Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in Bangladesh on March 26 on a two-day visit. He was invited by the Government of Bangladesh to attend the Golden Jubilee of Independence and the birth centenary celebrations of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. He arrived and returned to Delhi on March 26 after a busy two days. Narendra Modi has visited Bangladesh before as the Prime Minister of India. It does not appear that any religious group or any political party or organization known as anti-India has given any program to oppose his arrival before.
But this time, a religious organization called Hefazat-e-Islam heated up the field by opposing Modi’s visit. Openly and secretly, Hefazat has the support of other communal and religious organizations. Some small leftist organizations have also taken an anti-Modi stance. We also noticed a position of left and right during our liberation war. Pro-Pakistan political parties including the pro-China Left and Jamaat-Muslim League have practically opposed the liberation war of Bangladesh in the name of anti-India. The communal groups formed the Razakar-Al-Badr forces and acted as assistants to the Pakistani forces in the massacre of Bengalis. Although the pro-China leftists did not join the Razakar forces, they identified the liberation war as a ‘fight between two dogs’ and tried to kill the freedom fighters with weapons. Their role has given moral strength to the Pakistani forces. This time around, some former Chinese leftists and communal groups, including Hefazat, have been seen speaking the same language in the case of anti-Modi. Similar protests have been reported.
The question is, did those who opposed Modi’s visit to Bangladesh, including Hefazat, actually do so because of Modi’s anti-Muslim or sectarian stance, or is there another reason or mystery behind it? If the Gujarat riots and the recent anti-Muslim rhetoric in the name of citizenship law in India have been blamed on Modi’s opposition to his visit to Bangladesh, then the issue has to be looked at in the same way, and if there is another undisclosed agenda. We must have known long ago what kind of politics Modi believes in. He did not apply any new color of politics on his body. What was before, is still there. He has been in BJP politics since he was a staunch RSS activist. The mark of Hindutva on her body is not like the mehdi worn by the bride. So why did it happen this time even though they did not oppose Modi’s coming to Bangladesh before? Modi was good before, now he is bad – that is not the case.
This time Modi came in the interest of Bangladesh. To attend the Silver Jubilee celebrations of Bangladesh’s independence. India’s role or contribution in the liberation war of Bangladesh in 1971 was the greatest, not comparable to anyone. Giving shelter to one crore people, training and arming freedom fighters, building world public opinion in favor of liberation war, creating international pressure on Pakistan to save Bangabandhu’s life and fighting side by side with Indian forces in the final stage of liberation war, giving life – India is our faithful and everything. Has been tested friend. India is also our big neighbor. We can’t change neighbors if we want to.
Therefore, inviting Narendra Modi as the head of the Indian government to celebrate the golden jubilee of independence and his presence cannot be a cause for controversy. Moreover, a few more governments and heads of state were invited to the Golden Jubilee celebrations and they came. Had it not been for Corona, the presence of the President of China might have been expected. When the Chinese president came, would Hefazat or anyone else take the field against him? China was against us in the war of liberation, Pakistan was a known friend. Uyghur Muslims are still persecuted in China. Why are our Islam-loving people locked up against China’s anti-Muslim policies and why are they talking about India?
Apart from Modi, Maldivian President Ibrahim Mohammad also came to the golden jubilee of independence. Saleh, Prime Minister of Sri Lanka Mahinda Rajapaksa, President of Nepal Vidyadevi Bhandari and Prime Minister of Bhutan Lotte Shering. Their presence has enhanced the dignity of our golden jubilee celebrations. Many other heads of state and government have also sent messages to mark the 50th anniversary of Bangladesh’s independence, including US President Joe Biden, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Canadian Prime Minister Jasmine Trudeau, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, South Korean Prime Minister Chung Suu Kyi and Pope Francis. .
No one cared about anyone else’s personal political beliefs or positions, as much as Narendra Modi did – that’s not a common question. If Modi’s communal political stance is the main reason for the protest, then the question is, is the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka practicing secular politics in his country? In that country, wearing hijab has been banned. Where, no one used the word ‘Tum’ against Rajapaksa. And most importantly, does Hefazat-e-Islam, the main organization that has come out against Modi, believe in non-communal principles? Establish Islamic rule in your own country, and seek secularism in India, isn’t that a contradictory position?
There is more to talk about. Narendra Modi did not seize power in India by force of arms. He won the election and became the Prime Minister. Why and how Hindutva came to prominence in India, which has long believed in secularism, must have been a major topic of discussion.
Can Personally, one may dislike Modi, but there is no question of his legitimacy as prime minister. He came to Bangladesh not as a representative of the ruling BJP, but as an elected representative of 1.3 billion Indians.
With Narendra Modi in front, in fact, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the opponents of the celebration of the golden jubilee of Bangladesh’s independence have taken the opportunity and taken to the field. They have openly stated that they are against Bangabandhu, they have not only threatened to break the sculpture of Bangabandhu and throw it in Buriganga, in some places they have actually vandalized the sculpture. Their audacity has exceeded the limits as the government and law enforcement agencies have not taken strict legal action against them in time.
It is no longer a secret that Hefazat-e-Islam is a terrible evil force, that they are moving forward with a plan to seize state power, that they have the support of the Awami League and all the anti-liberation political parties. They have opposed women’s policy before. In 2013, they gathered at Shapla Chattar in Motijheel and showed their strength by carrying out massive violence. Who is their helper was also seen then. At that time, the government adopted the policy of embracing Hifazat at one stage in the equation of dangerous reckoning of the politics of power without maintaining its continuity, which was the determination shown by the government by expelling Hifazat from Shapla Chattar. Hefazat-e-Islam is against the ideology and values with which the war of liberation took place. They are even against democracy. They are against everything modern. Education, culture, science – they are the bearers of backward thinking in everything. With the indulgence of the Awami League government, they now consider themselves an irresistible force. In the name of anti-Modi, they gave evidence on March 26-27 in Hathazari and Brahmanbaria that they can turn things upside down if they want to. At least 14 people have died prematurely as a result of law enforcement and government administration following the wrong path of not stopping them in time. The government is not responsible for this death, but the government could not be free from responsibility, so the government did not warn the time. The government will not be able to avoid the responsibility of giving Oscar to Hefazat.
Our society is extremely divided. The war of liberation, independence and Bangabandhu were supposed to be our source of unity. But it did not happen. Many of us feel a kind of satisfaction and relief that the Awami League is in power. But the ideological decay that is being seen even within the Awami League has created a terrible danger in front of the country. Personally, I think the number of people in custody is more than power and power. Once compromised in the place of ideals, determination can no longer be shown. Can the success of the trial of Bangabandhu’s assassination, the trial of war criminals, etc. be mentioned with different significance now, when the murals of Bangabandhu and the cultural heritage to glorify the Bengalis are attacked and the attackers remain out of reach despite being identified?
In a statement, the ’20 prominent citizens’ are praising the role of a kind conscience by shifting all the responsibility on the government without any condemnation of the custody for the past few days. These commentators do not seem to have made statements condemning the rise of communal forces in the country or condemning the persecution of minorities in various places, including Ramu Nasirnagar. This time, they said in a statement after the custody case, the government has celebrated the golden jubilee of Bangladesh’s independence narrowly and from a party point of view.
The question is, from a liberal and non-partisan perspective, is there a political reality in the country celebrating the golden jubilee of independence? How can there be a reconciliation between the two streams of Awami League and anti-Awami League? Has the BNP had any chance to cooperate with the government? Will the BNP recognize the political contribution of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib and the establishment of the state of Bangladesh? If the Awami League had not been in power during the celebration of the golden jubilee of independence, would this celebration have taken place from a non-partisan and non-partisan perspective?
The “20 prominent citizens” said in a statement that it would have been appropriate to exclude Narendra Modi and invite the President of India as there was a controversy over him.
They may have proved their generosity with this polite statement, but does Indian President Ramnath Kobind believe in a different political ideology than Narendra Modi? Did he oppose Narendra Modi during the Gujarat riots? He is also a man who joined RSS and joined BJP. If he had been invited, the custody would have gladly accepted it. What information did these 20 citizens confirm?
The statement said that the citizens of Bangladesh have the right to protest against the visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Bangladesh on the charge of various anti-Bangladesh activities and statements.
Of course. The interests of Bangladesh are a matter of priority for the citizens of Bangladesh. Moreover, saying ‘no’ is more important than saying ‘yes’. But the question here is, does the violence in Hathazari and Brahmanbaria fall under civil rights? Where is Modi’s involvement with all the institutions that have been attacked including Bangabandhu’s mural? If Modi had joined the peaceful protest by burning his puppet, there would have been no question of the sincerity of the protesters’ motives. But they did not show aggression against Modi but against Bangabandhu, against Bangladesh.
Our ’20 prominent citizens’ have no worries about the rise of custody. Born
They are not worried about the old vultures holding the flag. Their concern is with Narendra Modi, their concern is with the role of the Awami League government. Those who rejoiced in Bangladesh assuming that Sheikh Hasina would have a problem if Modi became the Prime Minister later became unhappy with Modi’s role. They are now angry that India’s friendship with Bangladesh did not falter even during Narendra Modi’s tenure. Now it is anti-Modi, which is actually anti-Sheikh Hasina.
I remember that poem by Ravi Tagore – Ginny who lost something said, Keshta Batai is a thief!
There is a kind of dishonesty in exaggerating what Sheikh Hasina has not been able to get from Delhi. Those who were in power for 21 years after the assassination of Bangabandhu were not pro-India.
I expected eloquent and thought-provoking statements from eminent citizens instead of anti-India and anti-Awami League statements. They have disappointed many like me.