Crimes and Misdemeanors

To follow or not to follow

The latest clatter over Woody Allen receiving the Lifetime Achievement from the Golden Globes and public reaction of children from his ex-partner, Mia farrow prompted me to examine my reaction to such allegations and feelings toward artists(with similar past).Needless to say there are plenty of names in the box. Should we then abandon all of it all together? I also happened to have come across two well-written articles on the same subject recently where the writers have respectively written for and against endorsing such artists in articles titled "Why its important to keep reading books by people even if they're monsters" and 'No, I wont read your book if I think you are a monster" .(ON the BookRiot website)

What needs to be mentioned first is that I did not find it difficult to reject Roman Polanski's work once I came to know of his conviction as a rapist. On the other hand, I found it rather a 'difficult' question to answer, when the name Woody Allen surfaced in a similar fashion. Decidedly, I am an ardent fan of Allen's and I never really cared too much for Polanski's works. So the definition of morality was really only questioned when it was concerning something I deeply cared for. It was only then I could recognize how hard it is to label something "right" or "wrong".

Now that the disclaimer has been done with, there are several questions (and possibly more but beyond the scope of this article) that need to be addressed; the definition of morality and rigidity of the definition, how doers of immoral/wrong acts ought to be dealt with and finally what of their work.

What must be stressed in connection to the definition of right and moral, is that it is heavily dependent on context. What is right and accepted in Sudan, may seem morbid to a South Asian who in turn may be labeled outdated by a North American. What was wrong in 1970s is an accepted everyday practice now.  Customs, culture and law are all time and place dependent variables and even expecting that everything will conform to one unifying framework is but a daydream. This does not mean everything can be let go of on the grounds of relativity because that would amount to chaos and unruliness that will destroy the very core of humanity.

Now to answer the second part of the conundrum, for people who are alleged to have committed heinous acts, acts that are labelled wrong and criminal, justice should take its course. Should Woody Allen or Michael Jackson or any regular Joe be convicted of a crime, no matter how big a fan I am, I am not going to protest and ask them to be freed on grounds that they may produce skilled works of art.

Here another significant question may rise - why does it matter so much when Woody Allen commits a crime and not nearly as much when similar acts are committed everyday by regular people,people who are not celebrities? Does it mean we discriminate against criminals based on their contribution to society? I suppose we do and rightfully so. Curtailing a particularly productive person's work life, is significantly more troublesome not only for the enduring influence it already has but also for the possibilities it holds for shaping society in near future.

The way one perceives the work of people with questionable past though,should not be tainted by their crimes or personal lives. There are several reasons for this. The most important one being, a work of art does not lose its value, its impact and its importance based on who the artist is. My appreciation of Wagner has nothing to do with his being an (alleged) anti-semite.

This can be more clearly explained if we forgo the arts, with something more solid, for example the sciences. Could the world have ignored Newton's Law of Gravity had he been found of a criminal offense? Surely not. Even if he was in jail, Physics could not have gone on to help the world evolve that exists today without it. As a matter of fact Sir Newton was accused of many petty acts(such as trying to erase the name AND face of Robert Hook) which we have blissfully ignored as classrooms remembered and were made to deal with his contributions to mankind.

As Ms Hall, the writer of the article I previously mentioned, has rightly pointed out, one does not read a book because one agrees with the writer completely but because it challenges the reader's worldview, philosophy and makes the reader stretch their minds to ways they may not have done before. To this end, Mr Allen's works have endlessly raised questions about human behavior, psychology, about heartbreaks and about heartaches and have been self deprecating without losing dignity and been a source of great joy and sheer amusement for this writer and her doubtful mind.

(Written in 2015)

Of hate and freedom (of speech)

Social scientist Svensseon finds two distinct social responses to globalization: “…On the one hand is the 'fundamentalist' religious claim to legitimacy for the local tradition over and above the global, and on the other hand there is the 'liberal' religious endorsement of the global, resulting in ecumenical, flexible and tolerant approach.” Samuel Huntington’s controversial Clash of civilization theory proposed that people’s cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post cold-war era as he wrote (1993), “It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural.” Huntington (1997, 127-130) however recognizes that, through strengthened ethno-religious identities and revival of traditional cultures the ‘clash’ will not stay between the state and international organizations but rather will be in the micro level between publics as they become more religious and cultural.


Islamic revolution in Iran, the rise of the Solidarity movement in Poland, the role of Catholicism in the Sandinista revolution and the rise of liberation theology in Latin America, and the Protestant Evangelical force in American politics are some of the more prominent religious movements that have led the worldwide religious revivalism in the face of globalization and a feeling of loss of identity. While promoting, universal standards, products and values, it provokes particularist reaction along the lines of nationality, ethnicity, religiosity, particularly against western cultural influences. I do not want to go into the details of the flaw in the theory but as Dr Amartya Sen has pointed this sort of stereotypical singularity of human identity not only curtails our means to reaching our true potential as humans but also makes the world more “flammable”.

Even as great thinkers such as Marx, Weber or John Stuart Mills predicted that with technological advancement and cultural openness, religiosity will decline – surely events such as the ones taking place in present day Bangladesh indicates the opposite. Or if we are to take their theories to be correct, perhaps we are yet to reach that threshold of technological and educational advancement when religion takes a back seat as it has done in many western countries. In fact, a global religiosity poll published by Gallup indicates Bangladesh among top countries with more than 99 per cent of population identifying themselves as religion being important in their lives. Interestingly other top ranking countries are also at the low end of human development.

We need to recognize the Islamic revivalism that took place in Bangladesh in front of our very eyes over the past 40 years. During this period, the number of mainstream primary schools has doubled but the number of Dakhil Madrasas (religious schools) has increased eight times. Over the same time, enrolments in primary schools have doubled but those in Dakhil Madrasas increased thirteen times; per head public expenditure on students of the government middle class educational institutions is Tk. 3,000 as opposed to Tk.5,000 in Madrasa sector.( Barkat 2013).  Not just these revealing statistics, the overall change in lifestyle due to hyper-globalization is more than noticeable in mega city Dhaka too.

Now comes the delicate matter of ‘freedom of speech’. Where is the line to be drawn when freely expressing one’s views? Surely we recognize if I, for example start defiling my friend’s father irrespective of the fact whether she is present or not, once the message gets to her she will be upset. It could also happen that it will enrage her so much that the next time she meets me she wants to hit me with something hard. This writer firmly believes the same sentiment would prevail for any sentiments with which one personally identifies. A person can choose to identify herself through a number of identities- political, social, cultural, ethnic or religious, where one or two may be dominant than others. If one chooses to tarnish any one of these identities or associated symbols with it, it is likely he will get offended and in the worst case scenario even violent.

Examples of religious anguish turning to mayhem is abundant in history – from the Spanish inquisition to the Klu Klux Klan in the mid 20th century in the USA to the 2011 bombing in Oslo that killed some 90 odd people or the near to our home instances such as the Saffron terror incidents in India being propagated by Hindu Nationalist feelings. All of the examples mentioned here cite grievance caused by people of alternate faith/religion as motivation for their violent acts against these people. The point being it does not only happen in Bangladesh or Muslim majority countries.

Then, one may speak of tolerance. But tolerance comes with education and with wide exposure to the many differences present throughout global history and culture. There was a time when Bangali Muslim girls were not allowed education. Begum Rokeya pioneered a movement and led the society to a better place. But not by asking the girls to take of their burqas or defying the Purda. She complied with all norms of society possibly with all her trust in Napoleon’s famous saying. Had she not been there perhaps Bangladesh would be 500 years backwards now. Similarly, we cannot say had she not taken this particular approach the same would not have happened.

The point is change does not come overnight and verbal aggression is certainly not the way to achieve social change. The notion that people who cannot take criticism of their faith are intolerant is an unjust conclusion and the so-called progressive people who can see through the flaw of (religious) faith must imbibe the notion of patience and tolerance that they so eagerly wait for others to manifest.

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.

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.