THE sociologists of the country met recently in a conference and concluded that military rule could never be an alternative to the rule of law. Some leading sociologists, speaking at the biennial conference of the Bangladesh Sociological Association, observed that the country was at a critical juncture and raising the consciousness level of the masses was the only way out of the crisis. One of the sociologists, KAM Saaduddin, in his keynote paper on sociological analysis of Bangladesh politics, elaborated that the country at present is landed at a crossroads and that the impasses can be overcome by raising popular consciousness. The president of the association, FR Khan, who chaired the conference, said democracy is a system of government with elaborate institutional framework reinforced by the rule of law and in no way can military rule be an alternative to the rule of law. The education adviser, Hossain Zillur Rahman, who was chief guest, also found something to say. He praised the keynote speaker for choosing ‘a bold topic for discussion’ and held that they had also witnessed the drastic decline in the quality of politics.
   This was a big show with five hundred delegates from the sociology departments of the universities and the NGOs, as reported. The views expressed are very well-reasoned and we would firmly back them. Prolongation of the military-controlled rule, as we view the issue, will only exacerbate the present crisis instead of easing it. We fully and warmly endorse the position taken by the sociologists even though there is nothing novel or revelatory about it. What our sociologists think today the rest of us, generally speaking, thought yesterday and much before that. If five hundred intellectuals put up a mega spectacle to hit the finding that the rule of law is necessary then it cannot be said that time and resources were put to optimum use.
   But despite the banality of the colloquium, it has significance in that through a forum a fraternity of intellectuals, whom we always expect to come out with their frank and forthright views on some critical problems facing the country, have spoken at last. The professors have professed to a noble purpose. Of course, they have aired their views on the wrong wavelength. Political and constitutional issues do not strictly pertain to sociologists’ province. But they have the right as citizens and duty as intellectuals to register their protest at critical times. Professors, academics and specialists from fields more directly related to the political dispensation explicate the subject from time to time. And we expect them to continue with greater incisiveness and depth of the subject and greater momentum and vigour of their action.
   In the past the people fought for autonomy of the universities. The intention was not to shield the professors from accountability but to ensure that those who make up the country’s intellectual hardcore are enabled to give free expression to their findings and views, whether they go for or against the interest of the establishment. Harassment of conscientious teachers during the old days of Ayub-Monem rule was still fresh in the nation’s memory. That is the reason so much reverence was shown by the people to the university ordinance which guaranteed autonomy and so was treated as a charter of intellectual freedom.
   As for sociologists, if they want a role for themselves they have a lot to do. There will be no dearth of agendas relevant to their training. The nation had been waiting for them to enlighten them on some most pressing sociological issues and to act as a pressure group. The long wait was to no avail. No intellectual movement was launched by sociologists either individually or from the professional platform. It is true that giving opinion on political matters can attract attention much faster than if they raised sociological issues. That is why perhaps sociologists had to raid political scientists’ platform and borrow the latter’s microphones. This is not to say that political scientists’ platform is too vocal and effective.
   Some of the overwhelming problems of the country are sociological at their roots: drugs, crime, impoverishment, increasing propensity to violence. We are unable to cite too many instances of study or survey made by sociologists on these emerging phenomena or any important social analysis. More commonly, it is left to the NGOs to make some studies covering some disturbing aspects of collective living. Maybe the university sociologists lent their services in the preparation of some of these studies as consultants, etc. But why speak through the NGOs, why not speak direct to the people. An NGO’s priority may not accord perfectly with national priority.
   Even to a lay observer it will be clear that the Bengali society is changing. If in some respects it is becoming more refined, it is also undergoing degradation in many ways. Once the Bengalis were a peaceful and peace-loving people, averse to violence. We believe they still are so, but there is some evident change in a sizeable segment. What has gone wrong now? Why is the threshold of tolerance so lowered? And violence in some instances appears motiveless. What has poisoned our collective existence? Are video game and cable TV to blame? Is consumerism creating any social problem? Are the ethnic minorities feeling alienated? Both religious bigotry and fundamentalism are increasing. What feeds them? Besides video culture, the near-universal use of the mobile phone is a new element in society. Some benefits from the cell phone are visible, even for the underprivileged sections. But is it moulding society in any way? Is not a deeper analysis necessary?
   As regards popular consciousness, we think nothing is fundamentally wrong with it as far as their rights and liberty are concerned, although creation of awareness about the different problems as they arrive has to be an on-going process. These problems like health, environment, civic issues with changing times take new shapes and education and re-education has always been felt necessary. But the common people of this country, educated and education-deprived alike, have never been a wee bit unsure about the merits of representative government and the rule of law. At the moment what is needed for our deliverance is, more than popular consciousness, the consciousness of the rulers.
   Perhaps academics and professionals in this country have some limitations. When sections of the intelligentsia (now perhaps called civil society) take to the street with urgent call to save the environment, those who are teaching environment in classroom are not stirred to action. When globalisation is further impoverishing the poor, only some individual economists are protesting; what about the Bangladesh Economic Association? As Jean Paul Sartre had said, intellectuals should take a public stand on all on al great questions of their day and that an intellectual’s writing and thinking should be engagé. Social relations and social interaction are a basic sociological concept. As a discipline sociology is relatively modern. The first scientific definition of sociology came from the nineteenth century French Positivist philosopher Auguste Comte (Sociologie in French). It was further elaborated by the British philosopher Herbert Spencer (who Will Durant wrote was almost illiterate). Comte sought to discover the laws of human society on the lines of the laws of nature by applying the methods of factual investigation as is done in the case of physical science. Comte also called sociology social physics. This new discipline was later popularised by Émile Durkheim and Max Weber. Karl Marx did not call himself a sociologist but no sociologist can ignore his writings. Sociologists’ most preoccupying studies are related to social problems like crime, abuses, disparities and their influence on society. We are not suggesting that the key to the country’s problems lies in sociologists, or any group of intellectuals for that matter, burning their midnight oil. But we cannot afford the legion of intellectuals who fit epithets like ‘armchair’, ‘ivory tower’.