Aug 7, 2013

Time to break the stigma of studying Social Sciences

In 1897, French philosopher Emile Durkheim published Suicide which was to be one of his most famous works. In it he showed that marriage has a preservative effect against suicide which benefits only men. Recent research strongly suggests that most success stories, from Facebook to Shakespeare, are accidental products of randomness and cumulative advantage.


Both of these information mentioned above are results of studies that are part of the wide discipline of Social Sciences. Social Science concerns itself with society and the relationships of individuals within a society.Social studies education helps explain the world in which we live in. It denotes the limits of human intuition and thus underlines the need to investigate human affairs in a scientific manner.

And yet it is difficult to find a high school student wishing to become a political scientist or musicologist. It is a trait that is simply not encouraged in Bangladesh. When asked, most will vie for a medical or engineering degree, if not law. This definitely roots in the social conditioning, which in turn, is rooted in financial benefits. Given the economic status of the middle class and new entrants in this particular social stratum, after the liberation war, it was only expected for parents to want a monetarily secured future for their children. This in turn has also resulted in lack of entrepreneurial aspirations in the people but that is beyond the scope of this write-up.

Before seceding from Pakistan, Bangladesh had a total of 6 public universities in the country. Up to 2010 six universities funded by the University Grant Commission officially undertook social science research.  Other than these, in 1976 Bangladesh Social Science Research Council (BSSRC) was established to understand socio-economic conditions, for shaping and developing policies and their evaluation, promoting and developing social science research, and for coordinating the activities and programmes of the institutions doing social science research. Besides, a few autonomous institutions have been set up by the government and under private ownership, to conduct policy-oriented research on development economics, demography, international relations and other social sciences related to national development and social welfare planning.

Despite these institutes, the standard of social science research has been anything but substandard in the country. And the primary reason may yet be financial: “.. crux of the problem is that the best talent to jobs in education sector cannot be always ensured due to real pay and facilities compared to civil services and private sector opportunities.”(Monem 2010) This implies that the best minds often are not even part of higher education system as a profession due to low wages.With the exception of Economics, wages in the other disciplines have consistently been low. The demand for higher education in disciplines like history and political science is declining throughout the region, due to their limited career opportunities.

This fear is repeated in the 2007 Indian Council of Social Science Research Report (p. 20) that observes that while the scale and range of social science research has expanded since independence, it has failed to provide expected impact due to the nature, scope and most importantly quality of research to better understand the socioeconomic processes. As a result, public policy domain has not been able to extract benefit from the research. All in all there is a feeling that the resources spent for research have not been commensurate. Although aimed at India, the above is also true for Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan as the 2010 World Social Sciences report published by UNESCO concludes.

It is revealed that in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, social scientists merely teach and do not undertake any research due to lack of proper funding from government. These three countries also do not label the study of social sciences with high social value. The number of articles published from the region is compared in the following table as well as the highest contributor to social science research in the region, India, is compared with the rest of the world.






All over the world graduate schools are the hub of research related activities, be it in the sciences, engineering or humanities discipline. Research activity and publication in peer-reviewed journals is mandatory for faculty members to progress or sometimes even to remain in the profession of teaching. In Bangladesh this trait is strangely missing. A frustrated editor of a Sociology Journal mentions this in a recent editorial: “…There is very little need to read. To go ahead in life and career at the universities, either as a student or even as a faculty member, reading or doing research is no longer a requirement. Students pass their exams reading hand written notes handed down through the generations or poorly compiled notebooks. Faculty members do not need to read for the simple reason that they are never challenged in the classroom. Also, there are other and more assured avenues of getting promoted.”(Nazrul Islam, Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology July 2013)

Another important characteristic of the research done in the field is that it is often initiated, if not also funded, by NGOs and international donor agencies. The initiatives are often driven by specific agenda of that agency in the region and are part of bigger global politics. Hence the outcome is hardly a true reflection of society nor does it supply us with dependable literature to understand our social crises to the fullest.

However the problem is not financial only. It is also in the mindset of the people as stated in the beginning of the article. Of course the system is such that students with top scores may only enter the study of the sciences. But never in the long twelve year of schooling are the students motivated, either by their parents or teachers, to take up studying subjects from the humanities branch. This results not only in getting students who had nothing better to choose from to study philosophy or history but also a genuine lack of respect for the disciplines.

The problem with the lack of genuine interest in social studies have reached such a point in Bangladesh that even many reputed universities cannot find appropriate faculty to teach their classes. In the experience of this very writer it was found that a civil engineer by profession was teaching Sociology classes in a well reputed private university, teachers with environmental science background were given classes of rural development to teach. A class full of pupils who are not genuinely interested in the subject matter being taught by a teacher who evidently has no clear idea about the topic cannot but produce something spectacular.

The immense importance of study of the society, its traits, social classes, social values and associated philosophical ideas must be clear to all sane Bangladeshis by now. The term “krantikal” or transitory period has never had as much weight for Bangladesh as it has in the past year. In this period, the people of the country have been subject to such stipulations as to choosing nationality over religion, the status of religion in an individual’s life, of tolerance, individualism and of political philosophy. Sadly though, if one turned to look up some literature to make sense of it all, one would come back with next to nothing in the context of Bangladesh.

Social Science is rooted in the moral philosophy of the time. It is only likely that an encouraging environment to study philosophy, history, sociology and other similar subjects might have provided us with a better understanding of current society. Bangladesh today stands on a lot of hypothesis drawn up on tea table conversations but not any solid scientific work about the shape and path that society has taken. At this time, specific and particular policy agenda needs to be pushed ahead by the remaining educationists to fill this knowledge gap and leave adequate directions for society to evolve upon.

Jul 21, 2013

A Plausible Solution

Banning of Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh was added to the accumulated list of demands from Shahbagh and popular social media a few months back. It has generated renewed interest after the International Crime Tribunal commented on the possibility of trying Jamaat as a party for committing war crimes. In light of this, 20 imminent members of civil society again demanded the banning of the party ( Dhaka Tribune, July 21 2013). However, it is time to also recognize that banning a political party is entirely against the notion of democracy that has been established in Bangladesh through much turmoil. Is not democracy by its definition, supposed to be the platform whereupon anyone and everyone in the state can contest with their views and beliefs for public support with broader welfare as the ultimate goal?

I oppose the call for banning Jamaat not simply because it poses structural problems, but for other reasons, and the underlying fear that the ban will prove useless in the long run. For one, Jamaat will still have the option of organizing another political party under another name. If it is a clause in their constitution that will enable the judiciary in banning them, what is to stop them from omitting that clause or simply re-phrasing it to legitimize the party? After all, we have already seen them changing wordings of their party charter when “establishing the rule of Islam in the country through organized efforts,” was replaced by “establishing a society based on justice and equality through the democratic process in Bangladesh and to get the contentment of Allah, the Benevolent,” last December when faced with Election Commission threatening to cancel the party’s registration. (The Daily Independent, Dec 4 2012)
If the banning is due to the fact that Jamaat leaders are convicted or soon to be convicted war criminals, it still does not justify the banning of a party of a few thousand members (including its student wings), all of who surely cannot be convicted of these crimes. But most importantly of all, banning them could result in the dispersion of its members among the other major parties and thus provide a renewed opportunity to participate in national politics while maintaining their current ideologies. It is rather recommended and far less dangerous to let people express their views in public and under the banner of an organized institution giving the electorate a better chance of knowing the parties vying for their support.

There is also no denying that it is of utmost importance to ensure Jamaat does not get to hold office ever in the same country that their leaders have so violently conspired against. This holds true for anyone else from any other parties with similar diction. Besides this, in my personal view, the polarization of society and spreading religious extremism should be reason enough to not support Jamaat. The recent tirade over religious beliefs and the significant demonstration of intolerance after the brutal murders do not paint a rosy picture of the current state of our society. However, if anyone decides to vote for them come election time, a democracy should guarantee them the right to do so.


What then is the solution? In my view, it has a simple answer that will be difficult to realize. The only democratic way is to boycott the party altogether. And I do not just mean a boycott by the people. The boycott I propose should rather come from all the other major parties. At the end of the day, the two major parties both claim to have the good of the people in their hearts. Such a party should distance themselves ideologically, philosophically, and politically from anyone who would blatantly spread the seed of intolerance and may hamper the country’s development process in the long run. They should at the same time take it up as a part of their agenda to inform the mass electorate about the impending harm that might be caused by these forces. Sadly though, our two major parties have time and again sided with parties and individuals who will ensure they are the majority seat-winners in elections. The BNP-Jamaat or Awami League–Jatiya Party coalition all stands as proof to this claim.

If all major parties can commit to their ideologies and in doing so even welcome the chances of defeat in elections as opposed to being in power through a coalition with Jamaat and other questionable forces, it may be possible to root out these negative elements from having direct influence over our national life. It is high time for political parties to consider such long term plans in their manifestos than the short term ones based simply on greed for power.


Apr 8, 2013

Bangldesh is not ready for democracy

Its apparent mostly because:

1) It has failed to result in anything substantially good (a society, country, populace)
2) By its very definition it allows the outnumbering of an educated understanding populace by the uneducated
3) It legitimizes for evil to run for government.(If we want to forget the popular example of Hitler's rise to power ,in our case, the saying goes “vote for lesser of the evils". I am unwilling to knowingly do that as long as they are evil in any sense)

But I will elaborate further.

Governments have been ever alternating since the inception of “democracy” in the 90s, perhaps standing to prove that none of the major alliances/parties have been successful enough in governing to get themselves re-elected. In other words, something(s) goes (possibly horribly) wrong somewhere and the people opt for the alternative option.Every regime has seen a more turbulent transition period than the previous , marked by mass protests, a state of lawlessness and most importantly unexpected financial loss to individuals. This could be direct or indirect loss of finances,  but the primary motivator in deciding votes remains money. Ours is a country where crisis stemming from identity or violence is yet to lead the people to revolt or react. Financial grievances being the sole motivator of choosing candidates, ultimately loses the wider objective of achieving development and good governance in the long term and this leads me to conclude the electorate is not yet ready for democracy.




To elaborate further on this point, in a country where 76 % of the people do not earn 2 dollars a day (World Bank 2010),it is absolutely possible that many of this huge number of people will vote in exchange for one hundred taka. There is a number of legitimate works done by national and international organizations observing the seventh, eighth and ninth elections in Bangladesh that name “vote-buying” as a rampant occurrence of violation of the official code of conduct. UNDP publishes:”The corrupting influence of money on politics is yet another lesson of 2006-2007…Vote buying and influence peddling were said to be rampant, and politics began to merge with corruption and criminality.” Another interesting and related fact, published in a research collaboration between CMI Norway and CPD Dhaka, revealed that the number of businessmen in politics was less than 30% in the 1970s while the percentage has jumped to a staggering 56% in 2012[1].

Nor is it practical to trust a government that is elected by an electorate that is primarily uneducated (I did not say illiterate). Elitist as it may sound, it is not possible for the common villager to think beyond his immediate personal benefits let alone foresee long term solutions for his locality while voting. (I am aware of one Aroj Ali Matbor. But I know of only one such person from a population of 140 million). Which brings me to my next point.

It is more important to recognize that democracy is likely to emerge and survive only when certain social and cultural conditions are in place. These social and cultural values are instilled in the people and developed through the process of modernization and industrialization. It is in fact believed that during early industrialization, authoritarian states are just as likely to attain high rates of economic growth as are democracies. It is this when a certain threshold of economic development is reached, there comes a change in people’s behavior and expectations in that an educated mass is created which believes in free thinking and participating in governance of their state or society. Sadly, any other development indicator will tell us how far off we are from being a free thinking liberated society that is ready to take part in decisions that will affect our lives. 


Now, the idea of reforming political parties (with business people being banned from politics and accountability and transparency being instilled) and all that is already there. As Inkles (1991) correctly points out: “There can be no meaningful democracy at the national level without a system of stable, responsive and responsible political parties.” A separate discussion may be pursued on the proposition of reform of political parties for Bangladesh as these have only worked diligently as a mean to spreading patrimonial* administration . Another alternative that comes to mind is that of having a selected electorate who have a certain pre-determined amount of education, income and may provide exhibition of their social/scholarly work to be approved by the EC or a similar body until the time comes when that basic needs of majority of the population are fulfilled (food, education, health services for 100% of the people). Other recommendations such as reform of party constitution etc. and an independent justice system of course stand.

But somewhere in the very definition of government or rulers the word selfless needs to be instilled. And now that all this has started to sound a bit dreamy, I will paraphrase Plato in defining rulers in a way that has them possess the virtue of wisdom. Plato’s republic is to be ruled by people who are rigorously trained for the purpose of ruling and is over greed and all that humanly flaws. It may sound impractical but it does at the end of it contain all the right elements that a government, if not one person, should possess.

The fact that USA and some other countries in the West are frantic to promote democracy worldwide should not be proof enough for it to be the best option. Nor should it be the sentiment that everyone should have a say in how their life is being governed. Before going too far it must be remembered that most of the countries in the west started out as non-democracies and gradually moved into becoming democracies.


*Patrimonialism - form of governance in which all power flows directly from the leader.

[1] http://www.cmi.no/publications/file/4423-parliament-of-bangladesh-boycotts-business.pdf