The farce goes on!
Politics in Bangladesh may be lacking in many aspects, but one thing it has no dearth of is theatrics. In other words, we know how to put on a good show. Thus, at a crucial political moment, when the whole country is turned upside down, when the people are burning on the streets and the economy is swiftly and surely tumbling, when the futures of 14 lakh examinees are in the balance, what do we do? No, we don't initiate dialogues or seek a reasonable resolution to an unsustainable situation. No, we sneak into the night and cut off power supply to Khaleda's office for 19 hours, disconnect cable and internet, and sever land and cell phone connections apparently to mount pressure on the BNP chief. Digital retaliation for a digital Bangladesh! Forget the Real Housewives of New Jersey, this is the stuff of reality TV.
Forgive me for being facetious at an hour when things are anything but funny. And yet, here we are, our focus, not on the many, many serious issues at hand, but on this circus that makes no political or even philosophical sense. At a time when resentment against Khaleda's irrational and stubborn stance of an indefinite blockade is steadily growing, particularly at her decision to impose a 72-hour hartal as the examinees and their parents plead for a postponement of her vicious programme, what does the government's latest move do, if not garner sympathy for Khaleda and further criminalise AL? Does it not trivialise the severity of the current situation? The 'victimisation' of Khaleda, on live TV amidst much ado, can only favour a wounded BNP. And she is only too happy to play the part of the bleeding Begum.
Much will be said, in talk shows, editorials and addas, about how the 'digital blockade' (even if temporary) was unconstitutional, illegal and undemocratic, and rightly so. If the government wanted to take legal action against the BNP chairperson for the violence inflicted against civilians, it would've been a different issue and a different debate. But what legal authority is there for the suspension of public services and utilities, that too, without any justification, with the aid of our law enforcers at the dead of night? Furthermore, the suspension of mobile services within a half kilometer radius of the BNP chief's office, affecting around 10,000 people living in Gulshan-2, can hardly be explained, or defended, unless we readily accept the AL's fluid interpretation of democracy. Then again, if we are to believe Shipping Minister Shajahan Khan, it was the employees affected by the blockade who snapped the power lines, not the government. Maybe the mobile and internet lines, too, were suspended by angry operators as a sign of protest for BNP's programmes, Mr. Minister, and not by BTRC's orders? This harassment, though arguably done in 'style,' sets an unpleasant precedent in which the government can violate laws, regulations and norms of decency for its amusement.
Meanwhile, Khaleda has declared that the temporary suspension of power and communications was the “worst kind of cruelty,” one, apparently, that is “beyond the imagination in a civilised society.” Not to downplay your 'tragedy,' Madam Opposition, but will you kindly tell us what degree of cruelty themurders of civilians, including children, in the name of a political programme constitutes? Maybe the heart-wrenching wailing of parents and spouses, who lost their loved ones far too soon, cannot breach the air-conditioned and digitalised bastion of your Gulshan office, but for those of us who cannot just turn down the volume on TV when the news of more death come up, the definition of 'cruelty' is a little more cruel.
It's safe to say, however, that it's not just the opposition supporters but many others who would endorse the call for a more 'civilised' government. For one thing, our ministers need to act with the dignity that their offices command, instead of treating the political arena like a children's tag-game, only more lethal. Threats that food supply to Khaleda's Gulshan office will be cut off or character attacks cannot be acceptable forms of political dialogue/debate.
For another thing, and more importantly, the government needs to eschew its increasingly authoritarian stances vis-à-vis the opposition and the infringement of civil and political rights in the name of ensuring law and order. In less than a month, there have been at least 10 'cross-fires' and extra-judicial deaths of suspects, and law enforcers have been given unprecedented powers to carry out their so-called counter-terrorism drives. The ongoing violence must be stopped, no doubt, but what means we take to do so will have very telling implications for the kind of future we can (be allowed to) envision for ourselves.
Now that the 'digital blockade' was yesterday's news cycle, where does it leave us, the people, on whose behest, apparently, this epic battle on Democracy is taking place. Caught between terrorism and state terrorism, between deaths of civilians on one hand and cross-fires of suspects, on another, between a writhing, wounded economy and rapidly shrinking democratic spaces, we, the people, have been reduced (or have reduced ourselves) to mere spectators in this reality show where our politicians put their worst foot forward and compete unabashedly for the title of 'who's causing the most damage to the country's present and future.' We may yell for dialogues all we want, but what we're going to get, it seems, is a fist fight, and only time can tell who'll throw the last punch.
The writer is a journalist and activist.
Comments