Looking At Cht Treaty Through BNP's Eyes


News from Bangladesh
18 December, 1997


BNP must prove conceptually and factually that CHT Treaty (i) threatens our National Integrity, (ii) undermines our Sovereignty and (iii) sacrifices our National Interests. Otherwise their objections are just meaningless propaganda, something it has been doing since its birth.

I love to debate and discuss but only with a few men and for my own sake. For I find it an especially unworthy profession for a man of honour to serve as a spectacle to the great and shamelessly parade of one's mind and one's prattling, says Michel de Montaigne, a 16th century French Philosopher and essayist. The greatest historical significance of this philosopher lies in his role as one of the earliest philosophic architects of and propagandists for the modern Liberal doctrine and regime.

It is indeed futile to debate on BNP's accusations against the CHT Treaty; they are clearly motivated by its narrow and irresponsible power politics. We can appeal to their conscience- which the whole nation, including the Honourable President, is doing repeatedly- but they would not voluntarily come to reason. BNP's narrow and irresponsible power politics reminds me time and again the Inscription of The Holy QUR-AN:

As to those who reject faith. It is same to them whether thou warn them or do not warnthem. They will not believe. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings. And on their eyes is a veil.... In their hearts is a disease; And Allah has increased their diseases (Surat Al-Baqarah, Sections two and three).

My intentions in examining BNP's objections are not to refute them, but to understand them more clearly. I will do so in the light of BNP's own Political Philosophy: BANGLADESHI JATIOTABAD. This I hope will dispel some of the confusions that BNP has created in the public mind.

BNP and its allies have erected three major objections: The CHT Treaty (i) threatens National Integrity, (ii) undermines Sovereignty and (iii) sacrifices National Interests. To understand and be able to comment on these objections, which primarily concern our Nation and its interests, we first must have a clear idea about the concept, Nation. Below three concepts are discussed in the sequence of their development: Nationalism, Nation and State.

Nationalism, as an intellectual and cultural concept, developed in the 18th century Europe and grew into a conscious political force during the French Revolution. It is the political belief that some group of people represents a natural community which should live under one political system and be independent of others.

This political belief has fortified in the concept, Nation. As John Stuart Mill, a 19th century English philosopher, defines, A proportion of mankind may be said to constitute a Nationality (Nation), if they are united among themselves by common sympathies, which do not exist between them and others- which make them to cooperate with each other more willingly than with other people, desire to be under the same government, and desire that it should be government by themselves, or a portion of them exclusively.

Many societal factors contribute to the development of a Nation, but following are the most important: culture, history, language, religion and ethic character.

Two points should be noted. First, Nation represents a natural community, formed by common sympathies among its members, developed, over centuries perhaps, through sharing such societal factors as mentioned above. Second, the natural community desires to be governed by its own members.

Today's world political order is organized around a network of independent States, whose founding ideas are Nation and Nationalism. The State has four integral physical attributes: (i) identified people, (ii) defined territory (iii) a government and (iv) sovereignty.

There are fundamental differences between the Nation and the State. First, the Nation is a desired sovereign political society while the State is an actual sovereign body politic representing a single, often unique, political system. Second, a Nation is a naturally developed community; it can not be created by force. But the State is a political society created by humans, by consent or by force. Finally, a State can contain more than one Nations, but not vice versa. Many Nations, to achieve their socioeconomic goals, can join to form a State but many States can not be forced or persuaded to form a Nation. A State representing many Nations definitely disintegrates if it fails to serve equitably the interests of all its constituent nations.

I shall now look into Bangladeshi Jatiotabad. My source is: BANGLADESHI JATIOTABAD SMARAK GRANTHA, edited by Ahemed Musa. Mr. Musa describes the perspective and development of Bangladeshi Jatiotabad in the following way:

Muslims in British India created Pakistan- based on Two-Nation Theory- to prevent Hindu domination while Bengalis in Pakistan created Bangladesh- based on Two-Economy Theory- to prevent Punjabi domination. But, people's Jatiotabadi consciousness did not change, what changed was their Jatiotabadi identity; Jatiotabad only changed its target. Jinnah named the desire of Muslims as Pakistani Jatiotabad or more properly Muslim Jatiotabad and Sheik Mujib named the desire of the people of East Pakistan as Bengali Jatiotabad. When Bangladesh was created, Jatiotabad changed its target again. Ziaur Rahman named the desire of Bangladeshi people to resist the domination of foreign and neighbouring States as Bangladeshi Jatiotabad.

The above is the history and background of development of BNP's political philosophy, Bangladeshi Jatiotabad. This political slogan was concocted under the leadership of General Ziaur Rahman when he seized power after President Sheik Mujib was killed in 1975. Ziaur Rahman specifies seven integral elements of Bangladeshi Jatiotabad: (i) race or people (ii) war of independence (iii) Bengali Language (iv) religion (v) territory (vi) culture and (vii) economy.

It should be noted that Ziaur Rahman's conception of Nationalism is substantially different from its theoretical concept. He has either confused the concepts, State and Nation or combined them.

The ideas of Nation and Nationalism have been conceived and developed into conscious political movements to protect two fundamental demands of humanity: human freedom and human rights. These demands are best achieved by allowing natural communities to rule themselves. Thus, the cardinal intellectual objective of the concepts, Nation and Nationalism, is to identify and isolate natural communities, which are candidates for independent States. BNP's political philosophy has the same objective.

Who are the people included in the natural community which BNP calls Race? They are first and foremost Muslims (religion), speaking Bengali (Language), living in the area called Bangladesh (territory). All these combine to define their culture- Bengali Muslim. They fought the war of liberation against Pakistan to create their homeland.

Do the tribal people of CHT belong to BNP's Race? Their language, religion and culture are fundamentally different from BNP's Race. They did not participate in Pakistan movement. On the contrary, they protested when their territory was annexed to Pakistan. Their participation in the war of liberation was less than enthusiastic.

By the criterion set by BNP, the people of CHT then do not belong to its conception of Nation and hence do not subscribe its idea of Nationalism. On the contrary, they have their own Nation and idea of Nationalism. This clearly means that the State of Bangladesh has two distinct Nations whose territories are well defined and demarcated: (i) the people of CHT and (ii) the rest of the country.

It is an undeniable and unrefutable fact that the people of CHT constitute a separate Nation. By this virtue, they have the same right of self-rule as we have ours. Because they are part of the State of Bangladesh, the nature of self-rule shall be determined through political negotiations between representatives of the two Nations. Exactly these negotiations have taken place and been concluded by the CHT Treaty.

BNP has continually refused, since its birth, to accept the Nationhood of CHT people and by that had strangled and trampled their demands for participation in governing themselves. BNP's CHT policy simply reflects its political philosophy and is just part of its overall politics. The question is: Should we deny the Fundamental Rights of CHT people- The Right of Self-Rule- because they are part of the state of Bangladesh? If we do, we will be both stupid and hypocrite. We will be stupid by failing to recognize the development of the world around us: Empires and states had disintegrated because they failed to meet the demands of all nations constituting them. We will be hypocrite by neglecting the fact that we seceded from Pakistan only 27 years ago because Pakistani rulers refused our demand for our autonomy.

Does Cht Treaty Threaten Our National Integrity? The integrity of the State of Bangladesh means holding its entire territory together. This is only possible and desirable if the people of CHT voluntarily and willingly cooperate. These people, who refused to remain a part of our State, have now agreed to share our glory and our pride as an independent State. If this does not mean consolidating our National Integrity, then what the hell does the concept imply? The CHT Treaty is unquestionably and undeniably a bold step towards consolidating the integrity of the State of Bangladesh.

Does The Cht Treaty Undermine Our Sovereignty? Sovereignty, which means the absolute power and authority to formulate and execute laws of the State, is its most important attribute; most important because, it is the key to maintain political order without which the society can not exist. It has two aspects; external and internal. The State exercises its absolute power and authority upon members of the natural communities who have created it- the internal sovereignty. External sovereignty means the quality of independence from the control or interference of any other State in the conduct of international relations.

What is the source of sovereignty? We must know to understand BNP's allegations.

The people forming the State are the original and ultimate source of sovereignty. They appoint the government to exercise it on their behalf and the government can do so, so long the people trust it. In other words, if people refuse to obey the government, it has no moral authority over them, meaning it loses its internal sovereign authority. The measure of external sovereignty is the internal sovereignty. The external sovereign authority of the government is substantially weakened if it lacks internal sovereignty.

The CHT Treaty has consolidated our National Integrity, as it fulfils the demands of CHT people. Both our internal sovereignty and external sovereignty are thus strengthened. We are now more capable to destroy the evil designs of India, if she has ones as BNP is continually telling us, to undermine our sovereignty. BNP's accusations and apprehensions are conceptually unfounded and have never been substantiated with evidence that they really exist.

Has Cht Treaty Sacrificed Our National Interests? This Treaty will impact upon three of our very important national interests- two political and one socio-economic. The two political interests are: integrity and sovereignty of the country, expected to be strengthened instead of being undermined. As to our socioeconomic interests, it requires just commonsense to understand that the political environment created by the CHT Treaty constitutes a boost in our efforts to improve our socioeconomic conditions. Political stability resulting from the CHT Treaty is the fundamental requirement for socioeconomic development. Then more economic resources will become available, internally and externally, as the military expenditures shrink and foreign governments become more generous. I overwhelmingly agree with French Ambassador Ms. Renee Veyret, who, commenting on the Treaty, recently said, "What is good for CHT is also good for Bangladesh".

Before ending this essay, I wish to draw my readers' attention to the following questions:

First, Both BNP and JP have rejected the CHT Treaty. This problem originated and matured during the periods of their rule. Why had they allowed the problem to develop in the first place? And why they did not solve it in the way thy think would be most favourable to our national interests?

JP first congratulated the Treaty and now has rejected it. What a marvellous political acumen it has demonstrated to us and the world!

Second, BNP is now refusing to discuss the CHT Treaty in the Parliament. The reason is: It demanded to expose the main points of the Treaty before it were signed. Now that the Treaty has been signed, it is meaningless to discuss it. Has anybody ever heard that the contents of an intended treaty, particularly when it is political one, are released to the public before it is signed?

BNP's recent position on the CHT Treaty raises a fundamental question about our political system: Who are authorized to exercise the sovereignty of our State? The Government or The opposition Party? By demanding that it must be consulted before signing the Treaty, BNP is telling us that the Government does not have the authority to make treaties independently.

"...BNP has decided not to legally challenge the government for the signing the peace treaty with the tribal people of CHT. It has no the other hand, decided to face the situation politically (Riaz Osmani NFB December 14. An interesting note)."

BNP's recent decision not to challenge the Treaty in the court simply testifies what we all know: The Constitution of Bangladesh gives all the authority to the Government to exercise its sovereignty. To fight the Government politically, BNP has decided to abandon the Parliament and take over the street. This raises another important question.

What is the difference between BNP and other PPs? Why should BNP's opinions carry more weights than other PPs? Because BNP is the elected official Opposition in the Parliament. If it abstains from joining the Parliament, it gives up this special status and the difference between BNP and other PPs vanishes. The government need not give any special attention to BNP's opinions and to respond to its shouts from the streets.




Please write your comments or suggestions e-mail here.


Return to [INDEX PAGE]


This page has been created and maintained by Dr. Khandakar Qudrat-I-Elahi.
Update: 19 December 1998

This page hosted by GeoCities Get your own Free Home Page