Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

Two common features of these three parliamentary elections are that they were free and fair and the electorate voted against the status quo and for change.
   In December 1970, the Bengalis’ overwhelming mandate for the Six Points signaled that they wanted a substantial overhaul of Pakistan’s power structure. This unleashed irreconcilable forces that led to Pakistan’s break-up a year later.
   On 23 June 2006, Canadians voted in Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and threw out Paul Martin’s Liberals after 13 years rule latterly tarnished by broken promises and sponsorship/ insider trading scandals.
   Wanting to test drive the model before buying it, the voters gave Conservatives a qualified victory. They can only form a minority government, winning 124 out of 308 seats (Liberals got 103). While Harper will move closer to Bush, the international implication of his victory is marginal.
   
   Palestine elections
   It’s quite the opposite in the Palestine elections held on 27 January. The result’s a bombshell.
   Hamas, formally the Islamic Salvation Front, won 76 out the 132 seats against 43 for President Abbas’s ruling Fatah party that dominated the legislature since the previous elections a decade ago. Hamas swept Ramallah, Bethlehem and Jerusalem, even though Israel had disallowed it from campaigning in the last two cities.
   The problem: Hamas claims the land that constitutes Israel—it doesn’t favour a two-state solution— and refuses to disarm its armed cadres.
   The election result highlights the law of unintended consequences. Hamas emerged in 1987 as an offshoot of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood ironically with Israeli patronage to offset the PLO’s secular appeal. The wheel has turned full circle in a way Tel Aviv probably never imagined.
   
   Why Hamas won
   Hamas won because Palestinians were fed-up with Fatah’s corruption and incompetence –’they did nothing for us’ accused a voter—and wanted change. People demand and expect performance and punish the party that fails to deliver. Witness the Awami League’s unpopularity after 1972.
   Hamas focused on creating a new civil society that emphasized delivery of health and 2 social services. It’s considered honest and incorruptible.
   So Hamas’s victory is more a rejection of Fatah’s poor governance and less an endorsement of Hamas’s hard line policy. The electorate wants an end to violence and resumption of peace talks.
   That’s why Hamas, facing this ambiguous reality, declared itself in favour of a coalition government, with a technocrat as possible Prime Minister in place of Fatah’s Ahmad Qureia, who promptly resigned.
   If an alliance is reached, Hamas probably will concentrate on social services and let PA President Abbas—who’s in office for three more years—handle as before national policy, peace process and control the security services.
   
   Hamas’ constraints
   There are two problems with this condominium approach: internal and external.
   The internal one stems from divided government. If Fatah won’t join the coalition or cooperate with it, Hamas will have a difficult time governing, as it lacks expertise and the bureaucracy is full of Fatah supporters.
   Already, there have been clashes between Hamas and Fatah supporters. This could be due to victors’ exuberance on one hand and losers’ disappointment on the other.
   Despite this, some degree of Hamas/Fatah cooperation seems likely, propelled by considerations of the Palestinian’s larger interests, despite differences in their ideology (theological versus secular) and approach to dealing with Israel.
   The other reason for probable cooperation is external (read US) pressure. Bush accepted the election result as a rejection of the ‘status quo’ but reiterated US will not work with Hamas until it accepts Israel’s right to exist and disarms its militias.
   But the problem is that the miserable Palestinian ‘status quo’ is also a product of US policy. This did precious little to help Abbas and compromised his credibility by supporting Sharon’s policy of unilateral disengagement.
   Thus, Israelis withdrew from Gaza, but more because of the compulsions of demography, prohibitive security costs and tying down many soldiers on guard duties. But other extant problems remained unresolved or exacerbated.
   These include: unchecked West Bank settler expansion; proliferation of roadblocks that make Palestinians’ life hell; continued building of security wall that divides Palestinian lands; and Israeli dilatoriness in releasing prisoners.
   As to dismantling militias, Bush speaks with a forked tongue. After all, Afghan and Iraq elections went ahead despite the plethora of guns and armed groups.
   So it’s odd, inconsistent and illogical for the US to demand Hamas disarm. This will only give Israelis a freer hand to continue to act with unilateral impunity and increase the prospects of making the emerging Palestinian state a caricature Bantustan, which many suspect is Israeli policy’s real goal that enjoys covert US support.
   
   Dangers and opportunities
   But Palestinians are in a bind. They depend largely on EU and Arab aid for survival. Any interruption would cause them much suffering and probably setback the ‘peace’ process.
   Hamas can’t ignore and overlook this point. It faces a moment of truth. How does it make the move from a resistance organization to a government?
   This is a tricky moment for all principals. Any and all political movement means deft and delicate footwork.
   If the EU/US cut off funding, Hamas could well turn to Tehran, which is unlikely to pass up a chance to tweak the West’s nose. If Israel imposes financial sanctions and resumes targeted assassination of Hamas with or without cause, this could signal the end of the year-long cease fire between the antagonists.
   So Hamas is likely to pursue a nuanced policy, opting to ‘maintain peace but not make peace with Israel.’ (Brookings’ Martin Indyk).
   Israel and US are likely to watch, wait and see before acting, though the US is making noises about cutting off aid and urging EU to do likewise. But this could also be nuanced bluster to impress upon the emerging Palestinian leadership to tread cautiously and carefully in forming an administration and on governing.
   While a long shot, the possibility can’t be ruled out of Israel making some minor conciliatory gestures on settlements, checkpoints and wall construction to show its hand and score points internationally.
   Paradoxically, Hamas’s doctrinaire hostility to Israel, like US Republicans to communist regimes, may make it easier for it to reciprocate any such Israeli move without being accused of a sellout.
   Israel after all is a powerful reality and can’t be ignored. But neither can the reality of a Hamas victory under free elections. The US can’t ignore results it doesn’t like. This would make a mockery of elections, discredit Bush’s export of democracy and undermine the fragile peace process.
   US and EU have dubbed Hamas a terrorist organization. This appellation turns history hypocritically on its head.
   The Western powers know well enough that Israelis used terror to obtain a state and then to manage it. Nobel Prize co-winner Menachem Begin was a terrorist—a member of the British banned Irgun Zvai Leumi—before becoming a statesman. So is Sharon.
   In politics, redemption and reformation isn’t unknown. So it’s not inconceivable that the above realties will encourage the Hamas and Israeli leopards to change spots: difficult, dangerous but not implausible.
   
   Impact on US policy
   One thing’s clear. Palestinian elections, like America’s Baghdad adventure, have shown the shortcomings and frailty of Bush’s Middle East policy.
   The road to peace in Palestine was expected to run through Baghdad. So far, it hasn’t. Saddam’s ouster has thrown Iraq in turmoil, rearranged the power structure and threatens ethnic strife portending civil war. Add to this fledgling Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan and mounting tensions over Iran, and things could get out of hand.
   Hamas’s victory strengthens fundamentalists over secularists, sharpens the tussle between these two forces amongst Muslim states and hardens the resolve of incumbent conservative, reactionary and despotic Arab rulers to make as few concessions as possible, and that too stingily.
   Bush expected that elections per se would be the Tylenol to expunge his Middle East headaches by ushering democracies beholden to US. He and his neocons probably never dreamt that elections—that essential staple of democracy—would generate unforeseen and complicated consequences, and add to his headaches.

Poet Shankha Ghosh once said, ‘An association usually breaks up in a decade’. Poet Rafik Azad denied the view of Poet Ghosh and firmly said, ‘No, the association does not break in a decade.’ Today, we see Poet Ghosh’s assumption has been dismissed.
   Rafiq Azad termed the poets as jumping frogs as they cannot be brought into a disciplined world as one may expect. They always jump from one idea to another; one goal to another; one destination to the other and as such have their many ways of expressing themselves. They jump from one imaginary world to the other. It is almost impossible to bring a group of poets under the same umbrella. However, the impossible could be possible in case of the secular and progressive poets of Bangladesh. Now the National Poetry Festival has reached its twentieth year. It has been there for two decades and is approaching its third. Wow! We have the warm touches of this year’s twentieth poetry festival.
   Our great teacher Plato once pointed out that politics is not for poets. But why did he speak thus? This single question creates a number of questions further. Should there be any obligation that a poet should not be a politician? Or a politician should not be a poet? A true politician should not have times for writing poems or leading the life of a poet. On the other hand, a true poet must not have due attention to his/her business in politics as per its requirements. There are contradictions, in the contexts of some examples we see before us. And we can see the issue still matters. Here it can be noted that the Chinese leader Mao Zedong was a powerful poet as well as a bona fide politician. We can add Pablo Neruda, Andre Marlaux, Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, Atal Behari Vajpayee, Anil Sarkar, José Alexandre ‘Xanana’ Gusmão, the first president of East Timor and quite a few others to the list.
   We know poets do not think of the way while scientists do not ignore the way. Anyway, there are contradictions to some extent in the current state of poetry. Poetry can serve as prophecy, as a matter of fact. A true poet must see his times in the future and boldly can claim his roots in his tradition or contrarily in his past. A true poet cannot deny his past. The past is either rich or poor. In this case we can see that a true poet must think of his ways. On the other hand, when a poet thinks of his ways, he cannot possibly reach the world of thoughts in poetry. Here poetry loses spontaneity and poets miss (in some cases) the appeal of the arts. Here the way refers to a poet’s livelihood in the material world. And politicians? They search for slogans in poetry when they need it.
   In the era of military governance in newly born Bangladesh, the Bengali progressive poets went through some fraught times. They needed to think whether they would deny politics or ignore the way or do something that they thought was right. This writer here would like to further quote poet Rafiq Azad: ‘Men are political animals. Some poets are silent about politics. This silence is also one kind of politics.’ The fact is clear here. In response to veteran poet Shamsur Rahman’s appeal, all the progressive secular poets who have trust and respect in the spirit of the Liberation War of Bangladesh in 1971 came together on a platform against the autocratic ruler General Ershad in 1987. It does not really matter that the military ruler under the auspices of state power organized the so-called Asian Poetry Festival then. It was a desperate move that could not continue over time. You know the facts. The autocrat is now gone, along with his poetry. But are the state and its people any more free than they were from danger now? The theme of this year’s festival, ‘Poetry against militancy’, connects the times all around us.
   At the inaugural function of the 20th festival, many a poet expressed their confidence that poetry can do all for the relief of danger we face collectivley. Poet Shamsur Rahman said to lose faith in humanity is a sin and to lose it in poetry is a greater sin. Yes, we agree with the bard. Contrarily, Sunil Gangopadhaya said, ‘I do not think poetry can do anything against militancy or any other foe and regressive forces before us.’ He clarifies that poetry rather can influence the younger generation to contribute to humanity through being involved in poetry reading or loving poetry as such. We can encourage the young forces to have the touches of poetry through reading as well as writing. That can have a meaning in reality, we believe. This writer thinks the theme ‘Poetry against militancy’ must have relevance, especially in light of what poet Gangpopadhaya states. He says, ‘Love is the most powerful tool against hate. Hate should not be an instrument against hate.’ Yes, love poetry, hate militancy.
   Humayun Azad writes: In the poetry of the 19th century we can find patriotism and respect for English. The language and the country became the same in their spirit of belief. Ramnidhi Gupta asks if anyone reach his goal without his native language? Madhusudan expresses his entiments through two poems, Bangabhumi and Bangabhumir Proti. Rangalal Bandopadhaya moved us by writing, ‘Who wants to live without freedom? It is to be noted here that the Hindumela took place in 1867 here. This influenced the trend of Bangla poems and music as well. Hindumela was like a movement. It inspired poets back then. Since then, politics in Bangla poetry has been a dominant element. We see that the Bangabanga Movement, Non-Cooperation Movement, Pakistan Movement and then Language Movement, the Mass Upsurge in 1969 and the Liberation War have enriched Bangla poetry with the sure touch of politics.
   Will this earth be a sound one any day? Humayun Azad raised this question. This writer would like to repeat poet Azad’s question If the world is not sound and stable, politics in poetry will be more dangerous. And if it is sound, the poets can go back to composing poetry of love, pains, tears, and hope and frustration. We can wait for such beautiful times. Then politics will be as beautiful as flowers. Then we can bid goodbye politics in poetry and can compose true poetry in the shape of poems. Then a poet will not need to be a politician and a politician will not need to be a poet as such.
   
   The 20th festival and points to note
   With a view to widening the reach of the 20th year of Poetry Council, the organisers have extended the programmes. That is why this festival has been a three-day event. In the last nineteen years the council has played a crucial role in the development of Bangla poetry and the welfare of poets. All these endeavours deserve appreciation, certainly. The council has introduced two awards, the National Poetry Award and the Poetry Council Award. The council has so far built a network with poets in different countries, notably India, Pakistan, Japan, UK and the USA. It has played an encouraging role in the promotion of human welfare, thus inspiring the growth of secular and progressive movements. It organises seminars on different topics for the development of poetry and its techniques. This year the council holds three seminars as part of its programme on Poetry of Bangladesh: The plight of youth; Poetry and the different aspects of arts; Poetry of Bangladesh: The role of literary journals of different dailies. Well and good the topics are. For the discussion on the third keynote paper the organisers have mostly invited the literary editors. Why did they do so? This is not clear. The role that the role-players (literary editors) play is reflected in the pages. They must not play the role of observers at the same time. The literary critics, scholars and veteran poets need to focus on the paper that might be more appreciated.
   The festival will be a milestone in the history of our poetry movement. The event will have its tradition go into defining many more decades to come. As it does so, poetry will find itself enhanced in artistic and aesthetic appeal. Bengalee poets thus will have enriched the world in the tradition they create. And in the near future powerful poets will emerge out of this tradition. That is a hope we certainly keep alive.
   E-mail:anisbangla@yahoo.com

On Monday a mayoral candidate in a suburb of Nepal’s capital, Kathmandu, was shot and critically wounded at his home by unidentified gunmen. Last Saturday Maoist rebels warned all election candidates to withdraw or face ‘severe action’. Last month the Maoists killed a mayoral candidate in the east of the country. For King Gyanendra, who seized absolute power in a coup exactly a year ago, these incidents are evidence of the evil of terrorism that the municipal elections he has called for February 8 are designed to combat.
   If voters wish for a peaceful, democratic Nepal, he says, they must defy the Maoists and vote.
   As a political discourse, this fits well with the prevailing language of the war on terror. But in the looking-glass world that is Gyanendra’s political universe, nothing is what it seems. In insisting on staging these elections, the king is making a bid for political respectability for the absolutist regime he imposed a year ago. It is, he calculates, a win-win manoeuvre: if the Maoists succeed in disrupting the vote, he can claim the moral high ground - that he tried to conduct a democratic exercise, but it was wrecked by terror; if the Maoists fail and the poll proceeds - a less likely scenario at the time of writing - he can claim the vindication of the electorate for his bid to return to feudal power.
   But the king, as that notorious White House official observed of his own ever-optimistic administration, is creating his own reality. In the ‘reality-based community’ outside the palace gates, it is not only the Maoists who oppose the king’s project: last November Nepal’s seven biggest political parties signed an agreement with the Maoists to fight jointly for a constituent assembly that would write a new - and democratic - constitution for Nepal. The Maoists had declared a ceasefire and waited four months for a response from the king to their offer of talks. There was no response from a king who believes, against heavy evidence to the contrary, that the Maoists’ 10-year rebellion can be defeated by force. Now the main political parties are boycotting the elections, the Maoists have taken up the gun again, and the king is hanging tough.
   Kathmandu is under military occupation, racked by the repeated street protests of an angry citizenry that sees its hopes for democracy not in the king’s elections but in the restoration of the suspended congress and the curbing of the king’s absolute powers. The regime has responded with mass arrests, the detention of political leaders, the suspension of the universities, intermittent curfews and the shutting down of mobile-phone networks. In the past year more than 2,000 journalists have lost their jobs after the government forced the closure of newspapers and radio stations for ‘negative’ reporting.
   The biggest challenge to the elections is yet to come. After demonstrating their capacity to operate within the capital, the Maoists have called a transport strike from February 5 to 11. If previous ‘strikes’ are any guide - and they have been enforced in the past by the murder of drivers who have defied the order - Nepal’s road transport will be paralysed, vital supplies will grow scarce and the country will hunker down to endure, as best it can, this latest test of resilience.
   Resilient the Nepalese are, but the country is on the edge of political and economic collapse. Tourism, the second-largest foreign-exchange earner, on which 100,000 Nepalese depend, has dropped by 40% and the economy - one of the poorest in Asia - is sinking under the weight of diminished revenues and increased military spending.
   The chances of the king’s electoral gamble winning him credibility are poor. His international standing is now so low that last week the EU described the elections as a ‘backward step for democracy’. Despite reports that the army has forced many of the candidates to stand, up to 600 hopefuls have withdrawn their nominations and hundreds more have now been put under security protection, thus ensuring that they are unable to embarrass the king by withdrawing. This striking absence of political ambition has left a quarter of the 4,146 seats uncontested and no elections in 12 of the 58 municipalities for want of willing candidates.
   The king’s advisers remain indifferent to the hopelessness of an increasingly ruthless military campaign and its mounting civilian casualties. The king’s right-hand man, Dr Tulsi Giri, recently claimed of the Maoists that ‘their back is broken’, shortly before the rebels launched their latest series of high-profile operations.
   When the king seized power a year ago he and his advisers confidently predicted that the Maoists would be brought to heel within six months. Then, and only then, they said, would the palace consider talks. A year later the Maoists continue to demonstrate their capacity to operate throughout the country and to bring Nepal to a standstill when they choose. Now only the US continues to describe the Maoists as the greatest threat to democracy in Nepal. For Nepal’s political parties, for the neighbouring superpower, India, for the EU and, increasingly, for the people of Nepal, the greatest obstacle to peace and a return to the constitutional order is the king himself. This miserable electoral farce will do nothing to change that.
   The Guardian