After the 1 July attack on Holey Artisan restaurant in Gulshan, followed shortly by the militant attack near the Eid prayer congregation in Sholakia, Bangladesh has come face-to-face with certain new realities. The law enforcement agencies admit that these two acts have added a new dimension to violence. It seems that though the forces were aware that such an attack might occur, and the home minister has admitted as much, they were simply not prepared.
The government has finally stood up and taken notice as have the forces. The government has said all sorts of steps will be taken against militancy. This includes keeping a close watch on universities alleged to have militant links and, in general, to step up anti-militancy programmes in all universities.
One of the realities that has emerged is that students of English medium schools and private universities have been involved in these activities. Previously it was the madrassa students who would be the suspects. In the emerging circumstances, the matter is now being generalised, prompting all sorts of comments to be made. For example, North South University is being termed as a militant-making machine. Some are demanding the closure of universities which are alleged to have militant links. I read in the papers that cafes and restaurants will be removed from Gulshan, Banani and Dhanmandi residential areas. Only 200 special rickshaws and 30 (perhaps special?) buses will be allowed as public transport in Gulshan and Banani.
Generalization can be equated with severing the head from the body rather than administering medication for a headache. It takes time, talent and investment to come up with medication. None of that is needed to cut off the head.
I also saw in the news that the education ministry discussed the anti-militancy programme with Chhatra League. As Chhatra League is a student organization, the ministry can certainly have talks with it, as it can have with the teachers association or the employee unions. But there are other student organizations in the country, several active in Dhaka University. They still rally for education, for the students, for certain ideals of education. They are akin to the mass-oriented student bodies of the sixties. Why weren’t they in the meeting? They should be heard too.
I read that Chhatra League demanded that student politics be allowed in the private universities. According o them, while militant outfit clandestinely operated in these institutions, other student organizations were not permitted to do politics there.
To the apparent eye there is logic in their argument, if the politics was considered in a positive sense. Firstly, any extreme politics goes against the ideals of education. The ideal of education is to hone talent through the acquisition of knowledge, to inspire thought, to spread the spirit of liberal humanism. It is to instill care and commitment for the people, the country and the environment. It is to nurture a global mindset through multi-cultural exposure. Narrow, extremist and violent politics do not allow such values to grow.
No institution can prevent politics which inspires a youth to stand up against injustice, discrimination and the rule of class and capital, to stand up for a participatory and harmonious social system of equitable economic order. A young student has the right to participate in people-oriented politics of integrity.
Universities are not parrot-producing facilities. Their duty does not end in the handing out of certificates and producing young men and women for the corporate world or government service. The main function of a university is to produce an enlightened human being. All great persons, from Emerson and Neumann to Tagore, have time and again reminded universities of this responsibility.
When Chhatra League speaks of politics in private universities, are they meaning ideal, knowledge-based, people-oriented politics? The politics we are observing now can hardly inspire any hope. The big student organizations function as affiliated wings of the major political parties. Their priority is absolute power. Over the past two and a half decades, these student organizations have given rise to conflict and violence in the public universities. They have been accused of corruption and involvement in tender and other contractual businesses. They put pressure on the general students and are involved in all sorts of manipulative activities.
It is clear that such politics will do no good for the private universities. Any decision in this regard needs careful consideration.
I have connection with a few private universities in Bangladesh, and even work on lien with one. There are extremely few extremists in these universities. In fact, in some of the universities such extremists do not exist at all. The students are busy trying to get a degree, attending classes, taking exams and taking part in cultural activities.
A teacher of North South University’s English department, Abdus Selim, recently wrote the students of the university have been performing in plays and cultural programmes. They have won awards overseas for debating. Similarly, some of the students silently were involved in extremist politics. The problem is that North South University did not pay attention to this factor.
The students are not at fault. They are always ready to do anything good. But if nothing good is offered to them and if anyone places evil before them, they can be diverted to the wrong path. They can be led to drugs in this manner too.
Attention must be paid to private universities. When pressure of studies goes down, cultural activities must be upped. Cultural activities can be part of the curriculum. Most of these universities do not teach Bangla literature. There is hardly any scope for philosophy and natural studies. Where are the playing grounds? The students need facilities for their faculties to take in liberal humanism.
If such changes are made in the private universities and the necessary conditions for actual education are applied, then there will be no scope for extremism. There should be scope for politics in private universities, but politics which hold certain lofty ideals, actually focused on people and the country, not mere lip service. This politics must be tolerant, pluralistic, liberal, humble and constructive.
But if the existing models of student politics are replicated, and followed by the emergence of teacher politics as in the public universities, this will simply introduce fresh problems in the private universities and hamper education.
Ample changes must be brought about in the private universities. They need adequate space and structural improvements. These institutions must be humanist and student-friendly, more inclusive and of higher standard. What sort of politics will be conducive for this? This is an issue to be taken into consideration from now.
Syed Mazoorul Islam: Writer, Professor of the Department of English, Dhaka University
Source: Prothom Alo
