Bangladesh, Cultural, Economic, International, Life as it is, Literary, Political, Religious

Cultural and National Identity

Most of us have differed often enough with one another on what precisely constitutes culture. That is hardly surprising in view of the fact that it is common for even erudite philosophers to disagree and debate with each other on the raw definition and nuances of culture. The way we perceive culture is very much a mirror of our philosophy in life and of our view of the society we live in. It is but natural that we differ. But does it really make any material difference to a society on what exactly a culture is or on what a particular cultural guru enforces the cultural attributes of a society at a particular point in time and space?

Culture is more like the free-flowing water in a river. It takes on the colour of the alluvium soil it flows over at any particular moment. Culture of a people is anything but static; it changes, it merges, it meanders, it evolves like the life on earth.

The so-called Calcutta Book Fair fiasco had prompted certain coteries of vested interest to make mountain out of a mole hill. At the forefront was the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) which had donned the mantle of the keeper of Muslim Bengali culture. It had self-proclaimed the distinctiveness of Muslims to create a separate identity for Bangladeshi culture.

The party was founded by a freedom fighter who fought for the liberation of Bangladesh or Bangla nation. But the Kakul trained former Pakistani army officer who spoke Bangla with a distinct Urdu accent, due to his long stay in the western wing of Pakistan, ultimately took on the role of a Trojan Horse. When he assumed the charge of independent Bangladesh in the aftermath of a series of coup d’etats and assassinations (which many people claim may have been through his acquiescence), he took upon himself the task of rebuilding the nation in the model of “Pakistan.” Thereby, he failed to live up to his glorious deeds during the days of blood and thunder. The unholy coalition that he forged with the religious right had made him to rehabilitate those hated anti-Bangladeshi forces in the independent Bangladesh. It brought back the ghost of Pakistani oppression in Bangladesh.

The Bengalis in Pakistan had made sacrifices to found a modern state based on secular ideology. The Sufi tradition had deeply influenced the Islam in Bengal. Its tolerant ethos was a far cry from the religious intolerance of West Pakistan that would later spawn into Taliban movement.

The Bangladesh Liberation War was a struggle against the hard-line exclusivist tradition of West Pakistan that was trying to supplant the liberal tradition of the eastern wing and turn it effectively into a colony. Under the guidance of the Pakistani junta from the west, the Islamist parties made it their goal to eliminate religious minorities and to discard the secularist strands from the composite culture of Bangladesh. They cried “Islam is in danger.” to garner supporters for their invidious goals.

It was a national goal in certain quarters during the Pakistani era to erect a psychological barrier between West Bengal and East Bengal in the guise of championing the cause of Islam. There was a crack in that barrier for a brief period during 1971-75. But, after 1975, for the next two decades, that barrier was restructured and reinforced to mirror the prejudices and predilections of the past. The master architects of that barrier were the Pakistan trained officers of the Bangladesh army who continued to look back to the pre-liberation days towards Islamabad for political inspiration.

The balance of power in Bengal in the era of Permanent Settlement had indeed tilted disproportionately in favour of the Hindus. The 1947 partition did serve to restore the balance. But it can just as easily be argued that East Bengal got rid of the over-lordship of the local Hindu zamindars only to embrace the colonial shackles of West Pakistan. Furthermore, it was demanded by its new masters to sever all ties with “Hindu” West Bengal with which it shared many common cultural heritage and where at least a quarter of the population was Muslim.

The Bangabhumi of yore was today’s East Bengal. It had always been the core of Bengali language and culture. West Bengal was the Rarhbhumi which was part of Greater Bengal and had, till the coming of the British, looked up to East Bengal for cultural inspiration and sustenance. So, in a sense, Bengal’s cultural heritage had its root in East Bengal. The proponents of Bangladeshi nationalism had their own agenda. It was to erase West Bengal from the canvas of Greater Bengal with a view to turning Bangladesh into a puppet in the hands of Islamabad’s rulers, who would only be too happy to use Bangladesh as the cat’s paw to further their own interests.

Then there were those who had vested interests in declaring, “Hindus of West Bengal and Muslims of Bangladesh are two distinct peoples; they have absolutely nothing in common” Inevitably, proponents of this delinquent ideology ignore the cultural affinities of West and East Bengal to emphasise only on religious differences. That was the only way they could erect a barrier between the two Bengals. But even that was not easy because a quarter of West Bengal’s population was Muslim. Would the religious fanatics disown Poet Nazrul Islam because he was from West Bengal?

There are some differences between the inhabitants of the two Bengals. But it is not simple to cut off West Bengal from our cultural canvas on the basis of these differences. Religion, ethnicity, dialect, and regional characteristics, all play an important role in defining our cultural ethos. It is as disingenuous as it is dishonest to try to define it in terms of religion alone.

Consider the regional component, for example. The immigrants in Calcutta from East Bengal, from long before the 1947 partition, had indulged in their regional pride by cheering for the East Bengal team on Calcutta’s football fields. And to this day they continue to do so. It pleases them no end when East Bengal defeats Mohan Bagan. The Islamists in Bangladesh
will be hard put to explain this exultation in the football fields of Calcutta in terms of their mindset of seeing everything with religious lens.

Region-based differences indeed seems far more significant than religion-based ones. A Muslim Bengali from West Bengal is likely to feel more at home with a Hindu Bengali from West Bengal than with a Muslim Bengali from Bangladesh. The age old Ghati-Bangal issue has always transcended religion to give primacy to geography instead.The cultural tradition of the subcontinent kept apart the Hindu migrants from East Bengal to India from the Hindu natives of West Bengal. Even some half a century after the partition of India, Calcutta newspapers continue to conspicuously mention the ancestral roots of prospective brides and grooms in matrimonial columns. One may attribute that to the discriminatory practices of the natives or to the exclusivist practices of the immigrants. But the fact remains that ancestral district can come in the way of tying matrimonial bonds between the Hindu natives and the Hindu immigrants in West Bengal. In fact, even among the Hindu immigrants themselves, a Baidya from Jessore or Bikrampur might find it beneath his dignity to have matrimonial ties with a Baidya from Sylhet or Comilla!

Many a nation state in the world exhibits regional variations in dialect and culture. The regional dialect and the local customs give the nation a “salad bowl” cultural milieu. Thus, Bavarians in Germany have the image of hillbillies. After the reunification of Germany, the people from the former East Germany were often perceived by their newfound compatriots as third worlders! Belgium and Switzerland have people speaking different dialects and even entirely different languages.

In USA, the Mecca of multi-culturalism, people speak of the East Coast, the Mid West or of the deep South with very specific cultural connotations. Let me narrate a personal anecdote. I took a speech course in an American college. During a discussion session, one student was frank enough to admit to her cultural bias based on regional accent. She told the class that Jamal has a non-American accent which is okay with her. But if she hears somebody with a southern accent, she seems to struggle with the thought that the person is of inferior intellect!Most religionists in Bangladesh take a victimological stance to justify their prejudices. They blame the arrogance of the Hindus from West Bengal or of the Hindu zamindar of yore from his own East Bengal for their antagonism toward all Hindus. But if they were honest enough, they would have readily admitted that there could be just as much a tradition of arrogance among the Muslims of Bangladesh. For many years, educated Bengali Muslims inhabiting the central part to the north western part of Bangladesh were extremely reluctant to enter into matrimonial ties with people from Noakhali, Chittagong and Sylhet. Similarly, many
Chittagongians and Sylhetees never could harbour the thought of marrying “foreigners.” I know of people from Noakhali who feel ashamed to disclose their roots. Many of them feigned to be from Comilla or Chittagong to get accepted by the Dhaka-centric “Bhadrolok” culture.

I was still a school kid when my father got transferred to Chittagong. It was a big cultural shock for me. I was afraid that I would never master the Chittagonian dialect, which is significantly different from the standard Bengali language. To my relief, I finally learnt to not only understand the local dialect but even speak in it after a fashion. A few years later, my father was transferred to Sylhet where I stoically withstood the scorn of my classmates who called me a “Bangal.” Needless to say, it was a pejorative. It was then that I learnt that the Sylhetees considered themselves to be from Assam. They were telling me that they did not think I was worthy of being a friend because I was nothing better than a “Bangal.”

I am sure I will have far less of a cultural shock if I visit Nadia in West Bengal. If I visit the Calcutta metropolis, I may cross path with some Bengalis (Hindus and Muslims alike) who may turn out to be somewhat different. But I doubt they will find me as different as I was found by my Chittagongian and Sylheti classmates. But then I have to bear in mind an
important aspect of social anthropology – many a person I will befriend in this old city have had the advantage of a college education and of urban living for many more than a generation or two. So, there is bound to be some difference between them and those I had encountered in Chittagong and Sylhet who were of rural background and may have belonged to the first generation in the quest of college education.


Jamal Hasan writes from Washington DC. The original article was published on March 19, 1999 in NEWS FROM BANGLADESH in its Commentary Section.

Political, Economic, International, Environmental, Life as it is, Cultural

Are these the dying days of the United Kingdom?

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is in existential crisis. It is not so much because of external threats, although there are definitely such threats all the time, but because of an implosion from within. It is unfortunately the perennial story of great powers or civilisations decaying or withering out due to internal conflict, political dogma, economic decline or social instability. It is no different in the case of the United Kingdom.

It is a historical fact that Great Britain used to rule the waves of the seven seas, the sun would never set in British Empire – from New Zealand at the south-east corner of the Earth through Australia, Malaysia, India, Middle-East, the large swathes of Africa and South America to Canada and beyond. The Empire was truly mind-bogglingly vast. Historians and political analysts were musing how a small country like Great Britain could colonise and control an Empire more than 100 times larger in size and more than 50 times bigger in population? But it did and probably that was how it acquired the lofty title of ‘Great Britain’.

There was a time at the early part of the 20th century when a country or even a collection of countries could hardly contemplate going against the wishes of Great Britain and if they did, they would have to prepare for all eventualities. The regional conflict that started in the Balkans in the year 1914 somehow dragged Britain into it and escalated regional war into World War I. The Allied Powers comprising Britain and its colonies, France, Russia, Italy fought tooth and nail against the Central powers of Germany, Austro-Hungarian Empire and Ottoman Empire. But Allied victory was only sealed when America eventually put its weight behind the Allied forces. That was the beginning of the end of the myth of British Empire’s invincibility in military might and America started taking full advantage of it.

The World War II which started only 20 years after the end of WW I by Germany due to its grievances of blatant unfair treatment in the peace treaty of WW I could be regarded as the nail in the coffin of the British Empire.  America after staying neutral for a couple of years of this war and selling arms and ammunition to both the sides at vast profits joined the war when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour in Hawaii. Although eventually the Allied Forces did win the war, the vulnerability of the British Empire was exposed again and America, taking the high moral ground, pressed Britain to dismantle the Empire – the colonies must be set free and given independence. Within two years India, the jewel in the crown of the British Empire, as well as New Zealand got independence and within the next decade or so, large parts of Africa also got independence. Without the colonies, Britain is no more than a hollow shell. The sources that nourished the Empire had disappeared leaving only sore memory and wild dreams of revival.

However, Britain did manage to adjust itself and survive in the post-colonial era by pragmatic politicians. The statesmen like Sir Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan, Edward Heath, Harold Wilson and so forth did realise that Britain can only survive in the modern era by joining together with European countries in the Common Market and its follow up European Union (EU).

While this development in the overall survival strategy was going on, there was an under-current of die-hard nationalism among the Conservatives that was driving them to resuscitate the second era of British Imperialism. For years these dreamers viewed Europe vas an impediment to British greatness. When in 2016, the then Tory prime minister David Cameron conceded to have a referendum on whether Britain should stay in or out of Europe, the Tory right-wing xenophobic elements came out in strength with the slogan “Take back control”. The implication was that taking back control from Brussels would help Britain restart a second era of British Imperialism!

Boris Johnson, the present Tory prime minister, most egregiously run a battle bus in the 2016 referendum campaign with the depiction, “We send the EU £350 million a week, let’s fund our NHS instead, Vote Leave”. Such mendacious claims abounded in the referendum. Liam Fox, a Tory leader and an ardent Brexiteer, claimed, “The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history.” Michael Gove, another Tory Brexiteer, when faced with predictions of adverse economic consequences of exit from the EU produced by the economic experts of the Bank of England, IMF, OECD and so forth, thundered, “The experts were wrong before and they are wrong again now.”  Such imbeciles proliferated the Tory leadership then (and now) and persuaded the common people to vote “No” to Europe in the referendum.

Now in the forthcoming national election on 12 December 2019 the Tories, who had been peddling lies and deceits, are clearly in the lead and may win the election. Their aim, as repeated umpteen times by their leader Boris Johnson, is to “get Brexit done”. What it means nobody can fathom. If it means getting out of the EU with or without a deal, then that would be the biggest act of self-harm by any nation in the modern history.

Let us look realistically the consequence of Britain leaving the EU. First of all, this act of withdrawal will put tremendous pressure on the Good-Friday agreement of Northern Ireland. If the fragile peace treaty breaks down, and there are signs it will, the old days of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland and the violence spilling over the mainland Britain will return. Death and destruction will become everyday affair! Only way that can possibly be stopped is by allowing Northern Ireland to be subsumed by the Republic of Ireland.

Scotland under the leadership of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) is making no bones about their aspiration to go independent of the United Kingdom (effectively England) and join the EU. They have a valid point. As the Scottish Kingdom, they had voted to remain in the EU (56% overall) and their view was completely disregarded by the so-called ‘will of the people’ (people of England’s deprived and dysfunctional areas). Plaid Cymru of Wales is also going the same way as the SNP. The demise of this country and the civilisation it enshrined over the centuries will be utterly diminished by the misguided delusional imperialist bigots dreaming of another colonial era of the past centuries.

If Scotland, in the near future and Wales somewhat later, manage to secede, the name the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be nothing but totally hollow, only suitable for a place in the history book.

It is not for nothing that John Major, ex-Tory prime minister, had been pleading ardently with the voters to vote for a Remain party like Lib Dems or ‘Remainers’ in other parties, not Boris Johnson, the arch delusional Brexiteer and his party which happens to be the Tory party now. Similar messages had been put forward by Tony Blair, another ex-prime minister of the Labour party as well as from Michael Haseltine, ex-deputy prime minister from Tory party. These leaders from yester-years of the main political parties have national interests at their hearts, unlike the present misogynist, racist political opportunist prime minister of the Tory party. Can these past leaders along with the sensible pragmatic voters of today save the United Kingdom against the xenophobic delusional imperialist tide led by the incumbent prime minister?

– Dr A Rahman is an author and a columnist

Advanced science, Economic, Environmental, International, Life as it is

Blue energy: Can it power a sustainable future?

Statkraft osmotic power prototype is the world’s first osmotic power plant

Ever since global warming became a hot button issue, our leaders have told us umpteen times that “climate change is the greatest environmental threat and the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced.” Yet, they are not “bold enough to do enough” to pull us out of the climate change conundrum soon enough.

In the meantime, impacts of climate change are being felt in communities across the world. Average global temperatures have risen every decade since the 1970s, and the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997. If the trend continues unchecked, very soon we will be living on a planet with unbearable heat, unbreathable air, inundated coastal areas, widespread drought and wilder weather. Indeed, an Australian think tank warns that climate change could bring about the end of civilisation, as we know it, within three decades.

So, what should we do to tackle the disastrous effects of climate change? Since human activity is responsible for climate change, human activity can also mitigate it. To that end, we have to force our national governments to stop using the suicidal fossil fuels without any further delay. In other words, we need a carbon negative economy, or at the least, a zero-carbon economy.

We already have the potential to produce everything we need with no or very little greenhouse gas emissions. It is “green” energy solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, nuclear that provides an alternative, sustainable and cleaner source of energy. Promising new green technologies, such as tidal, wave and ocean’s thermal energy, are also on the horizon.

There is a third type of energy many of us are not familiar with—another alternative, sustainable source of energy that could be the next frontier in clean-energy technology. It is energy released during controlled mixing of a stream of saltwater and a stream of less saline water and can, therefore, be found in abundance anywhere a river meets the sea. Since energy at the river-sea nexus is produced in naturally occurring waterbodies, which are blue, it is called “blue” energy.

Blue energy exploits the phenomenon of osmosis, which is the spontaneous movement of molecules of a solvent through a semi-permeable membrane from the side of lower concentration into the side of higher concentration until the concentration becomes equal on both sides. In the process, energy is released which could be used to generate electricity. That is why it is also called “osmotic power,” or “salinity gradient power”.

The energy output would depend on the salinity and temperature difference between the river and seawater and properties of the specific membrane. The greater the salinity difference, more energy would be produced. In fact, based on average ocean salinity and global river discharges, it has been estimated that if blue energy plants were to be built at all river estuaries, they could produce about 1,370 terawatts of power each year, according to the Norway Center for Renewable Energy (a tera is a trillion.)

The concept of blue energy is not new. It was first proposed in 1954 by a British engineer named RE Pattle, although it was not possible to implement his idea for power generation until the 1970s, when a practical method of harnessing it was outlined.

The first osmotic power plant was built in 2009 in Tofte, Norway. It produced only four kilowatts of power, which was not enough to offset the cost of construction, operation and maintenance. Consequently, it was shut down in 2013.

Since then, improved technologies to tap blue energy have been developed at various laboratories, primarily in the Netherlands and Norway. Using these technologies and the difference in salt concentration in the surface water on each side of the Afsluitdijk dam, the Dutch built a power plant in 2014 generating enough electricity to meet the energy requirements of about 500,000 homes.

Blue energy is not limited to mixing of river and seawater because osmosis works with any concentration difference of dissolved substances. It may thus be possible to generate electricity from dissolved carbon dioxide, which could be captured from fossil-fuel power plants. Researchers believe that worldwide, the flue gases of fossil fuel power plants contain enough carbon dioxide to make around 850 terawatts of blue power. Hard to believe that the villain of climate change could be part of the solution after all.

In a paper published in July 2019 in ACS Omega, one of the journals of the American Chemical Society, researchers of Stanford University claim to have made a battery that runs on electricity generated by harvesting blue energy from wastewater effluent from the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant and seawater collected from Half Moon Bay. Their work clearly demonstrates that blue energy could make coastal wastewater treatment plants energy-independent and carbon neutral.

An advantage of blue energy technology is that it does not depend on external factors like wind or sun. Another advantage is that a commercial plant would be modest in size, but still produce a significant amount of energy. Moreover, compared with, for instance, wind and solar energy, implementing a blue energy power plant would have a smaller impact on landscape, and it requires less land usage. Besides, once fully developed and deployed, the technology would be able to generate energy continuously and would not emit greenhouse gases. Hence, it would ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and clean energy for all.

There are some drawbacks of blue energy though. Power plants exploiting blue energy may have an effect on the marine life, hydrological systems and water management rules of the region. The main drawback, however, is the cost. Compared to a conventional power plant using fossil fuels, the cost of construction of a blue energy power plant would be several times higher because artificial membrane is very difficult and expensive to make. Nevertheless, once built, the expectation is that blue energy would succeed in generating power at a much cheaper rate than solar and wind.

Finally, blue energy is potentially one of the best sustainable energy resources we have at our disposal. The raw material is free and inexhaustible. “Blue” could be the “green” of the future. And the blue-green combination can match the urgency of the climate change crisis.

Quamrul Haider is a professor of physics at Fordham University, New York.

Cultural, Economic, Human Rights, International, Life as it is, Political

The west’s self-proclaimed custodians of democracy failed to notice it rotting away

British and American elites failed to anticipate the triumph of homegrown demagogues – because they imagined the only threats to democracy lurked abroad

Anglo-American lamentations about the state of democracy have been especially loud ever since Boris Johnson joined Donald Trump in the leadership of the free world. For a very long time, Britain and the United States styled themselves as the custodians and promoters of democracy globally, fighting a great moral battle against its foreign enemies. From the cold war through to the “war on terror”, the Caesarism that afflicted other nations was seen as peculiar to Asian and African peoples, or blamed on the despotic traditions of Russians or Chinese, on African tribalism, Islam, or the “Arab mind”.

But this analysis – amplified in a thousand books and opinion columns that located the enemies of democracy among menacingly alien people and their inferior cultures – did not prepare its audience for the sight of blond bullies perched atop the world’s greatest democracies. The barbarians, it turns out, were never at the gate; they have been ruling us for some time.

The belated shock of this realisation has made impotent despair the dominant tone of establishment commentary on the events of the past few years. But this acute helplessness betrays something more significant. While democracy was being hollowed out in the west, mainstream politicians and columnists concealed its growing void by thumping their chests against its supposed foreign enemies – or cheerleading its supposed foreign friends.

Decades of this deceptive and deeply ideological discourse about democracy have left many of us struggling to understand how it was hollowed from within – at home and abroad. Consider the stunning fact that India, billed as the world’s largest democracy, has descended into a form of Hindu supremacism – and, in Kashmir, into racist imperialism of the kind it liberated itself from in 1947.

Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government is enforcing a seemingly endless curfew in the valley of Kashmir, imprisoning thousands of people without charge, cutting phone lines and the internet, and allegedly torturing suspected dissenters. Modi has established – to massive Indian acclaim – the regime of brute power and mendacity that Mahatma Gandhi explicitly warned his compatriots against: “English rule without the Englishman”.

All this while “the mother of parliaments” reels under English rule with a particularly reckless Englishman, and Israel – the “only democracy in the Middle East” – holds another election in which millions of Palestinians under its ethnocratic rule are denied a vote.

The vulnerabilities of western democracy were evident long ago to the Asian and African subjects of the British empire. Gandhi, who saw democracy as literally the rule of the people, the demos, claimed that it was merely “nominal” in the west. It could have no reality so long as “the wide gulf between the rich and the hungry millions persists” and voters “take their cue from their newspapers which are often dishonest”.

Looking ahead to our own era, Gandhi predicted that even “the states that are today nominally democratic” are likely to “become frankly totalitarian” since a regime in which “the weakest go to the wall” and a “few capitalist owners” thrive “cannot be sustained except by violence, veiled if not open”.

Inaugurating India’s own experiment with an English-style parliament and electoral system, BR Ambedkar, one of the main authors of the Indian constitution, warned that while the principle of one-person-one-vote conferred political equality, it left untouched grotesque social and economic inequalities. “We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment,” he urged, “or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy.”

Today’s elected demagogues, who were chosen by aggrieved voters precisely for their skills in blowing up political democracy, have belatedly alerted many more to this contradiction. But the delay in heeding Ambedkar’s warning has been lethal – and it has left many of our best and brightest stultified by the antics of Trump and Johnson, simultaneously aghast at the sharpened critiques of a resurgent left, and profoundly unable to reckon with the annihilation of democracy by its supposed friends abroad.

Modi has been among the biggest beneficiaries of this intellectual impairment. For decades, India itself greatly benefited from a cold war-era conception of “democracy”, which reduced it to a morally glamorous label for the way rulers are elected, rather than about the kinds of power they hold, or the ways they exercise it.

As a non-communist country that held routine elections, India possessed a matchless international prestige despite consistently failing – worse than many Asian, African, and Latin American countries – in providing its citizens with even the basic components of a dignified existence.

It did not matter to the fetishists of formal and procedural democracy that people in Kashmir and India’s north-eastern border states lived under de facto martial law, where security forces had unlimited licence to massacre and rape, or that a great majority of the Indian population found the promise of equality and dignity underpinned by rule of law and impartial institutions, to be a remote, almost fantastical, ideal.

Failed idealism of Mahatma Gandhi in India. Mahatma Gandhi with Lord and Lady Mountbatten in 1947.

The halo of virtue around India shone brighter as its governments embraced free markets and communist-run China abruptly emerged as a challenger to the west. Modi profited from an exuberant consensus about India among Anglo-American elites: that democracy had acquired deep roots in Indian soil, fertilising it for the growth of free markets.

As chief minister of the state of Gujarat in 2002, Modi was suspected of a crucial role – ranging from malign inaction to watchful complicity – in an anti-Muslim pogrom of gruesome violence. The US and the European Union denied Modi a visa for several years.

But his record was suddenly forgotten as Modi ascended, with the help of India’s richest businessmen, to power. “There is something thrilling about the rise of Narendra Modi,” Gideon Rachman, the chief foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Times, wrote in April 2014. Rupert Murdoch, of course, anointed Modi as India’s “best leader with best policies since independence”.

But Barack Obama also chose to hail Modi for reflecting “the dynamism and potential of India’s rise”. As Modi arrived in Silicon Valley in 2015 – just as his government was shutting down the internet in Kashmir – Sheryl Sandberg declared she was changing her Facebook profile in order to honour the Indian leader.

In the next few days, Modi will address thousands of affluent Indian-Americans in the company of Trump in Houston, Texas. While his government builds detention camps for hundreds of thousands Muslims it has abruptly rendered stateless, he will receive a commendation from Bill Gates for building toilets.

The fawning by Western politicians, businessmen, and journalists over a man credibly accused of complicity in a mass murder is a much bigger scandal than Jeffrey Epstein’s donations to MIT. But it has gone almost wholly unremarked in mainstream circles partly because democratic and free-marketeering India was the great non-white hope of the ideological children of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher who still dominate our discourse: India was a gilded oriental mirror in which they could cherish themselves.

This moral vanity explains how even sentinels of the supposedly reasonable centre, such as Obama and the Financial Times, came to condone demagoguery abroad – and, more importantly, how they failed to anticipate its eruption at home.

Even the most fleeting glance at history shows that the contradiction Ambedkar identified in India – which enabled Modi’s rise – has long bedevilled the emancipatory promise of democratic equality. In 1909, Max Weber asked: “How are freedom and democracy in the long run at all possible under the domination of highly developed capitalism?”

The decades of atrocity that followed answered Weber’s question with a grisly spectacle. The fraught and extremely limited western experiment with democracy did better only after social-welfarism, widely adopted after 1945, emerged to defang capitalism, and meet halfway the formidable old challenge of inequality. But the rule of demos still seemed remote.

The Cambridge political theorist John Dunn was complaining as early as 1979 that while democratic theory had become the “public cant of the modern world”, democratic reality had grown “pretty thin on the ground”. Since then, that reality has grown flimsier, corroded by a financialised mode of capitalism that has held Anglo-American politicians and journalists in its thrall since the 1980s.

What went unnoticed until recently was that the chasm between a political system that promises formal equality and a socio-economic system that generates intolerable inequality had grown much wider. It eventually empowered the demagogues who now rule us. In other words, modern democracies have for decades been lurching towards moral and ideological bankruptcy – unprepared by their own publicists to cope with the political and environmental disasters that unregulated capitalism ceaselessly inflicts, even on such winners of history as Britain and the US.

Having laboured to exclude a smelly past of ethnocide, slavery and racism – and the ongoing stink of corporate venality – from their perfumed notion of Anglo-American superiority, the promoters of democracy have no nose for its true enemies. Ripe for superannuation but still entrenched on the heights of politics and journalism, they repetitively ventilate their rage and frustration, or whinge incessantly about “cancel culture” and the “radical left”, it is because that is all they can do. Their own mind-numbing simplicities about democracy, its enemies, friends, the free world, and all that sort of thing, have doomed them to experience the contemporary world as an endless series of shocks and debacles.

Cultural, Economic, Human Rights, International, Life as it is, Political

Isn’t Great Britain in existential threat?

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

It may sound utterly surreal – a country with long and admirable tradition of tolerance, inclusiveness, multiculturism and parliamentary democracy is now in utter disarray due to onset of intolerance, bigotry, populism and ugly nationalism that may well lead to disintegration of British unionism. Decency, honesty, fairness and truthfulness are all attributes of the distant past. Ideological arrogance, spinning of facts to meet one’s selfish ends are more in keeping with the reality of Britain today, particularly with Tory political elites, than with the traditional virtues. In the pursuit of selfish benefits, the interests of the country and people had been blatantly abrogated. These are the sad realities of Britain today.

One may say, leaving the EU on its own volition is the beginning of Britain’s decimation. Nothing could be furthest from the truth. Leaving the EU (with or without a deal) may be the symptom but not the cause. The real cause is more deeply rooted and strongly anchored in the psyche of the British people – more accurately, the English people.

One must look at the inner causes that led Britain to opt to leave in the first place. What was so abhorrent in the EU that Britain, after over 40 years of association, had to leave the EU? Was that a genuine reason or a manufactured reason by some opportunistic political leaders? Was there an aspiration, an unfulfilled ambition of ‘English Elites’ that could not be met by being in the EU? Was it the ideology that the second era of British Empire, another ‘Golden Age’ of British Imperialism, thwarted by the EU can be fulfilled by leaving? All these unfulfilled ambitions, dormant aspirations were confluenced to arouse British people to go for it.

The present predicament could be seen to have started more than 100 years ago – from the beginning of World War I – when Britain was at the height of Imperial Power. Britain was ruling the waves of seven seas, Sun never set in the British Empire . A tiny island at the western fringe of Europe was ruling nearly half of the world. That mighty Empire was lost since World War II and, surely, it can be regained! This aspiration of a certain section of the British people, aided and abetted by delusional ‘Imperialist Elites’, became so vivid that it found expressions in the EU referendum in the form of ‘take back control’, ‘establish sovereignty of the parliament’, ‘day of independence’, ‘future is bright’ etc. The uninitiated general public fell for these deceitful pronouncements of the opportunist politicians.

The WWI did damage Britain significantly, not only militarily and economically but also reputationally. The mighty Empire was found by the colonies not to be invincible. Then came the World War II, only about 20 years later, when Britain hardly had had enough time to recover. The end of WWII in 1945, even with a victory, was the beginning of the end of the British Empire. Within short two years, the jewel in the crown of the British Empire – India became independent – followed in quick succession in other parts of Asia and Africa.

The USA did come to the rescue of Britain but extracted a high price for it. On high moral grounds, the USA demanded Britain should forgo its colonies and offer freedom to all nations. A new world order was established – USA would lead the western powers and Britain would follow it subserviently. This is what was dubbed in British diplomatic circles a ‘special relationship’.

The waves in the seven seas are still there, but there is no single power to rule them anymore. However, USA is gradually taking over the role vacated by British Empire and it is now called America, comprising the central mainland of 50 States and hundreds of overseas territories, protectorate and sovereign lands with their military bases. America’s overseas territories are almost as big as the original USA mainland, both in terms of territorial size and population!

When given the opportunity in the EU referendum, the deprived underclass of Britain blamed the EU for the demise of British power and opted to leave the EU in the vain hope of regaining the bygone glory of ‘British Empire’. Of course, they had been incessantly fed by the opportunistic, populist politicians the messages that getting out of the EU would usher in the opportunity of regaining world power without the shackles of the EU, Britain would ‘take back control’, Britain would be ruled by ‘elected representatives’, Britain be ‘sovereign again’, Britain would make better trade deals with countries etc. Those deceitful politicians claimed (egregiously) that £19 billion that is paid to the EU as annual fees would be given to the NHS – £350 million per week extra! None of these claims is true. But the unpretentious general public did fall for such mendacious claims and voted to leave.

But the question is, why did this bunch of politicians mislead the public with downright falsehood to leave the EU? Apart from personal financial gains – most of these politicians are wealthy tax dodgers and supporters of overseas dwellers of tax havens – they had the agenda of getting back the second era of British Empire! The EU was, in their minds, the only impediment. Once free from that shackle, they would be able to go around the world, make trade deals with various countries and everything would be just hunkydory.

Those delusional Tory politicians started going around the Commonwealth countries to make trade deals which would be needed post-Brexit. Liam Fox, ex-International Trade Secretary, went to India to draw deals under the guise of Commonwealth fraternity. But he had been told bluntly by India that any future deal would be made on purely commercial basis, no amount of Commonwealth or past Imperial flag waving would cut any ice. However, special relaxation of travel restrictions, residence requirements etc for Indians might persuade India to come to a trade agreement! In other words, India would extract special price for any future trade deal. Of course, the same practice would be applied by other Commonwealth countries. The delusional Tory Brexiteers thought making new deals would be a breeze with their imperialist past! Liam Fox said before the EU referendum that making new trade deals would be ‘the easiest thing in the world’!

Leaving the EU, the largest trading block (44% of all exports from the UK goes to the EU), without a deal would leave Britain so severely damaged that other countries would definitely try to extract heavy price for any export-import relationship. No country would even come to make a fair-trade relationship with a lame duck country. After all, Britain under the British Imperialism, did the same thing! Now the hunter has become hunted and that is by choice!

Another sinister issue is the likely disintegration of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Why would Scotland be dragged out of EU against the will of their people by England, when 62% of Scots voted to Remain? Where is the democratic accountability and fairness to the constituent countries of the United Kingdom? In the EU, every Member States (MS), no matter how large or small, has equal say. A small country like Malta (population 500,000) or Luxembourg (population 600,000) or Cyprus (population 1.2 million) has equal say as big countries like France (population over 67 million) or Germany (population 83 million) on all matters of interest. And here is Scotland with a population of over 5.4 million has no say at all in the union with the United Kingdom. This is creating a great deal of strain in Scotland and the demand for its independence from the United Kingdom is growing ever louder. The same narrative goes for Northern Ireland which voted 56% to Remain in the EU.

Gordon Brown, the ex-prime minister of Great Britain, said in an article in the Observer on 11 August 2019 that Britain is sleepwalking into oblivion fuelled by destructive, populist, nationalistic ideology deployed by Boris Johnson. This is not an alarmist view; it is an honest view of a senior politician. When the idea of inherent unfairness will go into the minds of people of those countries within the United Kingdom, it would be extremely difficult to put a stop to it. The strident calls by delusional Boris Johnson to ‘do or die’ and ‘come what may’ will come to haunt him as the disintegration of the United Kingdom rolls on. History will come to look in utter amazement how a country which ruled over half of the world came to smithereens in just about seventy to eighty years!

Dr A Rahman is an author and a columnist