iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Anushay Hossain

GET UPDATES FROM Anushay Hossain
 

Nobody's 'Basket Case': Bangladesh Leads the Muslim World by Example

Posted: 10/20/2010 1:51 pm

Former National Security Adviser and US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger never supported the liberation of Bangladesh, famously declaring in 1971, the year Bangladesh won its independence from Pakistan, that "the place is and always will be a basket case."

In the years that followed it seemed as though Bangladesh had succumbed to this dehumanization. Alternating between civilian and military rule for decades, things came to a tense political halt in 2007 when elections were canceled, making way for the military to step in amidst a backdrop of rising Islamist activity and political violence.

Overnight democracy disappeared in the world's third largest Muslim nation. It appeared as though Bangladesh would ironically travel down the same road as Pakistan, the country it had fought so hard to liberate itself from.

What a difference three years make. Today Bangladesh has proven itself to be anything but a basket case. In December of 2008, people turned out in droves to bring Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina back to power in one of the largest and most critical elections in Bangladesh's history, signaling the end of military rule and the return of democracy to this impoverished South Asian nation.

The Wall Street Journal, which has reported on the remarkable progress Bangladesh has been making twice in the past month, states that Hasina's government has overseen the country's economy grow by 6% annually for the past three years, and curbed its population growth. At the United Nations Summit in September, Bangladesh was acknowledged for being a "development star" because of its progress on the Millennium Development Goals.

But the world has more to learn from Bangladesh than just how to curb its maternal mortality ratios. Over the past near decade, it seemed certain that Bangladesh become just another Third World Country overrun by Islamic militants and natural disasters. But ever since the Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina, has returned to power, the party has ensured the country move towards a different direction.

The publications of the largest and most influential Islamist organization in the Sub-Continent, Jamaat-e-Islami's founder, Abul Ala Maudidi have been banned, fatwas deemed illegal, and in October the High Court officially ruled Bangladesh a secular state by declaring:

Bangladesh is now a secular state as the Appellate Division (of the Supreme Court) verdict scrapped the Fifth Amendment to the constitution... in this secular state, everybody has religious freedom, and therefore no man, woman or child can be forced to wear religious attires like burqa.

How incredible is it that a country, any country let alone one with all the odds stacked against it like Bangladesh, would wind up restoring democracy, achieving key development benchmarks, quashing the extremist elements which threatened its secular roots? How often does that happen? What was the unique advantage in Bangladesh's case? The Wall Street Journal points to the country's "secular revolution," and its women:

Credit women's empowerment, which provide not only a sign of societal progress, but also remain its most salient cause. The prime minister and the opposition leader are both women. The foreign affairs, home and agricultural ministries are all run by women. Women hold top jobs in government, banks and business, and are especially prominent in legal, medical and social industries. They excel in art, culture and sport. They serve in the armed forces and fly planes for the national airlines. In the lower socio-economic spheres, women work in agriculture, micro-finance and the garment industry. Tens of millions of women are economic decision-makers.


Of course the struggle for gender rights and equity still has a long way to go. But the attempt to achieve these worthy goals, led mainly by nongovernmental organizations, has also increased social resiliency against religious fanaticism. In fact, it's not a stretch to argue that the government's actions to stem Islamism could never have been imagined without society's secular backdrop.

Although the country still faces political instability and must fight to secure these recent accomplishments, the fact of the matter is the people have determined the destiny of their country, choosing secularism over extremism, freedom of expression over the burqa.

Bangladesh, as author and writer Sadanan Dhume recently wrote, has decided her identity is politically secular, religiously Muslim and culturally Bengali.

Islamic world, please take note.

 

Follow Anushay Hossain on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AnushaysPoint

FOLLOW WORLD
 
 
  • Comments
  • 13
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
03:41 PM on 10/21/2010
And they were able to do this without an American invasion.
12:06 PM on 10/21/2010
where is my comment that I spent time to write on. You f**king mowrons are practicing freedom of speech/democracy all that s**ts. If you guys are not open to critisism to your column then dont put this comment section, u freaking hypocrats,
photo
joebaggadonuts
Civilization: Evolutionary pathway of choice.
08:46 AM on 10/21/2010
Thanks very much for publishing this. With crushing overpopulation, few natural resources and potential for religiously extremist or strong man military rule, Bangaladesh has indeed showed us their third way. I do hope their success continues.
03:48 PM on 10/21/2010
Actually the best thing for a country to have is no natural resources. The worse thing a country could have is a ton of oil underneath. It is the "paradox of plenty". It doesn't take much to get the stuff out of the ground. Meaning, only a small group of elites can control its production and the workers don't gain any capital or skills that can be transferred to other industries. When country doesn't have any resources it has to invest in its people. A perfect example is Japan, they rose from the ashes of WW2 by investing in their people. Saudi Arabia on the other hand suffers because they get all their wealth from oil, and don't invest in their people. Norway and Canada are the only democratic oil producing states because they developed their institutions before they found oil.
photo
joebaggadonuts
Civilization: Evolutionary pathway of choice.
10:20 AM on 10/22/2010
Thanks for sharing your perspective. However, believing that having few natural resources is positive seems wrong inherently because how many in such a land get to experience the wealth of natural gifts the earth offers. True they have their lives and families and time, but what about a walk alone in the woods, or on a secluded beach? Should we allow ourselves to denude the earth to get to a state of natural impoverishment so we can grow through adversity? That seems to be where we are headed and why I have commented back. Fanned regardless, for your insight.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:58 AM on 10/21/2010
I worked there for a couple of years. Loads of problems but an interesting country to work in and great people. Generally engoyed it and I can't say that about many of the places I work.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:16 PM on 10/20/2010
Very positive and uplifting article. As someone only peripherally aware of Bangladesh, this was very informative.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Zia
07:54 PM on 10/20/2010
Excellent take on Bangladesh and secularism. Although I am from a different camp from "Joy Bangla", I do wholly subscribe to the idea that secularism is the answer to Bangladesh's existence and success. The diversity Bangladesh provides should and is an example all over the world. Now if we can rein in the whims those 2 ladies..........let's not get into that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atif Ahmed Choudhury
J.D. Candidate, William and Mary College of Law
01:36 AM on 10/21/2010
Hey Zia bhai...as a Bangladeshi-American who pretty much grew up in the states, I'm not entirely familiar with what you meant by there being a "Joy Bangla" camp (as opposed to a...anti-Joy Bangla camp?)...does it have to do with the "conflict" over Bengali vs Bangladeshi nationalism? Does it carry any socio-political connotations that I am not aware of? All I know is that it was a very popular pro-independence slogan during our Liberation War and has continued to be a patriotic slogan today, so I would appreciate any enlightenment (especially so I don't offend anyone or end up embarrassing myself :-)
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Anushay Hossain
04:46 PM on 10/20/2010
Thank you, Atif! And I totally agree with you Guy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atif Ahmed Choudhury
J.D. Candidate, William and Mary College of Law
03:54 PM on 10/20/2010
What a beautifully written article...so proud of the country of my birth Joy Bangla :-)
02:18 PM on 10/20/2010
A shared cultural identity is important. Too bad the Brits and French didn't understand that when they designed India, Afghanistan, Iraq.... Anyway, congratulations Bangladesh.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atif Ahmed Choudhury
J.D. Candidate, William and Mary College of Law
01:38 AM on 10/21/2010
Well the Kashmiri independence movement and various Maoist and tribal insurrections aside, on the whole India as a federation of various states and territories seems to be doing remarkably well...a shame other countries that were similarly artificially designed by imperialists and colonialists can't seem to achieve that degree of national cohesiveness and stability.