Photo: Amirul Rajiv

Beyond victory

Shahid Alam
..........................................................
Today is the day when the dream of a nation to have a sovereign independent nation-state of its own was realized thirty nine years ago. Today is Victory Day. Today symbolizes to perfection Winston Churchill's immortal words uttered in another context, at another time, but here applied in relation to Bangladesh and its struggle for independence: “Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.” Indeed, if victory had not been attained, the very survival of the Bengali nation would have been at stake; not in the sense of total physical extermination, because that would have been realistically impossible, but in the sense of losing its identity through the compromising of its culture and traditions. And, without the essence of its Bengali identity, it would have been, in a way, tantamount to having become physically extinct.

That is the significance of Victory Day from the perspective of what went on between 25 March and 16 December 1971. But there is an even greater impact in the aftermath of the day when Pakistan ceremonially surrendered. We will be talking more on this aspect, but let us dwell a bit on the topic of observing anniversaries. Anniversaries in small doses, observed for momentous events and personalities in the nation's history, with either joyous or sorrowful connotation, enhance the dignity of these occasions and the important persons. Too many, and especially on frivolous grounds, degrade them. Anniversaries offer the opportunity to take time out for a day in our lives to take stock and reflect on the significance of the day. They can represent a time for national mourning, a time for respecting and commemorating people who have given their lives so that a nation can live, or they can represent a time for rejoicing. They cannot, and should not, be trivialized.

Victory Day is one of those special anniversaries that combine a shared emotion of both joy and sorrow. Sorrow for those who sacrificed the present for the joy of those who survived, for those who are there now, and for those who are yet to come to share in the joy. This, and other days of commemoration, can also provide crucial opportunities for coalescing as a nation, and reinforce a country's united sense of pride and destiny. At this point it behooves us to go back to what I had indicated a bit earlier I would do. I had stated that the happenings following victory would have greater significance for the nation than the victory phenomenon itself. After all, if freedom and independence are hard to attain, the expected windfalls from independence are even harder to pull off, especially that of achieving prosperity for the citizenry, and safeguarding the integrity of the country. And, among the most urgent imperatives for attaining these objectives would be to have a nation united behind a feeling of pride and shared destiny. Sadly, this prime requirement has become a chimera over the last several years as the nation has divided against itself over solidly entrenched fault lines of mostly petty, infantile, and inane matters.

Unless the widening chasm is narrowed down, and ultimately, hopefully, closed, this nation will forfeit the fruits of victory, not in the sense of reversing the event and becoming again a colony-in-all-but-name (although its virtual variation cannot be totally ruled out), but in the vital sense of prospering as a nation united in tackling critical issues that the country comes across. Papering over the abhorrent crack will simply not do; efforts must be made to at least reduce it to a minimum. That will require sagacious political leadership that is imbibed with a mindset for the norms and spirit of liberal democracy (including that of tolerance of opposing viewpoints), an ingredient that is sadly, and gravely, lacking across the length and breadth of the professional political spectrum. Ah, but exactly how deep is the number of dedicated politicians who are professionals, not in the narrow sense of making politics their vocation, but in the more significant sense of making it a lifetime quest to serve the nation? Take a look around, and, if you go back in time and check the credentials of the politicians down the years, or, better still, if you have been a keen observer over time of the political system in Bangladesh, I dare say you will have noted the gradual, but certain, degradation in the quality of legislators, elected executives, and other political activists.

And, surely, you cannot but have noticed the gradual proliferation of the one-time legislator, in it for making a quick buck for him/herself and family and future progeny, and then disappearing into oblivion. It is hardly likely for one to find the mindset for the norms and spirit of liberal democracy ingrained in a good number of them. Not surprisingly, they practice virulent political partisanship in order to impress the ones to make an impact on of their zealous party devotion for the brief period they are in the game of multifarious benefiting from politics. The caveat has to be entered at this point that not all the short-termers indulge in venomous political partisanship, or that all the long-time politicos are above indulging in such dysfunctional politics, but I do not believe that many will disagree that spiteful political partisanship exists in the country, and is contributing simultaneously to the hindering of developing a healthy democratic system, and, as a corollary, to good governance, a major determinant in retarding the economic and political development of the country.

The most worrying aspect of dysfunctional politics is that it has spread to the major governmental institutions of the country. As a result, the political party or the individuals in power or influential positions get precedence over the nation and its interests, even when the situation cries out for a united national front. Inevitably, we are burdened with the mirror imaging of each other of the two major political parties (and their respective small baggage) when they are (alternatively, thus far, for the last twenty years) in state power. And, the imaging seems to get worse with each incoming administration. This surely cannot be the legacy of victory, the aim of which was primarily to better the lot of the citizenry through efficient institutional services from the government.

As it is, private and nongovernmental efforts have succeeded in delivering in specific sectors of the economy and human development, but, when considered in the context of the overall development of the country, they are not enough, not by a long shot, until and unless they are buttressed and strengthened by a vigorous, focused, and positively productive political government. Victory signifies not turning Bangladesh into “Golden Bengal” in the literal sense, but into a country that, with all its physical and resource limitations, keeps its citizens, first and foremost, reasonably happy with their respective lot in life. It certainly does not mean that all will be well off; not even Luxembourg with its GDP (nominal) per capita of US $105, 918 (IMF estimation) and $105,350 (World Bank calculation), and GDP (PPP) per capita of $78,409 (IMF) and $84,003 (WB), both sets of figures being the highest in the world in 2009, and other high performance indicators, will be able to claim that distinction for its citizenry. But its citizen must be generally contented with their lot, and not have a huge disparity in income level between the small segment at the top and the huge number at, or below, the poverty level. And, irrespective of their economic station, all need to be assured of a sense of security in their lives, meaning that the overall law and order situation has to be at least satisfactory.

While we rejoice over the momentous occasion of Victory Day, we also lament on how much better we could be, or how much more we could have achieved in different aspects of our political, economic, and social life, if only we could have held on to the principles over which the Liberation War was fought and won, and then to have carried them forward with vision and determination, all the while adjusting with the needs of the time, especially keeping in mind the special prospects and attendant problems accompanying globalization, free market economy, and information technology. When Bangladesh attained its real freedom and independence on 16 December 1971, the world was bipolar, divided between two contending ideologies and economic and political systems, and information technology was a long time into making its limited, and then, pervasive appearance. Come to think of it, all those born the first year after Victory Day are closing in on 40. Bangladesh has attained a reasonably venerable age as a nation-state. Now it has to come of age as a proud and reasonably prosperous nation-state.

............................................................
Dr. Shahid Alam is Head, Media and Communication, Independent University, Bangladesh.