Altaf Hossain was originally from Sylhet but was a staunch supporter of Pakistan. During the regime of military dictator Ayub Khan, his responsibility as the editor of the Dawn newspaper was to turn Bengalis into Pakistanis and Muslims. He was so successful in this task that Ayub gave him a place in his cabinet.
Altaf Hossain was not alone. Since the creation of Pakistan in 1947 and Bangladesh's independence in 1971, we have rarely experienced true democracy. Most of the time has passed under authoritarian regimes. During this long period, a section of Bengali intellectuals have stood by autocratic and semi-autocratic governments for one excuse or another. Some in the name of religion, some in the name of anti-Indianism, some in the name of the spirit of the liberation war, and some in the name of secularism and development have found justifications for siding with despotism.
We can also mention Syed Sajjad Hossain, who, despite witnessing the massacre of 1971, accepted it in the name of maintaining Pakistan's territorial integrity. Shortly after the Pakistani army launched a brutal attack on Dhaka University, he was rewarded by Pakistani authorities with the position of Vice-Chancellor of the same university. He was so loyal to Pakistan that he viewed the emergence of Bangladesh as the ''fall'' of East Pakistan.
As intellectuals, they forgot that their primary duty as intellectuals was not to befriend power but to relentlessly challenge the centres of power. They did the opposite. It's easy to protest against the enemy's injustice, but standing against one's own side's injustice is the true test of an intellectual's integrity. In this critical test, Awami intellectuals of Bangladesh have utterly failed.
There was no need for him to openly celebrate the genocide. He developed a narrative to uphold Pakistan's ideals, which portrayed the army as maintaining national unity and the Bengali resistance as an Indian-instigated separatism. This way, all the atrocities were obscured by ideology.
Constructing Consent
I'm not suggesting that Bengali intellectuals have a monopoly on constructing narratives in support of autocracy. Throughout history, there have always been groups of intellectuals eager to justify ruthless and diabolical regimes.
Antonio Gramsci and George Orwell have explained this concept very clearly and straightforwardly. What we now refer to as ''manufacturing consent'', riding on Noam Chomsky's shoulders, was first exposed by Gramsci in his Prison Notebooks. According to Gramsci, everyone is an intellectual, whether a bricklayer or a pen-professor, as we all use our intellect in some form of work.
However, there is a group among intellectuals whose job is to advocate for power using ladders of opinion, belief, or ideology. Without the narratives they construct, it would be impossible for dictatorships to survive. For Stalin, Hitler, Ayub, or Hasina, these intellectuals are as essential as fuel is to a car.
The autocrat's weapon is the gun. The intellectual's weapon is their pen and language. British journalist and author George Orwell demonstrated how a group of intellectuals could use everyday language to prove even the ruthless dictators like Stalin or Hitler as indispensable.
One function of political language is to prove truth as falsehood and falsehood as truth. This task is best accomplished by the country's prominent intellectuals. They are popular and have acceptance among ordinary citizens. So when such an intellectual takes up the pen for a corrupt king, whether they are a poet, journalist, or actor, people listen to them attentively and place their trust in their words. Their advocacy not only spares lies but also cold-blooded disappearances and murders.
When intellectuals become followers of autocracy
In Bangladesh, some intellectuals have turned into supporters of Awami authoritarianism while offering uncompromising support for the values of the Liberation War based on their ideological foundation. Civil rights are violated in the country, voting rights are taken away, and freedom of speech is restricted. Like everyone else, they too have witnessed these violations firsthand. The only difference is that they have considered these violations necessary for ideological reasons, singing praises or remaining silent in their support.
When it comes to the values of the Liberation War, these intellectuals have prioritised three things—preservation of the history of 1971, opposition to fundamentalism, and secularism. These are important values, but the spirit of the Liberation War is not limited to these principles or ideals. The rule of law, an independent judiciary, voting rights, freedom of speech, and an egalitarian society are also part of this spirit.
All of these values have been violated from the very beginning of the Awami era. In the last sixteen years of Hasina's rule, these violations have multiplied a hundredfold, turning into a full-fledged autocratic system. Yet, the blind eyes of the Awami intellectuals remain blind.
We have seen many intellectuals who are unwavering about the history and values of 1971. Yet, they have almost unconditionally supported Hasina's autocracy. When elections were held without votes, many of them argued that there is no alternative to Sheikh Hasina for Bangladesh. They considered siding with Hasina their duty. Some argued that there is no alternative to Hasina for maintaining secularism.
We saw in July 2024, when students and innocent people were being killed like birds at the hands of the security forces, almost every vice-chancellor of the country's major universities went to Ganabhaban to express their support for the measures taken by Prime Minister Hasina against the students and the public.
Many have privately acknowledged that democracy has been downgraded in Hasina's hands, or that the measures taken to stay in power are repressive. Yet, these conscientious intellectuals have considered Hasina and the Awami regime as the sole safeguards of the Liberation War. It's not that they were unaware of the contradiction involved. But after repeating the mantra for years, they themselves became lackeys of the autocracy.
The responsibility of intellectuals is not to befriend power
During the Soviet era, there were many intellectuals and devoted communists who, despite being aware of Stalin's autocratic rule, did not renounce their support for it. They believed there was no alternative to Stalin for the victory of the socialist revolution. One of them was Nikolai Bukharin. He was hung by the neck at Stalin's hands.
The famous German philosopher Martin Heidegger can also be mentioned. He believed in the superiority of the German nation and thought there was no alternative to Hitler to establish this superiority in the world.
The similarity between their arguments and propositions and the stance of Bangladeshi intellectuals in support of Hasina's dictatorship is striking. Bukharin knew that Stalin's hands were stained with the blood of innocent people; yet, he could not dissociate the revolution from the party, or the party from its leader.
Heidegger elevated Hitler from the position of an ordinary political ruler to a personification of Germany's historical destiny. Similarly, in Bangladesh, these intellectuals helped create a unified moral entity by merging secularism, the Awami League, and Sheikh Hasina.
As intellectuals, they forgot that their primary duty as intellectuals was not to befriend power but to relentlessly challenge the centres of power. They did the opposite. It's easy to protest against the enemy's injustice, but standing against one's own side's injustice is the true test of an intellectual's integrity. In this critical test, Awami intellectuals of Bangladesh have utterly failed.
#Hasan Ferdous is an essayist and columnist.
*Opinions expressed here are the author's own.
#This article, originally published in Prothom Alo print and online editions, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam