By Dr. Richard L. Benkin
People would find the matter of
religious freedom and human rights more puzzling in Bangladesh than
anywhere else if they took the time to study it. Unfortunately,
few have; and so we must deal with the impressions they get from
international media, government missteps, and minority rights advocacy
groups both principled and corrupt. The puzzling part begins with
the fact that the Bangla people are traditionally open and tolerant of
others. The variance of Islam practiced in East Bengal has always
tended to be that way, too. Bengalis have built a society that
embraces religious diversity more than any other in South Asia.
At the same time, Bangladesh is notorious for minority oppression and
violence against its non-Muslim minorities that the government seems to
tolerate. This has been true under every government, civilian and
military-backed, regardless of whom the ruling party happens to
be. Two divergent pictures; but both of them accurate.
Why has that occurred? After all,
when Bangladesh won its independence in 1971, it declared itself a
secular state; that is, one that accommodates peoples of all faiths,
placing none in a dominant position vis-à-vis the state. But that
commitment was short-lived. In 1974, the government passed the
racist Vested Property Act, and two years later declared Bangladesh an
Islamic Republic. That change and the Bangladesh’s subsequent
slide away from its historical values have everything to do with
Islamist radicals and is in no way the inevitable path that the nation
must follow.
In 1971, the radicals were at their
weakest. Having opposed Bangladesh’s struggle for independence
and in some cases even participated in atrocities alongside the
Pakistanis, they were in no position to gain any sort of popular
following. As Bangladeshi politics became more and more muddled,
however, they were able to secure positions at the local and national
levels with the help of Middle Eastern backing and funds. In the
succeeding years, Bangladesh’s political leaders continued to make a
mess of things and did an exceedingly poor job of providing for its
growing population. This allowed the radicals to secure a firm
footing, in the cities and countryside, by offering the people needed
services that politicians failed to provide. Along with that came
a resurgent commitment to communalism, including anti-minority
persecution.
Only now is there a real chance of
changing this. Since 2007 the politicians—whose rampant
corruption and disregard for the people’s good opened the door for
resurgent communalism—have been out of power; and they should not be
allowed to return to power unless or until they demonstrate that their
return will not bring back the rot that brought Bangladesh to its
current state. An interim government should be perfectly capable
of ushering Bangladesh back to respectability. Beyond that,
however, William Gomes and others are launching a human rights effort
that is thoroughly anti-communal.
Mr. Gomes is a Christian, whose
community members often are victims of religious violence and radical
jihadists. Yet, this past spring, he was the primary informant to
expose the false nature of a case of alleged anti-Christian violence
that almost made it to the attention of the US Congress. The
story went that a Christian woman, Mary Mondal, was forced to marry a
Muslim man who beat her continuously until she fled to safety provided
by Mr. Gomes. I first read about it in a Canadian newspaper not
long before I was to appear at a Congressional briefing on
Bangladesh. I—a Jew—contacted Muslim journalist Salah Uddin
Shoaib Choudhury for some “on the ground” information about the case;
and he began an investigation. For the next several days, he
continually updated me on his investigation, letting me know that he
continued to turn up zero evidence of the case. He even enlisted
the help of Kazi Azuzul Huq and his fundamentalist Muslim group,
Khelafat Andolin Bangladesh. They, too, were coming up
empty. Finally, Shoaib contacted me: they found William
Gomes who said that the entire story was fabricated. In fact, he
said, it was spread by individuals who are paid for sending stories of
minority persecution to people outside of Bangladesh who never check
their veracity. Mr. Gomes met Mr. Choudhury and Mr. Huq at the
offices of Dhaka’s Weekly Blitz, where he gave additional details and
eventually produced Mary Mondal who confirmed that charges of
anti-Christian persecution in her case were false. Weekly Blitz
ran a series of stories that exposed the scam, and I published the
information in the same Canadian paper that ran the original.
This cooperative work by Bangladeshi
Christians and Muslims—with the help of one American Jew—led to Mr.
Gomes’ current human rights effort. It is one that rejects the
anti-Muslim tone often taken by those who claim to defend minority
rights. In fact, there already have been cases raised by Mr.
Gomes that have found support from both Messrs. Choudhury and
Huq. Are we seeing a new dynamic in the fight for rights in
Bangladesh?
Over the years, that battle has been carried out of the
country by the so-called secularists. Perhaps it is because many
of them—in particular, Shahriar Kabir—are leftists, or like Mr. Kabir
Communists, they often take on a definitely anti-religious tone.
It seems highly unlikely that the people of Bangladesh ever will follow
a path that demonizes religion, which is what these secularists
offer. Mr. Gomes’ effort rejects such a path outright. Mr.
Choudhury has been one of Bangladesh’s most vocal critics of Islamists,
but similarly always maintains a healthy respect for religion. In
the end, that offers religious minorities their best chance of being
defended effectively because it refuses to set up a false dichotomy
between their concerns and the concerns of Bangladeshi Muslims who make
up close to 90 percent of the country. Additionally, it should be
embraced by the government as a way to eliminate the scourge of
religious prejudice in the country and improve Bangladesh’s image
worldwide.
Earlier, I mentioned that the Mary
Mondal story almost made it to a US Congressional Briefing. I was
part of that briefing and can attest to the fact that the Congressman
whose staff organized the event is very concerned about anti-Christian
persecution in particular and anti-religious persecution in
general. Reaction to that case could have been disastrous for
Bangladeshi efforts in the United States. But due to the efforts
of Messrs. Gomes, Choudhury, Huq, I was able to expose the false nature
of the matter prior to the Briefing; and it was not even
mentioned. At the same time, all of us are working together to
expose real cases of anti-religious violence and persecution, based on
an anti-communalist approach, interfaith cooperation, and a high level
of credibility with authorities in Bangladesh and elsewhere.
[Dr.
Richard L. Benkin, an American Jew and independent human rights
activist, secured the release of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury from
imprisonment and torture and ahs continued to defend him against
attacks from both government functionaries and others. He also is
working with others in Bangladesh to stop anti-religious
persecution. Currently, Dr. Benkin is also leading an effort to
defend Bangladeshi Hindus both in Bangladesh and India. He is a
correspondent for Weekly Blitz and Amador Shomoy and writes for
numerous journals internationally.]