1971, Post conflict societies,

reconciliation and Bangladeshi branded

‘chetonabazi’

In the foreword to ‘Reconciliation After Violent Conflict: A Handbook’, Archbishop

Desmond Tutu writes,

“There is no handy roadmap for reconciliation. There is no short cut or simple

prescription for healing the wounds and divisions of a society in the aftermath of
sustained violence. Creating trust and understanding between former enemies is
a supremely difficult challenge. It is, however, an essential one to address in the
process of building a lasting peace. Examining the painful past, acknowledging it
and understanding it, and above all transcending it together, is the best way to
guarantee that it does not — and cannot — happen again”

Years ago, I had once come across a random article on the internet of a Bangladeshi
born professor of economics at Iowa University where the author had shared some of
his personal opinion on the future of Bangladesh in terms of addressing the divide that
the nation invariably carried since the war of independence against Pakistan in 1971.
Today, More than a decade later, I find myself concurring with him completely.

Addressing the post war reconciliation, the esteemed author Humayun Ahmed, in the
Q&A styled book, Hazaro Proshne Humayun Ahmed, goes on to say to the effect of ….

……. ‘I am for reconciliation. I don’t want the country to head in the direction of perpetual
divide. If we brand the children and the relatives of ‘razakars’ as razakar sympathisers,
we will head directly into a perpetually divided society where no reconciliation will be in
sight.’
The renowned author then goes on to demand that there atleast be a public apology
from those that helped, compromised and had favoured the pakistani army in what we
now know to be one of the most brutal genocide in the history of this region and
beyond.

While there is no doubt that what Mr. Ahmed’s position on the matter was more than a
fair and balanced position, we see a completely reverse opinion coming from someone
who went through the same horrors of the war; his younger brother, famous author and
oft quoted public intellectual, Muhammad Jafar Iqbal. While both Mr Ahmed and Mr
Iqbal lost their father Foyzur Rahman and many other loved ones in 1971 at the hands
of the Pakistani army, Mr Iqbal tends to have much harsher words for those that had
had even the slightest inkling of sympathy towards the Pakistani army, Hanadar bahini,
as they are often called.

Mr Iqbal is unapologetically against anything Pakistani, whether they have anything to

do with what happened in 1971 or not. Some of his remarks include telling one of his
countless young fan who had questioned him about supporting the Pakistani cricket
team that he could never see himself being friends with someone who supported the
Pakistani cricket team and that he does not believe any type of reconciliation is possible
with his generation and that the next generations might eventually be able to see eye to
eye to a Pakistani national someday. While such a position can be termed fair to some
extent he has also suggested students brush their teeth every time they utter the word
‘Pakistan’.

My intention here is not to criticize or attack Mr Iqbal or his opinion but rather to point
out how such internalized hatred is transferred into what can be termed as the now
colloquial “micro aggression” in dealing with a fellow Bangladeshi citizen whose
forefathers may have compromised and assisted (and betrayed his own in the process
obviously) the Pakistani army in 1971 in one way or another. An entire generation
(including that of my own) have grown up idolizing the likes of Mr Iqbal and his personal
opinion which did not remain personal. A section of an entire generation have grown up
learning to hate anything Pakistani, be it the Pakistani cricket team or the distant relative
of a ‘rajakar’. And today, such people are described with the title of ‘chetonabaz’
(something to the effect of a patriotically woke individual)

In Reconciliation after violent conflict: A handbook, Author David Bloomfield writes,

 “In what are nowadays termed “post-conflict” societies, ……….. One of the biggest
obstacles to cooperation is that, because of the violence of the past, their
relations are based on antagonism, distrust, disrespect and, quite possibly, hurt
and hatred. It is hardly a recipe for optimism, no matter how effective or perfect
those new structures may be. So there is a pressing need to address that
negative relationship. Not to make enemies love each other, by any means, but to
engender a minimum basis of trust so that there can be a degree of cooperation
and mutual reliance between them. To achieve this, they need to examine and
address their previous relationship and their violent past. Reconciliation is the
process for doing exactly that “

In Canada, where I now live, one of the biggest horror stories in recent times has been
the discovery of approximately 215 unmarked graves of children from the Kamloops
Indian Residential School. The government had established a truth and reconciliation
commission on June 1, 2008, with the purpose of documenting the history and lasting
impacts of the Canadian Indian residential school system on Indigenous students and
their families. Canada has a very complex relationship with its indigenous population,
first nations, as they are often referred to. And in the coming days, this will be a key
factor in defining and redefining what it means to be a Canadian and a First nation
Canadian.

While not at such a level, I see my Bangladesh heading to a place that might require
such an intervention of reconciliation to handle the divide. That is what I used to think a
decade ago when I read the aforementioned random internet article. However 10 years
later, being back in Bangladesh for an extended leave today, I find myself pleasantly
surprised at seeing the overwhelming majority of the millennials who no longer carry
such hatred towards the ‘other’ section of the society. In Fact the generation that I talked
about earlier who idolized the likes of Mr Iqbal no longer are the majority. The minority
chetonabazi generation are being replaced by the newer pragmatic millennials who refuse
to carry such historic baggage. They may not be very vocal on TV, Radio and on Newspaper
(all because of self imposed censorship) they are here and they are, The Future.