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

Lies and distortions in Indian subcontinent’s history

Egregious claims and blatant manipulation of historical facts were political armoury of Indian administrations from post-medieval period right up to the present time. The name India is used here to represent the whole of the Indian sub-continent covering the present-day Indian State, Bangladesh as well as Pakistan.

Indian subcontinent

The British Imperialism, while India was under British rule, used to segregate and differentiate cultural and emotional narrative of Indian people, which comprise primarily Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists to pursue its objectives. The Secretary of State, Wood in a letter to Lord Elgin (Governor General of Canada (1847 – 54) and India (1862 – 63) mentioned, “We have maintained our power in India by playing off one part against the other and we must continue to do so, Do all you can, therefore to prevent all having a common feeling.”

George Francis Hamilton, Secretary of State of India wrote to Lord Curzon on 26 March 1886, “I think the real danger to our rule, not now, but say 50 years hence is the gradual adoption and extension of Western ideas of agitation organisation and if we could break educated Indians into two sections holding widely different views, we should, by such a division, strengthen our position against the subtle and continuous attack which the spread of education must make upon our system of government. We should so plan educational text-books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened.”

Secretary Cross sent a message to Governor General Dufferin that “This division of religious feeling is greatly to our advantage and I look for some good as a result of your Committee of Inquiry on Indian Education and on teaching material”.

These were the policy objectives of the British Imperialism. Persistent use of these egregious objectives formed the underlying base that there were no common factors in social, political or economic lives of Indian people. This distortion paved the way for communal segregation in India and the emergence of Two Nation Theory (TNT) spearheaded by Mohammed Ali Jinnah. 

It is quite disturbing to note that nearly all governments in India from post-colonial era right up to the present time pursued the same objective violation of historical facts and information as an effective administrative tool.

The legacy of British colonial policy of establishing objective disunity among the Indian people was firmly adopted by the independent Indian State whereby the Indian history text-books were so falsified and distorted as to give an impression that the medieval period of Indian history was full of atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on their Hindu subject and the Hindus had to suffer terrible indignities under the Islamic rule.

One concrete example of deliberate distortion and lies in Indian text books was cited by Dr B N Pande, ex-Governor of the Indian State of Orissa, in his book, “History in the Service of Imperialism”, that a history text book for high schools cited that 3,000 Brahmins committed suicide as ‘Tipu Sultan wanted to convert them forcibly into the fold of Islam’. Dr Pande wrote to the author of the text book, Dr Har Prashad Shastri to give him the source material of such information. After many reminders, a reply from Dr Shastri came saying that he had taken the information from the Mysore Gazetteer. When Dr Pande tried to contact Mysore Gazetteer, there was no response and eventually Prof. Srinatia of Mysore University informed Dr Pande that the suicide of 3,000 Brahmins was nowhere in the Mysore Gazetteer and he was certain no such incident did ever take place.

The said history text book was originally prescribed in Bengal, Assam, Bihar, Orissa, U.P., M.P., and Rajasthan. Dr Pande wrote to Ashutosh Mukherjee, the then Vice Chancellor of Calcutta University, with all the evidence of falsification in the text book by Dr Shastri. The book was proscribed in all states except U.P., which was utterly shocking to Dr Pande.

It was not only the British Imperialism or the State of India that distort facts or disseminate historical misinformation to serve their perverse political purpose; Pakistan and Bangladesh are equally  also guilty of falsification, exaggeration and manipulation of historical records to serve their selfish ends.

During the nine months of liberation war (from 26 March 1971 to 16 December 1971) in Bangladesh, admittedly a large number of people, mostly civilians, had been killed. The estimates of death toll produced by various individuals or organisations vary between 50,000 to 500,000. In the book called Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War, Sarmila Bose stated that between 50,000 and 100,000 may have been killed. The figure was strongly disputed by the writer Naeem Mohajemen as being flawed. A 2008 British Medical Journal study estimated that up to 269,000 civilians may have died as a result of the conflict; this figure is far higher than the previous estimate of 58,000 from Uppsala University and the Peace Research Institute, Oslo. A study published by the Cholera Hospital in Dhaka in 1976 in a prestigious journal called ‘Population Studies’ stated that about 500,000 “excess death” may have occurred because of the war. The US CIA carried out its own estimate and came to the conclusion that 200,000 had died during the war.

But Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the father of the nation, stated that 3 million (3,000,000) people had died as a result of the liberation war. He did not provide any details or breakdown of the death figure, just the sum total of death figure, which was about ten times higher than the consensus figure.

It came out subsequently in the political circles in Bangladesh that when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman returned to Bangladesh via London from the Pakistani prison in 1972, he was given a death figure of three lakh (300,000) by his trusted young political leader, Abdur Razzaq. But when Mujibur Rahman gave a press conference to the international journalists shortly after that, he translated three lakh (300,000) to three million (3,000,000) death toll. That mistake of 10 times exaggeration was never admitted or amended by the government. The presumption was that if the country could get away with higher death toll, all the more preferable.  

Pakistan does not fall behind at all in its bid of mendacious claims. Pakistani textbooks tried to ignore or omit country’s non-existence prior to 1947 and the territory’s shared history with India over the centuries – its multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious past. Pakistan’s history began, as it is claimed, with the conquest of Sind by the Umayyad Caliphate, led by the young General Mohammad bin Qasim in 711 AD. In one text book, it was claimed that Pakistan had suffered politically and militarily over the last thirteen centuries! This sort of history book only helps to create misinformed and blockheaded adults out of the younger generation. Pakistan’s gung-ho approach in dealing with India was not very helpful either to its national perspective. In the 1965 war with India, Pakistan’s history books claimed that Pakistan’s Army conquered large areas of India, and when India was on the verge of defeat, she asked for cease-fire through the UN! That was a blatant lie. With that mindset of super power status, Pakistan approached the 1971 crack-down of East Pakistan, which in fact resulted in the breakup of the country and the birth of Bangladesh. That war could even destroy the very existence of Pakistan. 

Such egregious distortion of facts by independent States of the sub-continent only helps to sow the seeds of dishonesty and corruption in the minds of younger people. If the State thinks that by lying and making exaggerated claims of its power and authority it can get away with falsehood and at the same time take misplaced credit, then the individuals of these States would be tempted to think why can’t they make similar bids of unfounded claims and reap the benefits?

–           Dr A Rahman is an author and a columnist.

Environmental, Human Rights, International, Life as it is, Political

Racism in America: Police chokehold is not the issue (Part II)

(Following the previous post which constituted the initial section of the article, the present post is the concluding section of the article).

According to the Sentencing Project’s Report to the UN in 2018, Blacks are three times more likely to be searched, twice as likely to be arrested, and receive longer prison sentences for committing the same crime. Thirty-five percent of all executions in the US have been Black; they constitute 34 percent of prison inmates and 42 percent of people on death row.

However, while police brutality and related injustices are obvious, the most overwhelming burden for Blacks is the political disempowerment and economic inequities which they have to bear.

Blacks are approximately 13 percent of the population. But currently, while their presence in the House is roughly equivalent (52 out of 435), they have only three Senators (the highest ever), and no Governors. Of the 189 American Ambassadors, only three are Black, usually in “hardship posts” or less relevant assignments (like Bangladesh?).

According to Valerie Wilson from the Economic Policy Institute, in 2018, a median Black worker only earned about 75 percent of what a White person does (USD 14.92 per hour to USD 19.79), and The Economist reported that in 2019 mean household wealth was USD 138,000 for Blacks, and USD 933,700 for Whites. While more than 72 percent of Whites own homes usually in nice neighbourhoods, only 42 percent of Blacks do so usually in shabbier environments. Unemployment rates are typically twice that of Whites. 

Approximately 23 percent of Covid-19 patients are Black, and similar discrepancies are seen in terms of people suffering from blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, asthma, cancer, and other health challenges.   

Educational disparities are pronounced. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, while almost 80 percent of Whites graduate from high school, only 62 percent of Blacks do so. While 29 percent of White males and 38 percent of White females graduate from college, only 15 percent of Black males and 22 percent of Black females do the same. 

This is not because of innate intellectual differences traditionally used to explain the “achievement gap” (comparative lower scores in reading and math for Black students). As John Valant pointed out, Black performance in standardised tests has much more to do with exclusionary zoning policies that keep Black families from better school districts, mass incarceration practices that remove Black parents from children, and under-resourced Black school districts that impose relatively poor-quality teachers, weak supportive infrastructure and an environment of hopelessness and despair that students are compelled to endure. Expecting these kids to perform at the same level as others is like tying a weight to their legs and hoping that they can be competitive in a marathon.

President Johnson’s effort to “level the playing field” led to some Affirmative Action policies, and the formation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1965, to provide historically disadvantaged groups some extra educational and economic opportunities. Some progress has certainly been made. A small Black middle class of professionals has gradually come into existence, some Black entrepreneurs have been notably prosperous, and a few Black performers have gained spectacular success in the entertainment and sports industries (unrelated to affirmative action).

But, on the other hand, many Whites resented these programmes which were gradually challenged, and in some ways gutted, through charges of “reverse discrimination” (Bakke v Board of Regents University of California, 1978). The sentiment was that these policies unfairly violated a merit-based system of rewards, and created an entitlement culture for undeserving Blacks (conveniently forgetting that Whites had gained from it for centuries). Sometimes affirmative action only meant incorporating a few Blacks in various positions to prove an institution’s quantitative adherence to EEOC requirements. It was tokenist, grudging and alienating. Instead of bridging racial divides, they deepened them.

Ay, and there is the rub, as Shakespeare would say. The issue of racism is not about a chokehold of a White police officer, but its stranglehold on US society. It is ingrained in the predatory capitalism that the US worships with its emphasis on ugly materialism over human development, selfish individualism over collective welfare, desperate profit-seeking over social responsibility, immoral inequalities over a sharing culture, patriarchal dominance over an inclusive democracy, mindless consumerism over ecological concern, and a phenomenally successful strategy of keeping people, particularly the working class, divided and loathing each other.

It is also true that the races are prisoners of their respective assumptions, perceptions and judgments that lead them to see “the other” in radically distorted terms. Their narratives of history, their engagement with reality, and their judgment of events condemn them to their own rhetorical echo-chambers, making communications difficult. What the Blacks will see and remember will be vastly different from what the Whites will (e.g. Blacks will hear George Floyd crying out for his mother as a casually sadistic White officer chokes him to death, Whites will see the looting). In these conditions, hate becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Finally, when racism is reduced, and isolated, to a simple problem (e.g. police brutality), it will let politicians shake their cynical heads and issue condemnations with platitudes and clichés that will come trippingly to their tongues. It will permit them to tinker with this or that aspect of law enforcement and claim to have “fixed it”. It will encourage the power-elite to seek TV-rich moments such as taking a knee, or carrying a BLM placard, or raising a fist at a funeral memorial—high in symbolism but pitifully, perhaps deliberately, low in accomplishment.

As long as they ignore the larger historical, political and psychological context in which White defensiveness and Black weaknesses are located, one can treat the symptoms and not the virus of racism. The intellectual honesty and moral courage this would require has been absent in the past, and there is neither much evidence, nor much hope, that we will see it anytime soon.

Postscript: Having lived in America for many years, I can personally attest to the fairness and decency of the vast majority of colleagues, students, and general people my wife and I have met, and the genuine graciousness and warmth of many friends that we have been blessed to have. This merely underscores the point that the issue is not individual but institutional, not personal but structural.

(The cases mentioned in the article are all Supreme Court cases.)

 Ahrar Ahmad is Director General, Gyantapas Abdur Razzaq Foundation, Dhaka.

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

Racism in America: Police chokehold is not the issue

The American project was founded on rank hypocrisies. On the one hand, President Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the stirring words in the Declaration of Independence that upheld “these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal”, did not free his own slaves (not even Sally Hemings, who bore him six children).

Similarly, the Constitution of the US, celebrated as one of the finest examples of a self-conscious construction of a liberal democratic order, defined Blacks as only three-fifths of a person, not a full human being. Though “slave trade” was abolished by Congress in 1808, a brisk market in slaves continued since it was considered essential to the “Southern life-style” and the mode of production in a plantation economy. Even in 1857, the Supreme Court ruled (Dred Scott v Sanford) that Black people were to be deemed “property”, not “citizens”.

It took a Civil War and three momentous amendments to the constitution (the 13th in 1865, the 14th in 1868, and the 15th in 1870) for slavery to be abolished, for Blacks to be accorded the “due process” protections of citizenship, and for them to receive the right to vote. (Women did not receive that right till the 19th amendment in 1920).

While the abject inhumanity of slavery may have been legally mitigated to some extent, the institutions, practices and values of exclusion, exploitation and devaluation were not.  Constitutional guarantees, and Supreme Court decisions, could be cleverly subverted by the states.  For example, Black people were denied the right to vote through poll taxes, arbitrary registration requirements, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, white primaries and so on. In 1940, 70 years after they had received the right to vote, only 3 percent of Blacks in the South were registered as voters.  Less overt voter suppression efforts continue to this day.

Similarly, discriminatory laws in many Southern states also imposed second-class citizenship on them. There were restrictions on residence, employment, bank loans, travel (they had to sit in the back of the bus) and, till the Court’s decision in Brown (1954), the schools they could attend. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 removed many of these ostensible barriers, but the shadows remained long, corrosive and cruel.

While slavery may have been “the original sin” through which America came into being, its treatment of other minorities was not very tender. The ones who suffered the most immediately and most grievously were the Native Americans. This land which was theirs was taken away from them. Today, most live in reservations which constitute only 4 percent of US land area.  

They were also physically decimated. They became collateral damage in the relentless westward expansion of the Europeans based on notions of “manifest destiny”. They were killed through forced marches—e.g. the “trail of tears” between 1830-1850, when almost 60,000 of them were uprooted from their habitats and relocated elsewhere, with almost one-fourth dying on the way. There were massacres—e.g. in Bear River, Idaho, 1863, Oak Run, California, 1864, Sand Creek, Colorado, 1864, Marias, Montana, 1870, Wounded Knee, South Dakota, 1890, and many others.  And there were summary executions—e.g. the largest execution in US history was that of Dakota men in Mankato after the Sioux Wars in 1862.

When Columbus “discovered” America, the Native population was between 10-15 million. By the end of the 19th century, thanks to the efforts to civilise and Christianize those “red savages”, it had been reduced to 238,000. Today, it is less than 7m, or about 2 percent of the population.

Smaller minority groups in the US faced similar discrimination. Jews were saddled with the long-standing accusation of being “Christ-killers” and their intellectual and financial skills generated envy and anxiety. They were also considered to be consummate conspirators intent on taking over the world, ironically as bankers and financiers (Henry Ford’s argument), or as Bolshevik revolutionaries (Hitler’s conviction, also echoed in the US).    

The Chinese were the only people to be formally denied immigration into the country through the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Many Chinese, welcomed earlier as “coolie” labourers to lay the railroad tracks, faced harsh treatment and even violence. The Japanese, restricted through a “gentleman’s agreement” in 1907 from coming into the country any more, were herded into internment camps after Pearl Harbor even though there was not a shred of evidence that anyone had done anything wrong. “Indians”, i.e. those from South Asia, were not considered to be “free Whites” and thus not eligible for citizenship (US v Bhagat Singh Thind, 1923). Asian immigration was completely banned in 1924 and, when the door was slightly opened in 1946, limited by strict quotas of about 100 annually from these three countries. 

Thus racism was sown right into the fabric of American history, practices and values. The question that is frequently asked is why, while other minority groups subjected to discrimination were able to prosper later, Blacks did not. There is usually a racist subtext to that question to underscore White assumptions about Black laziness, intellectual inferiority, moral weakness, and collective inability to cooperate, organise and develop social capital. That conclusion is both self-serving and untrue.

First, no other group endured the sheer ferocity and persistence of bigotry in the same way that Blacks did. All others (except Native Americans, whose conditions have not improved) had voluntarily come to the country. The Blacks were captured, enslaved and commodified. They were not scrappy immigrants who came to the land of opportunity to pursue the American dream; they were forcibly brought here and left to contend with their American nightmare. 

Second, while others also faced stereotypes and prejudice, none encountered the uncouth mockery and the sheer physical violence that were inflicted on the Blacks. Minstrel shows, which caricatured Black people as sub-human beings (played by White folks in blackface), were wildly popular. 

But it was the slaps and kicks, the lashes and chains, the nigger hunting licenses and tar-and-featherings, the burning of crosses and the lynchings that were emblematic of the dehumanisation of Black people. According to the Equal Justice Initiative, between 1877 and 1950, more than 4,400 Blacks were lynched. Many of these lynchings became public events which communities enjoyed as spectacle and the celebration of White power.

It is certainly not that Blacks only understood the language of violence. But this was certainly the only language preferred by Whites to speak to them. Those attitudes and tropes remained, manifested in new forms, sometimes hiding behind police badges. This is vigilante justice dispensed and protected by the instruments of the state, and sanctioned by historical practice. Hence we hear about teaching them a lesson, demonstrating overwhelming force, putting them in their place, to “dominate” as President Trump advised the other day, threatening to use the military if needed. It is for this reason too that Philonise Floyd poignantly pointed out, in his testimony to the US Congress, that his brother had been subjected to a modern-day lynching. 

Third, there was a psycho-sexual dimension to this relationship that complicated matters even further. While White men had always been fiercely protective of “their women”, their concern and insecurity regarding Black men were particularly pronounced. Even a hint, a look, a word, the slightest of moves that could be construed as expressing Black lust for a White woman, would provoke savage reprisal. This lasted well into the 20th century.

In 1921, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a Black teenager was accused of molesting a white woman, even though she never pressed charges. In the resulting carnage, there were 10-15 White casualties and, by some estimates, up to 300 Black. The entire Black neighbourhood of Greenwood was set on fire, and more than a thousand homes and businesses were destroyed. Not a single person was convicted.   

Similarly, in 1955, Emmet Till, a 14-year-old boy from Chicago visiting his aunt in Mississippi, was accused of making a pass at a White woman by whistling at her. The boy was tortured to death, so badly brutalised that his mother could not even recognise her own son. The perpetrators were acquitted by an all-White jury. 

Ahrar Ahmad is Director General, Gyantapas Abdur Razzaq Foundation, Dhaka

(The second part of this article will be published next week – A Rahman)

                                                       

Bangladesh, Cultural, Economic, Human Rights, International, Literary, Political, Religious

Egregious allegations of communalism against Rabindranath

Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) lived through a very turbulent phase in Indian and world history – the period when British Raj attained the peak of its colonial power and exercised most brutal authority in India, the period when Bengal (the state which allowed the first foothold of British merchants in India at the beginning of 18th century) was partitioned off and then annulled, the period of two world wars and the period which saw the rise of unstoppable swadeshi (self-rule) movement.

A poet, a novelist, a litterateur, an artist, a reformer, in short, a myriad of a man, Rabindranath Tagore lived and died in the thick of actions. He not only advanced Bengali language and culture to the world scene but also gave Bengalis – Hindus and Muslims alike – their self-esteem, identity and cultural heritage. His songs are used as national anthems in India as well as in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka’s national anthem drew inspirations from his song.

However, a large section of Bangladeshi die-hard Muslims with the mind-set of Pakistani religious antagonism towards Hindus had been sniping at Tagore ever since the creation of Bangladesh in 1971. The allegations ranged from Rabindranath being communal and anti-Muslims, citing that he opposed the partition of Bengal to deny the Muslims a separate homeland and he opposed setting up of Dhaka University etc. All of these allegations were egregious and conjecture of bigoted minds.

Many Bengali Muslims who lay such allegations on Rabindranath quote Major General (Retd) M A Matin’s book called ‘Amader Swadhinata Sangramer Dharabahikata ebong Prasangik kicchu Katha (Chronology of our freedom struggle and some associated discussions) published by Ahmad Publishing House, Dhaka in 2000. The Retd. Army Officer placed most of his allegations on heresy without any substantiation or corroboration and packaged such opinions as statement of facts!

The author, M A Matin, implied throughout the book that Rabindranath was an orthodox Hindu and hence anti-Muslim and that was why he opposed the partition of Bengal. As a further proof of his anti-Muslim character, he was stated to have opposed the setting up of Dacca (now Dhaka) University.

Let us look at the points whether Rabindranath was an orthodox Hindu and anti-Muslim or not and the reason for his opposition to the partition of Bengal. And then I would look into his attitude towards Dhaka University.

If one looks into Tagore’s ancestry over the last few centuries, one would find that Tagore’s Brahmin clan, who hailed from Jessore, had long and close association with Muslims. Two Brahmin Tagore brothers in Jessore were close to Mohammad Tahir Pir Ali, the wazir of the governor of Jessore, who himself was a Brahmin but converted to Islam for matrimonial and financial reasons. Tahir Pir Ali made Tagore brothers smell and eventually eat meat (probably beef) and because of that event the brothers had been expelled from the orthodox Brahmin sect. However, their whole family remained Brahmins and the brothers were ostracised as ‘Pirali Brahmins’ (Ref: Rabindranath Tagore, The myriad-minded man by Krishna Dutta & Andrew Robinson, Bloomsbury Publishing, UK).

These two brothers (Pirali Brahmins) eventually left Jessore due possibly to social discord and moved to Calcutta (now Kolkata). One of these two brothers’ descendants – two brothers – Darpanarayan settled at Pathuriaghat (whose descendant includes Sharmila Tagore) and Nilmoni (the great-great-grandfather of Rabindranath) settled at Jorasanko. His descendant, Rabindranath’s grandfather, Dwarkanath, a flamboyant zamindar, and his son Debendranath, Rabindranath’s father, started the Brahmo Samaj, which was a sort of philosophical belief more akin to Buddhism and animism. Now, to allege Rabindranath Tagore, a Pirali Brahmin, was an orthodox Brahmin and anti-Muslim would be very much off the mark. Rabindranath published a book called ‘Religion of Man’ which propounded a religion embodying humanity, a religion of human consciousness merging into the limitless creation – shimar majhe ashim tumi. Rabindranath Tagore’s own description of his family as depicted in ‘The Religion of Man’ was, “The unconventional code of life for our family has been a confluence of three cultures, the Hindu, Mohammedan and British”.

In his writings, Rabindranath always showed empathy with the Muslims. In his novel called ‘Ghare Baire’ (The Home and the World), the main character, a Hindu zamindar, stated quite boldly that he would not condone Swadeshi activities if it meant hurting his Muslim subjects – those people were abject poor people, they did not have the luxury of boycotting foreign goods and lose their living. As the story goes, the zamindar gave up his own life when he went to protect his Muslim subjects in the thick of Hindu-Muslim riot. Rabindranath was roundly criticised for such narratives.

It is beyond dispute that Rabindranath opposed the partition of Bengal, not because he wanted to deny the Muslims a separate homeland but because he wanted Hindus and Muslims live together in amity and harmony, as they had been doing for centuries. Moreover, it was quite natural for the Tagore clan to oppose partition, because Tagore’s roots were in East Bengal – Tagore’s zamindari was in Shilaidaha (Kushtia), Rabindranath’s wife was from Jessore (now in the district of Khulna) (Jessore and Khulna were in one district called Jessore until 1892. Rabindranath’s wife, Mrinalini was from Khulna, Ref. Islam o Rabindranath Anyanya Prasanga, by Amitabh Chowdhury, ISBN No. 81-7293-188-3) and the Tagore family maintained close ties with their ancestral home ever since they moved to Kolkata. The partition would deprive Tagore family of its roots. The partition of Bengal was implemented on October 16, 1905. On the day of partition, Rabindranath peacefully and in a friendly gesture initiated the Rakhibandhan (the tying of Rakhi, meaning friendship). The partition was, however, annulled in December 12, 1911.

The very stipulation that the proposed partition of East Bengal would provide a homeland for the Muslims was ludicrous and bog-headed in those days. Those brain-washed Muslims who propagate this view of separate homeland for Muslims are trying to backfit 1940s events (demand for Pakistan) back into the 1900s to tarnish Rabindranath’s character for opposing the partition.

It was stated in MA Matin’s above mentioned book that on March 28, 1912 a huge meeting was organised at Garer Math, Kolkata to protest against the proposed setting-up of Dhaka University and that meeting was presided over by Rabindranath Tagore. Afterwards a delegation of top-level Hindu leaders went to meet Lord Hardinge, the then Viceroy of India, and warned him that the establishment of Dhaka University would face the similar fate to the partition of Bengal. However, there were no reference or corroboration of Rabindranath’s attendance in Garer Math meeting in MA Matin’s book; simply his unsubstantiated assertion.  AZM Abdul Ali, editorial board member of literary magazine ‘Kali o Kolom’, in an article immediately after the publication of MA Matin’s book disputed the statement that Rabindranath attended the meeting and asked MA Matin to provide reference or source of his information, but there was no reply!

An article by Asahabur Rahman in Dhaka Tribune on May 16, 2018 stated that a search in Tagore archives showed that on March 28, 1912 Rabindranath was at Shilaidaha. He left Kolkata on March 24 and stayed at Shilaidaha until April 12 recuperating from his illness. However, he composed 17 poems and songs during those days and, as he usually put the date and name of the place where he composed a piece, he put Shilaidaha as the place where those pieces were composed during that period. So, how could Rabindranath be in Kolkata on March 28, as the MA Matin asserted? 

The Dhaka University was established on the basis of recommendations made by the Nathan Commission, appointed by the government of Bengal, on May 27, 1912. However, due to the outbreak of WW1 (Aug 1914 – Nov 1918), the Commission recommendations were shelved and then nearer the end of the war, the government of India established another Commission -the Saddler Commission – in November 1917 to look into that outstanding matter. On the basis of positive recommendation by the Saddler Commission in March 1919, Dhaka University was eventually established in 1921.

Rabindranath visited Dhaka in February 1926 as a guest of Nawab of Dhaka, Khwaja Habibullah. He was given three receptions by the Dhaka University – two were organised by the Dhaka University Central Students Union (DUCSU) held at the Curzon Hall and the other at Salimullah Muslim Hall (S M Hall) organised by the students of the Hall. If Tagore had been against the establishment of Dhaka University, it was highly unlikely that within five years the students of the university would forget all about his opposition and extend warm welcome and give cordial receptions by the Muslim and Hindu students alike! In addition, various institutions and organisations in Dhaka such as the Jagannath College, Dhaka Collegiate School, Hindu-Muslim Seba Sangha, Dhaka Municipality, Peoples’ Association etc organised special receptions for him.

So, where is the evidence of Tagore’s opposition to the establishment of Dhaka University? MA Matin made the allegations against Tagore without any foundation, without any evidence. Professor Rafiqul Islam of Dhaka University wrote a book entitled Dhaka Bisshobidyaloyer Ashi Bochor based on his long research. His findings didn’t support MA Matin’s assertions at all. Some of the Bengali Muslim writers, now and in the recent past, blinded by Islamic zeal tied up Tagore’s opposition to Bengal partition (which he opposed in order to maintain communal harmony) and fabricated Tagore’s opposition to the Dhaka University to make up a well-rounded story of Tagore’s anti-Muslimness! It is a classic case of joining up a lie with a truth and packaging the whole thing as truth!

 –          Dr A Rahman is an author and a columnist.   

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

Donald Trump’s true colour

It is said that a man should be known not by the colour of his skin, but by the colour of his inner self. Donald Trump is no exception. Although his skin colour is white, but the colour of his inner self is absolutely dreadful – a dark vicious colour full of stinking rotting garbage discarded by civilised human beings over the centuries. His rotten mind or brain is the repository of all that is nasty and despicable that decent human beings had shamefully chucked out, but eagerly absorbed and assimilated by this white supremacist and his cabal.

One does not need to dig deep into the history to find out his colour, the short 10 minutes briefing that he gave on May 29, 2020 at the White House lawn would expose his true colour. Of course, one may bring out other associated issues that he gorged out previously to put the spectrum of his colour, but I will concentrate here on his recent briefing.

When the White House announced that the president would give a briefing on a wide range of topical issues, the American radio, television and newspaper journalists as well as major world media journalists were present at the venue. After more than 50 minutes delay (no apology offered), the president arrived at the podium surrounded by his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, who stood in military attention next to him and a few other body guards surrounded him. It looked like a mafia godfather appearing in public with his security guards around him with fingers on the triggers.

The president concentrated exclusively on China bashing and dishing out lies and innuendoes on China. The gist of his speech was this: China produced this coronavirus (Covid-19) streak in Wuhan and then exported that to America and Europe (to draw Europe into his fold). To prove the credibility of his claim, he asked rhetorically why then there were no coronavirus cases in other cities and towns in China and only in America and Europe? He implied that infected Chinese people were then sent to America and Europe to spread the disease.

The idiocy of the argument is that how could China send their citizens (with coronavirus infection) without American connivance? Didn’t America give those supposedly infected Chinese nationals the visas after medical tests? With visa records for the months of January, February and March 2020, America could easily find out the individuals, the places they visited and how the virus had spread, rather than making imbecile and unsubstantiated claim of China’s export of this disease.

It may be mentioned that Mike Pompeo had been spreading this lie from the end of April that there was “a significant amount of evidence” that the coronavirus had emerged from a Chinese laboratory, but he never disclosed what that evidence was. The US intelligence agencies concluded and reported that it was not a man-made virus. A German spy agency (BND) casts doubt on the American accusation that the virus, COVID-19, originated in a Chinese laboratory. In fact, the German intelligence report prepared for the German Defence Minister, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, concluded that the U.S. accusations were a deliberate attempt to divert public attention away from President Donald Trump’s “own failures”. Prof. Tasuku Honjo, Japanese Nobel Laureate in 2018 in Medicine or Physiology, had categorically refuted the false claim that had been circulating in the social media that he said that “Covid-19 is man-made and not natural”. Honjo said, “In the wake of the pain, economic loss and unprecedented global suffering caused by Covid-19 pandemic, I am greatly saddened that my name and that of Tokyo University have been used to spread false accusations and mis-information”. The five nations’ joint spy agency representing US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand would not support Pompeo’s claim.

Even if we assume that China did produce the virus, couldn’t white Americans carry the virus back to America? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of white Americans working in Wuhan province on various collaborative projects or on outsourced American companies. Of course, there are hundreds of thousands of Chinese-origin Americans who may go back and forth between America and China. But they are Americans. The racist president Donald Trump may deny that and call them Chinese, but he is blatantly wrong. He asked a Chinese American reporter working for the CNN in America to ask the question ‘why so many Americans are dying now?’ to the Chinese government, which is blatantly a racist comment.

Donald Trump raised the issue of why there were no cases in China, apart from Wuhan. His knowledge base and information feedback are very poor. There were cases in Beijing and in other cities. But what China did immediately after the identification of the virus was to lockdown the whole city of Wuhan, a city of more than 10 million people, completely. The western press (including American’s) started saying that the measure was excessive and, in any case, it was only possible because China was an autocratic state; in a democratic state it would not be possible. However, China contained the virus, but in democratic America (!) with Donald Trump as the president, people are dying in droves.

Donald Trump did not take any measure to contain the virus from January until the middle of March, but was bragging that America was well prepared to tackle the virus. He was advising people in tweets that they should take it as flu. When people started dying in New York underground carriages from Covid-19, he blamed the NY Mayor for not taking measures in time!

This is the president who was blaming China for this virus, when his own country was in flames. Race riots were raging for four nights (against the killing of an unarmed Afro-American man by a white police officer) in Minneapolis and in all other big cities when he made that statement; but he said not a single word to address those aggrieved rioters. On the other hand, three days ago (6th day of unrest), he tweeted that ‘when the looting starts, the shooting begins’ and that inflamed the anger of the protesters even more. Now, the riot has spread to more than 70 cities and towns in America, curfew had been imposed and the National Guards had been called in to quell the race riots. The country is in flames, but the racist president wants to punish the Afro-Americans with the ‘severest weapon’. On last Friday night, the rioters came round the White House to show their anger, started burning cars and mayhem followed. The security police had to take the president to the underground bunker of the white house for his security. From the bunker, he possibly wanted to deploy Army in the streets of America! So far is his jingoism!

In matters of foreign policy, this president is an abject failure. He had torn up the nuclear deal with Iran that took years of patient and delicate negotiations between the 5+1 states (including America) and Iran. The deal was going through nicely to completion until this man came along and threw the whole thing into fire.

This man denies global warming and claims that climate change is a fictious thing.  He has withdrawn America from Paris Climate Agreement. In fact, immediately after becoming president he restarted the coal fired stations in America spewing millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. He negated the efforts of scores of nations cutting down the greenhouse gas emission. He is in effect a saboteur and enemy of the people.

Only a few days ago, he terminated all associations with the World Health Organisation (WHO) on the egregious claim that WHO collaborated with China on the Covid-19 pandemic. Almost all the nations on earth wanted to go through the raging pandemic now and control it and then carryout an investigation on WHO activities, but this president would have none of it and throw the spanner into the ring.

Altogether, this is the man who is damaging not only the earth and humanity immeasurably, but also America itself inexorably. This man came to power with the banner proclaiming “America first, America first”. At the end of his term of presidency at the end of this year, America may well find itself to be the nation which had been most severely damaged economically, socially and politically more than any other nation by this man. This man is on record of brandishing Mexicans as “murderers and rapists” and calling Muslims the terrorists. All of these character traits show the true colour of this vile narcissistic racist xenophobic megalomaniac president.

–             Dr A Rahman is an author and a columnist.