A Conversation with My Grandfather on the Cycles of Violence in Bangladesh and India

Ranadaprasad Roy Chowdhury is former member of Awami League and was associated with the Mukti Bahini movement during Bangladesh's War of Independence. Here, I speak to him on the current crisis in India and Bangladesh w.r.t. shrinking spaces of dialogue and discussion.

Q: Recently there has been a rise in the number of hate crimes against minorities in India. Do you think it’s any different in Bangladesh? Will the majority always be the oppressor?

A: I think it’s human nature to assert power. But in Bangladesh the Hindus used to earlier looked down upon the Muslims. Hindus were also more educated and powerful. They were extremely conscious of pollution and purity and would never allow Muslims in the proximity of their well or drinking water.

Q: So the Hindus were equally anxious of both Muslim and Dalit bodies?

A: Yes. Muslims were also wary of these customs and followed them blindly. You see, Hindus controlled the economy even though there might have been more Muslims in numerical terms.

Q: But during the 1971 war, Hindus and Muslims asserted their linguistic identity over and above their respective religious moorings.

A: True. People in East Bengal were attached to each other. It is the non-Bengalis from Bihar and other parts who created problems that often lead to riots.

Q: But there were reports of Mukti Bahini men engaging in atrocities too, particularly against Biharis.

A: Maybe. But they were mostly counterreactions. The scale of violence from their (Pakistan’s) side was unprecedented.

Q: So, what lead to the death of secular democracy in Bangladesh (as envisioned by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman)?

A: People at the  grass root level did not really want independence from Pakistan. It took them by surprise. The narrative used by ‘Bango bandhu’ was that of economic and cultural exploitation. Everyone supported that. However, I think that the commoners didn’t want complete separation from Pakistan. They perhaps wanted to safeguard their rights within the state.

Q: You think secularism didn’t last because of that?

A. Absolutely. Religion has always been a guiding factor in our politics. There is sense of hurt within the majority of Muslims due to the 1971 Partition. Even today.

Q: But are you saying that people who joined Mukti Bahini didn’t realize the significance of their agitation? Most of them were also from the grassroots, I guess.

A: I am not saying that. Mukti Bahini consisted of many young men who were passionate and idealistic.  I think the general notion was that this would be a freedom from all oppression. For the Muslim majority, this may not have included political liberation.

Q: What do you make of Modi and the current situation in India?

A: As per law, you are secular. But Modi compared GST to Gita. Why not Quran if you are secular? He is trying to assert his Hindutva whenever/wherever he can.

Q: So, you think this is only a Hindu-Muslim conflict?

A: I don’t think the conflict is so severe between commoners from these religions. The Hindu-Muslim antagonism can be traced back to the 1947 Partition. Our leaders are largely responsible for it.

Q: Is beef then just an excuse to kill Muslims?

A: I think so. Hindus used to eat beef earlier. There are so many castes among Hindus. We believe in such exclusionary practices.

Q: Your opinions are very different from that of your younger brother. Despite his tolerance and empathy, he believes Hinduism is the greatest of all religions. Don’t you two quarrel?

A: Haha. He has a different mindset. But if you look at the larger picture, it seems absurd that people should kill each other on the basis of religion. We are human beings first.