When Khalequzzaman (of BSD) met Military-backed CTG
This week we have seen the bizarre move of BSD (Bangladesher Samajtantrik Dal) leadership sitting in dialogue (Sanglap) with the military-controlled Caretaker Government placing demands for Constitutional reforms. A thoroughly inappropriate move which can only be compared to something as ridiculous and grotesque as asking Nizami-Mujahid to write a treatise on secularism.
Perhaps BSD leaders have forgotten that the CTG itself does not have any constitutional legitimacy to begin with, let alone initiating any reform, and that too a Constitutional one. Who would have thought things would come to this? So this is how our home grown revolutionary parties do their “biplob” (revolution) these days–by rubbing shoulders with illegitimate military governments; and, spending time in idle/indoor study circles when half the country is queueing in the food lines! So everything they told us about democracy and of the evils of militocracy in the mid eighties (during the anti-Ershad movement) must be lies !
When everyone is talking about internal reforms within the political parties in terms of leadership, we seem to be overlooking the issue of reform which had always been conveniently absent from BSD’s leadership agenda. So far I know, there have been no change in BSD’s central leadership since the party seceded from JSD (please correct me if I am wrong). Did Mr Khalequzzaman or Mr Haider, two of the senior most founding leaders in this party, ever face open competition (in a meaningful way) within the party? We can guess the answer. I know, die hard BSD supporters would now point out to me that their “revolutionary party” is different from other bourgeoisie parties in that they believe in some obscure leadership concept (read: crap) such as “democratic centralism.” How convenient!
Interesting times.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:02 am
It is always delightful to be criticized by others even if the person is enemy of socialism. In this context what is discussed should be answered in proper way. I am requesting to visit http://www.vanguardonline.com to know about BSD’s position in Shonglap. But i am going to bring some points which i consider to be answer of the questions given in this article.
It is well known that this CTG have to be legalized through constitutional amendment whenever a parliament will be formed. BSD claimed in the discussion that CTG is continuing their government violeting the democratic aspects of our constitution. So BSD know that according to our present constitution present CTG is illegal.
Perhaps u know constitution in capitalism is of course to protect capitalism, so when there is no such govt like present CTG, will it be termed legitimate by any leftist party. BSD wants to make the working class aware about that the election will not change their misery in life. Until people will not think in this way we have to face election in our own way. So when this govt is trying to curtail the least democratic right of people, BSD wanted to criticize and exposed the CTG and that is why, BSD participated in shonglap.
Another thing, you were curious about political reforms in BSD. And it can be obviously concluded that you are also affected by the propaganda of present CTG.
”Democratic Centralism” should be practiced in a revolutionary party and BSD can claim they have a serious effort to educate their workers and leaders about this.
BSD organize Central discussion on ideological, organizational aspects in every three months where representative of different districts participate. This type of discussion is also be held in Zonal and District level so as to build the party in a monolithic way as a whole.
If democratic centralism is absent, chaos will destroy a revolutionary party and working class will lose their weapon to fight against capitalism.
So if somebody criticize in this way, i think there is a lack of knowledge about a revolutionary struggle or is a critism of an enemy of socialist movement.
[Reply]
July 15th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Dear Mosharrof,
Thank you for your response. While I commend your efforts to clarify BSD’s position and (more importantly) to engage with critics - I am afraid I did not find the answers I was eagerly looking for. Your clarifications, I dare say, sounded more like what you call “formal logic” (if I am citing correctly your party vocabulary), devoid of their substantive merits. Perhaps it is my shortcoming that I am failing to understand you!
Being a regular visitor of Vanguard’s (and SPB’s) website I am indeed familiar with BSD’s position on a number of matters including the Sanglap. In fact there is an ongoing debate at this very moment at Muktangon. I invite you to participate there. I am sure your contributions would help us understand matters better.
Finally, I never considered myself an “enemy of socialism”. Do you always brand critics as enemies?
Regards.
[Reply]
July 16th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I have gone through one of your criticism on the evaluation of Poet Shamsur Rahman by Comrade Khalequzzaman. It is clear that you do not agree with BSD and you have an observation also on BSD.
In your article, you asked, ”how could a political leader criticize on literature?” If you know about the Marxist leaders, did not they have criticism on literature? Do you think, only the writers can criticize or evaluate writings of others. You have so many questions in your article.
In my previous statement, though you can not find any answer rather finding ”formal logic”, i am requesting you to be rational if you claim yourself as a supporter or follower of socialist thinking.
[Reply]
July 18th, 2008 at 5:57 am
If Lenin is alive,
he have to face this question : are you a authorised one to write about Tolstoy?
[Reply]
July 18th, 2008 at 11:58 am
@Nayeem#4
Perhaps you are right about Lenin and the predicament he would have faced on this question. But I wonder with his hindsight of last 80-90 years how he would have decided that today. Because, Marx-Lenins’ teachings were not received in the same spirit across the globe. We have seen the likes of Stalin to Castro to Mao to Charu Majumdar. You would know these things better than me. Do please care to explain those things to me for my benefit and for the readers of this blog.
The answer to your second question is Yes and No. Yes, I am and anyone like myself is free (not “authorised”) to “write” about Tolstoy. But if it is a question of “evaluation” (eg, like the one Mr Khalequzzaman did on poet Shamsur Rahman) then the answer is still NO. (I will try to explain it in more details in the above mentioned Muktangon post, so please bear with me). Neither do I know anyone who is “authorised” in the sense you mentioned. Do you know any such person? Let me explain this. The answer is an emphatic NO because such narrow party political evaluations (particularly from a leading figure) can easily create prejudices against writers and result in repressions and breach of their freedom of expression. Do you deny the danger inherent in this?
[Reply]
July 19th, 2008 at 10:43 am
To Incidental,
You have a strong belief that political leaders have influence over their partymen. And specially you believe that Practise of Marxism is a dogma.
We may draw it in case of the history of communist party and their fractions in the subcontinent. And to get rid of dogmatic approach, a healthy environment in a Marxist party should maintain.
But it is of topmost priority for a Marxist to analyse everything in a dialectical approach. And everything will be done to establish Socialism to march forward to Communism.
But who do not have faith on this, he will mistake to evaluate everything.
Are u sure that u believe in Socialism?
Perhaps if the answer is yes, there is something (?) which can not make you see things clearly and you are exposed in such that your claiming of not being an enemy of socialist idea, can not be accepted.
Whatever, a true evaluation can only be drawn only if the evaluation consider that with respect of time, space and condition of the society. And Marxist evaluates in this way.
And Comrade Khalequzzaman have no way to force others to accept his evaluation.
Many may think, what he think, is his own. But in a capitalist society, such an arrangement is there that mostly we think in the way of capitalist thinking unless we are aware of this domination. So a revolutionary party want to make aware of this thought process. Unless this is taken in concideration, no revolution can be made keeping ourselves in the domination of capitalism.
So firstly you should make arguement whether socialism should be established. Unless our discussion will not find any way.
[Reply]
July 19th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
To Incidental
You alredy have explained your opinion in muktangon bolg, and I have find no critical view on the basis of literature. I have already sent my comment on this blog.
Marxism, i think, is not a matter to utter. If any one wants to be a student of Marxism, it needs two thing - reading the Marxist literatur and to practice it in political and personal life.
What practice you do, I dont know, but you have a lack of reading Marxism literature, it is cleare to me.
Because, what you mention in the name of Marx, …’Thank Good, I am not a Marxist!’ - is not a comment of Marx.
Marx, never mentioned himself as a Marxist. To my aknowledement, it was the comment of Eangles.
So, be careful of talkin or writing about Marxism.
I will continue on your writing on the nirman blog.
[Reply]
July 20th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Dear all,
I am happy to be here. Actually one of my junior colleegue (who really involved with SPB, student wings of BSD) told me about this sight for the first time last evening and I am reading this all day. I obeserved the conversatiosns in this blog about Mr. Khalequzzman and his comment on the poet Mr. Shamsur Rahman. The same person and same party were criticised by so many of you and also he has some disciple in his favor.
Dear friends, before I start I convey my regards to you all. All you are very sensetive and devouted for our little country. Its rare to find such genuine patriot in this gloomy time. This is very true, things are very confusing and fuzzy in this world. What we are watching in TV so many times these are not true, what we are reading in news paper, lead us not to the actual truth. Whom we are thinking as our saviour, we find he is the killer. This is the crisis of the whole world. Let not blame Mr. Khalequzzaman, cause he alone cannot save us. Not only he, even God itself has no power to control the situation.
Then who will save us ? All of you had linked with some sort of marxist background. In all writings it is observed that most of you have expectation from BSD or Mr. Zaman. May be BSD would change the day by a revolution. Thats why you are critisizing him or his party instead AL or BNP who are not actually subject to criticize. Its good to be hopeful. But y friends,the idea of communist architype is bad in our country. All we dream the revolution but never try to taste it. Though we think of a good life , a sweet fiance, a home ( sorry it should be an appartment) or a car, establishment and we fight in our life for these but never feel revolution.
We are not in that line friends. Than who is revolutionery? If you wear a Che’s T Shirt from Nittya Upahar you may think you are CHE, THE REVOLUTIONERY.
Last year I was in documentary shooting. There I met an strange boy. He is university charmy boy, very good looking, lives in rich house and he had thirty mobile sim cards from various company. I went to him about a school, operated by he and his friend almost two years in a remote where a forbidden community (Very low cast Hindu) live. They built the school for that community and Its strange for that reason they become the brother for them. Their story of struggles to built the school so unbelievable. These boys never heard of CHE. Even they
[Reply]
July 20th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Sorry friends, I am not so habituated with keyboard. So I slipped.
Any way the boys never thought to make a revolution. But they were revolutioneries. They made a school those who had no education for twoo hundred years. The community was not savages, they were just ignored by the socity.
My request to you all. Do not expect or criticise. Do somthing by your own. Let clear the way if Mr. Zaman wants to go. If he is for people, people will recognise him as saviour or traitor. But do not so harsh with people. I never belong to that party , i will never be but I have so many friends in that party. And they are really good and careful to the people. Though I am not blind, I have some overlook. Cause its very important to target the enemy of the state.
If Bashod becomes the enemy to be criticised, then the real enemies will go alive and unseen. Jamaat is rising with a ferocious face with the help of this government. The hand cuff enemies are being freed. They were in jail for more than one years. What do you think, they will crashed the Army who usurped them. Never, they will take the revenge to the people who were happy about 1/11, 2007. The upcoming days are not good.
So be prepared my friends, Its time to rise your hands, not only the words, but the mind , but the body.
Think only what you are doing.
[Reply]
July 24th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Nayeem#7
. . . what you mention in the name of Marx, …’Thank Good, I am not a Marxist!’ - is not a comment of Marx. Marx, never mentioned himself as a Marxist. To my aknowledement, it was the comment of Eangles. So, be careful of talkin or writing about Marxism. (sic)
======
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. You seem confused. See my detailed rebuttal on this
here at Muktangon [ my reply to your comment #22].
I did not write/claim that the comment was Marx’s or that it was ‘uttered by him’. Rather, the literal meaning of the sentence suggests otherwise which any person who is not lexically challenged should be able to comprehend.
See the link attached to my original post in its last paragraph. See also a translated copy of this famous letter published in the Marx Engels archive (see last line of the first para). If you scan these two references carefully you will find that this famous quote was first mentioned in Friedrich Engels’s letter to C. Schmidt (dated 5 August 1890). In the letter, Engels merely quoted one of Marx’s comments: “All I know is that I am not a Marxist.” It really has got nothing to do with who coined the term “Marxism”.
You advised: “be careful of talkin (sic) or writing about Marxism (sic)”. Wise advice. I would suggest the same to you. All comments and feedbacks are welcome in this blog, but not the time wasters.
Thank you.
[Reply]