the most divisive and rancorous election campaign in US history, marked by acrimony and name calling. The campaign saw little discussion of policy matters and more on the character of the candidates, though Trump’s indiscretions and off the cuff comments had much to do with the slump in his ratings in October.

Trump was thrown a lifeline just a fortnight before the election by the FBI boss’ announcement that he was not done with the investigation yet of the Hilary emails, only to announce a week later that there was nothing new to report. Only time can say what impact, if any, Comey’s letter to the Congress has had on the outcome of the results.

Trump created xenophobia, built on it and exploited it. It may have gained him the key to the White House, but, unfortunately, the campaign has left a deep scar in the country that may take time to heal. He drummed up support by rousing nationalist feeling which, disturbingly, resonated with a large number of Americans. And what should be worrisome for the American society is not that this has been reflected in the polls only, but that this divide has manifested in the behaviour of the American people towards each other.

The world is waiting to see how the Trump administration would look like in the next four years. He has promised to undo many policies of the Obama administration and cancel all executive orders that President Obama has issued. However, Trump did not offer any policy alternative at all. It will be interesting to see how he implements his immigration policy. It will be interesting too to see how he will fund the rebuilding of the military that he has promised alongside affecting the biggest budgetcut, and what he will do with NATO which he thinks has become obsolescent. He has managed to alienate many of his allies, how will heclose the schism?

As for Hillary Clinton, it is time for a very hard look back and ask what went wrong.

The US election results reflect the majority view of how and what America should be. But that is an America that many Americans and most of us who are not, would not be comfortable with.

The writer is Associate Editor, The Daily Star.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh