'Propagation of ideas makes one an intellectual'

Star Photo

Serajul Islam Choudhury, one of the leading intellectuals of the country, talks with Rifat Munim of The Daily Star about the role of intellectuals in supporting and stimulating causes of national importance both during the liberation war and at the present time.

Rifat Munim (RM): Internationally acclaimed intellectuals like Edward Said and Noam Chomsky have emphasised the role of intellectuals in spearheading social and political movements. Can we say that our martyred intellectuals, who were killed brutally during our liberation war, had done the same thing that Said and Chomsky are now professing?

Serajul Islam Choudhury (SIC): Not exactly. That's because the role of the intellectuals in the subcontinent has been limited compared to their counterparts in Europe. Historically, here the intellectuals developed as higher education spread.

Before 1947, we did not have a group of intellectuals worth mentioning. We had educated persons such as journalists, but we did not have people who would write about politics, society, economics and other essential issues. They were very few. And that was one of the reasons why there was no intellectual preparation behind the conception of Pakistan. The two-nation theory was basically an absurd idea. Pakistan as a state was not viable, its two main parts being separated by more than 1000 miles of hostile territory. Furthermore, Bengalis constituted about 66% of the population. But the ruling class was from Punjab, which controlled everything and constituted the civil and military bureaucracy, and business. This class was also active in politics. So, we Bengalis had very poor intellectual preparation in 1947 and there were not many people knowing what Pakistan would be like, and whether this would bring the emancipation that people had dreamt of.

After 1947, there was the spread of education and people were getting educated. Then they became aware of what was happening all around the world; political and economic thinking was growing. In spite of this growth in economic and political thinking, the intellectuals could not contribute much. But, what they did was to lend support to the growing movement of the Bengalis, which was really based on Bengali nationalism. The intellectuals who were martyred were successful in their own fields. They were well known persons and were sympathetic towards this nationalist movement, and that is the reason why they were identified and killed.

RM: How much had they contributed to make people aware of the discrimination between the two wings of Pakistan?

SIC: The economists had contributed to this. One of the things that they brought to the fore was that Pakistan had two economies rather than one. The other significant event was the state language movement in 1952, in which teachers and students participated, but it was mainly a students movement. But then there was an intellectual support given by writers and thinkers to the idea that Bengali should be one of the state languages. The idea was not to have Bengali as the only state language, but to have it as one of the state languages. So, that support came.

And one has to remember too that it was not possible to write against the state during those times. The state was autocratic; and the consequence of dissidence was well known. Sardar Fazlul Karim who was a known communist was imprisoned. There were other people who were categorically silenced by the system.

The state organs, e.g. radio and television, came later. The radio was a propaganda machine, which wouldn't permit people to speak freely and rather aimed at advertising the idea of one Pakistan. And then there were the patronage given by the state to those who supported the cause of Pakistan. That was precisely why the intellectuals were not able to play their roles adequately.

RM: Given the circumstance in 1971 or in the preceding years, you think that if it was not for the autocratic state and its propagandist media organs, then our intellectuals could have provided more active support.

SIC: Yes, certainly. One also needs to remember, as I said before, that opportunities for the growth of an intellectual culture were very limited during those times. Dhaka was a provincial town. Books of literature, politics were barely available.

Then there was another important factor. The state not only discouraged but also sort of took away the meritorious persons and absorbed them in the civil service. Even those who joined the university later left it to pursue a career in government departments. In fact, the Muslim middle class was growing after the partition and wanted to strengthen its economic base. Yet, this was more or less a service oriented middle class.

Furthermore, there was only one university at the beginning. Having only one university was not sufficient.

RM: If our intellectuals' role was one of sympathy towards the liberation struggle, then why were they identified and killed?

SIC: It was mainly because of two reasons: Hatred and revenge. In 1971, Pakistani army in particular realised that the two-nation theory was discarded, and Bengali nationalism was becoming a dominant factor here. And Bengali nationalism was propagated by the university. In fact, the army attributed the discarding of the two-nation theory to the intellectuals.

The hatred was also based on the fact that intellectuals were always an anathema to army personnel who thought they were the real defenders of the state as they had arms and professional ability. However, university intellectuals get wider publicity and enjoy greater prestige in society. So, that also may have aroused hatred in the army towards them.

RM: So, the intellectuals during the liberation war did whatever they could in the face of military dictatorship. The circumstances completely changed thereafter and we achieved democracy. In this democratic atmosphere, do you think the intellectuals are being successful in delivering what they are supposed to do? If not, then what should they do to take forward the cause of the common people?

SIC: No, they have not been able to carry forward that vision. The vision emerged through the war was one of emancipation. This war was not only about independence but also about liberation. And, the idea was to create a new democratic society in the world, which would neither be a replica of the old state nor be a bureaucratic capital state that Pakistan was. And there would be a democratic way of life. By democracy were meant: Equality in rights and opportunities; decentralisation of state power; and rule of elected representatives in all spheres of life and society.

That was the collective vision. The intellectuals' duty is to further develop or act on this. However, they have failed for several reasons.

First, there has been a brain-drainage after liberation. Many young meritorious persons left the country for higher education. Opportunities were wider than ever before and many of them did not return. Later, those who returned or even those who had remained in the country began to work for their personal interest and could not advance the collective dream.

Secondly, there was a vacuum in political leadership. Leaders who led the country during the liberation war were not interested in social revolution anymore. They were rather more interested in gaining state power. Over the years, what we have in Bangladesh today is a ruling class divided into different sectors and parties. This is not working for social revolution that was needed.

What is also to be noted that universities and other institutions of higher education do not have elected student bodies, which I think is very important for the development of leadership, intellectual stimulation, debate and cultural growth. So, that is an absolute torment and vacuum why new leadership, both in politics and intellectual circles, is not emerging.

Another factor which must not be lost sight of is the role of media. Media is controlled by business, which does not allow impartial discussion on vital issues. To achieve social transformation, we need discussion, acquisition of knowledge about other societies and revolutions, and that is not really happening. Media promotes business and is run for profit. Then there is this undeniable effect of globalization.

The other problem that the intellectuals face is that their lives have become so difficult and competitive in terms of career and living expenses that they have to busy themselves finding alternative sources of earning.

If we want to survive and have a better future as a country, what we need is a change in political and social systems so that true democracy can be achieved. The intellectuals have certainly an important role to play in promoting this idea, making people aware of its necessity.

An intellectual does not only understand the world and explain its material basis but also propagates his ideas. Propagation of ideas makes one an intellectual.