The Role of Narrative

Photo: Prito Reza

The unfolding of recent political events is now subject to endless interpretations of what happened and theories on why it happened. We live in a particular time and society where there is no common reality, but rather divergent realities where the history as one person remembers it bears no resemblance to how another does. To take an interesting case in point, consider that for many the sighting of a man on the moon goes not only against their understanding of science but also of their understanding of Islam, and yet for others this is an event that is believable as actually having happened only a month ago. Indeed one can find testimonies of people who will swear to its happening. The point though is that while divergent realities is not itself a new phenomenon as far as Bangladesh is concerned, it is now a phenomenon of concern as more and more lives and livelihoods are destroyed as a result of it.

1971
“If the facts conflict with a theory, either the theory must be changed or the facts.” --- Baruch Spinoza
To begin, we already live in a nation where there is no central agreement on how the nation itself came about. What actually took place in 1971 and what the roles of different high-profile figures were during that time is still hotly contested by politicians and academics alike. There is so much controversy and so many versions of what took place and who did what, that one is struck by the thought there could be such confusion over a matter that only took place in the 70's! Indeed it seems we know more about matters of the First and Second World Wars then we do about this. What is more striking is the fact that such confusion and controversy could exist despite the generation who lived through the war of 1971 still being alive today. Their presence gives us a great deal of opportunity to get on record what happened and conduct thorough historical research that would put an end to many of the myths surrounding 1971, and yet we do not take this step. Thus we continue to be a nation divided on the narrative of how the nation itself came about.
If this national divide resulted merely in healthy debate it would not be so bad a thing, but as we are seeing this divide is now costing us lives. Shahbagh after all represents the events of 1971 in a way that implicates certain high-profile figures, and this interpretation has led to reactions from those who disagree. What started out as a call for justice has become a cause for violence. And yet, despite the current perpetration of violence and all the previous violence this country has seen rooted in the diversity of narratives of 1971, there is still no effort to reach a consensus about what actually happened through solid historical research. Though the failing is a very particular one for this lack of consensus is not due to a failure of good research -- for there have of course been studies of note on 1971 -- but rather due to the promotion of ideology over truth; the changing of facts to fit theories.
Each of the major political parties in our democracy have their own views of what happened in 1971 and what the roles of prominent figures that belong/belonged to the different political parties were during that time. In creating such narratives one party may overstate the role played by key figures in their own party, while another political party might understate the involvement of key figures from their party. Whatever their commitment to truth, what inevitably results is a version of history that looks upon one's own party and its central figures in a positive light. Thus each political party is able to use the lack of consensus about 1971 by promoting a narrative in their favour. To not do so would be to let other versions of history dominate and thus risk one's own support base. The changing of facts to fit favourable theories is nothing new.

2013
“Facts are always open to dispute, but there can be no dispute regarding what people believe to be the facts and this is what counts.” -- Hasan le Gai Eaton

In the case of the recent court cases, verdicts, demonstrations, violence and killings; while they are at one level a fight over narratives of 1971; they are themselves now subject to multiple narratives. And in the end, it was not the facts that determined the course of the Shahbagh movement but the narratives that people believed to be based on the facts.
One particular change in narrative was the very subtle shift of when Shahbagh turned from being against the interference of politics in the judiciary to being against a man on trial. When the sentence of life was passed instead of death, people felt that justice had not been served. They smelt the usual interference of politics in the judiciary and took a stand against it. At this point Shahbagh was both against the cause, which is to say the interference of politics, and the effect, which is to say the verdict that was passed. Yet as time passed and posters of the hangman's noose appeared and slogans of “fashi” were being shouted, it became clear that Shahbagh had become more a protest that called for the death penalty of one man, rather than a protest against the political influence that had caused this man to escape the death penalty. In other words the focus shifted from the root cause of the problem to a mere symptom of the problem, and so suffering this subtle shift in its narrative Shahbagh had already lost a major hand.
Yet it would suffer a much worse defeat when Shahbagh was repackaged as a politicised movement. While some of us had praised Shahbagh for being different from being a political rally and for being a people's protest. There were sceptics from the start and with the level of media coverage the protest was receiving there was certainly political interest from all sides from the beginning. As politics did its best to creep further and further in, the sceptics who highlighted the political influence in Shahbagh began to seem like they were closer to the truth. And the more people began to believe that Shahbagh had turned political, the more alienated they felt from the movement. What made the difference was the change in narrative. When a people's protest is rebranded in terms of party politics, the people feel excluded in their own protest. They thus abandon the protest, thereby leaving it to fall prey to further political influences. In creating this shift in narrative in the minds of many, Shahbagh once more lost many supporters.
A further shift in narrative took place when Shahbagh was successfully repackaged again by some from being a movement that was against the men on trial to being against their political party, and ultimately against Islam itself. Shahbagh was initially a place of inclusivity and diversity where one could find people from all walks of life regardless of their religion. One found there both the Muslim with beard and cap who prays five times a day and the anti-Islamic blogger. Yet when one such blogger was made to meet his end, what inevitably happened was that the blogs associated with him went from being completely ignored by most to being widely circulated and read. Suddenly he had become the voice of Shahbagh, and as his was an anti-Islamic voice, suddenly it seemed to many that Shahbagh had become an anti-Islamic movement. As such another shift in narrative occurred as the anti-Islamic voice in Shahbagh convinced many to turn away from the movement again.
These are but three ways in which people now perceive Shahbagh: firstly, as a narrow movement that only calls for the death penalty while ignoring bigger issues like the interference of politics in the judiciary; secondly, as a movement that has turned into nothing but another play in party politics; and thirdly, a movement that is backed by strong anti-Islamic sentiments. These three versions of Shahbagh, and the endless other versions all serve to benefit some at the expense of others. Fighting as we still are over the different narratives of 1971, we probably won't cease to fight over the different narratives of Shahbagh either. Yet with the recent rise of violence, it poses us with a problem.
People are always welcome to have their own interpretation of events but now certain interpretations are leading to violent events. When the third of the narratives became true for many, and they believed that Shahbagh was indeed anti-Islamic, they reacted. This reaction has spilled beyond acts of violence against protesters to acts of violence against people of minority religions. Many temples, homes and business belonging to these people now lay in ruin and many lives to have been lost. Too often we have favoured changing facts to fit our theories and narratives. But now as theories and narratives are being constructed on altered facts, and as lives and livelihoods are being destroyed as a result, perhaps it is time that we finally come to agree on the truth.
“Facts are many, but the truth is one.” – Rabindranath Tagore

Tawheed Rahim is a Staff Researcher at the Institute of Educational Development, BRAC University. He is reachable at tawheedrahim @  hotmail.com