Myths surrounding student politics
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Sainul Hossain
Before I delve deep into the captioned topic, let me first clarify the definition of student politics in our present context. By 'student politics,' I am referring to the organisational presence and practice of political party-related activities in the educational or any institutional premises, as evident in prominent national universities and colleges (like Dhaka College etc.) and as absent in some well-known private universities or colleges (like Notre Dame College). To further clarify, student politics does not include any student practising politics outside any educational or institutional premises. A student, like any other citizen-be he a rickshawpuller or a rocket-scientist-can go to a village to publicise the doctrines of Bangabandhu or Ziaur Rahman. That is part of national politics and not student politics. There is no limit to the damage the practice of student politics has done to our national fabric. In principle, it was intended to allow freedom of thought. In practice, for whatever reasons, it is deterrent and inhibitor to free thoughts and innovations. Male students are continuously being 'soul-raped' by being forced to join a party or the other for survival in the halls or on the campus. Many female students in one of the most famous universities have been subjected to physical violence in this connection. Students have been killed. Violence, threat and terrorism have become the norm of the day. Yet, we have many critics who do not consider it worthwhile to ban student politics. Some may have vested interests. And a lot may just feel 'awkward' or perplexed with the issue of banning such a once-glorified practice. My article is intended to try to go over some of the popular beliefs and logics which favour student politics and assess how valid they are. One very popular logic is that student politics is essential to uphold and respect the glory of the past (liberation movement days). This logic is inconsistent in the sense that the supporters of this logic have not proposed to allow arms in each house though we had a glorified armed struggle for our independence. The logic does not only stand the test of consistency with upholding of our other glories of the past, nor does it even pass the test of time. One cannot pay respect to Shaheed Asad or Shaheed Matiur by taking the lives of others in our educational institutes. We can pay respect to their sacrifices by upholding life and their dreams for the next generations. There is another logic that student politics can act as a safeguard against the loss of democracy. This logic is without any proof or evidence to support such claim. First of all, student politics could not work as deterrent to the emergence of dictators. Student politics existed all the time, yet the nation experienced the demise of democracy under the very founder of the nation who fought all his life for democracy. The nation also suffered the killing of the founder of the nation by the power-monger miscreants, the subsequent emergence of martial-law a number of times. Student politics failed to prevent the chaos or distortion in the national politics or the loss of democracy by the power of the guns. What about correcting the distortion? Again, it has failed there. Instead of helping to remove the distortion, student politics only replaced the distortion. Guns of the military have been replaced by muscles of the "lathials." Am I wrong? Let me fast forward to the 90s which is often quoted as the period where our student politics have gained back the glory of the past. Yes, Ershad-regime saw vehement student opposition, but contrary to popular belief, this student politics was for reinstituting the Madam or Apa in power, not regaining democracy. The bloody end of alliance in the combined student movement right after Awami League opted to participate in 1986 election; the prolonged period of Ershad regime exploiting the division; the post-Ershad inclusion of Ershad's key accomplices into the AL or Bangladesh Nationalist Party cabinets; the unchallenged open and shameless race between AL and BNP to take Ershad as an ally belies the fact that student politics did anything to bring back democracy. In an independent nation where enforcement of law is weak, this is a fallacy to expect or claim that student politics can work as safeguard against dictatorship. Some also support student politics as the grooming vehicle for future leaders. I have seen (on TV, not in person unfortunately) some old leaders talking about their past golden days when they, being student leaders, had respected each other, not chased each other. And some also mention that absence of the students' unions like DUCSU and CUKSU are impeding the growth of leaders in the national politics. How valid is such fear or proposition? There are far more advanced nations or newly advancing nations which do not have student politics, but still are much ahead of us in terms of national prosperity. And how are they getting their leaders to lead themselves? Have they imported our DUCSU, CUKSU leaders to lead their countries? No, not. Now, let us turn our attention inside. I respect our old student leaders as they have undergone tremendous sufferings, hardships and showed both dedication and sacrifice in the movement on the road. But, while in power, have they shown any leadership in building consensus, promoting democracy and leading the nation to prosperity? We need to accept the hard truth that destruction and construction cannot follow the same recipe and hence, do not require the same sets of skill. It is easy to incite the herd, hurl stones at the windows and break glass panes. We needed it when we have been enslaved by foreign rulers. But, it is much more difficult to unite the herd and install the glass panes. A simple stone is not enough there. We need technology, we need skilled labour, we need considerable investment of time, money and labour and we need supply of logistics. No, sorry to say, this writer of the post-liberation generation has not seen any student-leader-turned-national politician who had demonstrated leadership as a role model respecting democratic norms. Even key politicians like Jalil and late Mannan failed to rise to the occasion in the pre-111 crisis. So, in reality, the logic of grooming of future leaders by student politics dwells in a false premise. Far from grooming, it is hampering the academic atmosphere and blocking the growth of knowledge-powered, self-challenging leaders the nation very much need in different domains, not necessarily in the political domain only. Some supporters of student politics often claim that terrorists do not belong to any party. Some different versions of the same logic are those who are engaged in terrorism are not students at all. A softer version is to refer to this bad student politics as "so-called student politics," implying that there is another version of student politics other than the mainstream student politics. The reality is that the terrorists are also students. They have enrolment in an institution and belong to some departments. They might be the proxy of someone or of themselves to carry on terrorism, but it does not alter the fact that they are students. It also does not alter the fact, that many of them, before entering university or colleges, were not terrorists or rapists. Rapists have been given the chance to sit for examinations in private rooms and the reason that they have been given such right is that they were students and they were in student politics. The most powerful logic often given against banning student politics is that whether it is apt to tear off the head when there is a headache. This logic has turned into mere rhetoric. If I follow their logic, student politics is compared to "head" and hence not severable and then what is the "ache" here? Perhaps, students are the ache here. And that is why these logic-mongers are happy with disposing the lives and future of the students, rather than disposing student politics. Are we sane? If we want to protect our education, build our most valuable human resources for prospering as a nation, then, to me, the ache is the student politics. In fact, it is more than an ache. It is the 'cancer cell' that is expanding and corrupting not only the once respected faculties in the educational institutes (e.g. look at the university VCs), but also the post study professional work-places (e.g. look at the corrupt practices by the professional medical bodies). It is for the sake of the body and head that we remove this headache or destroy the 'cancer cell.' Finally, no other single nation paid the sacrifice in blood of 30 million people to get independence from oppressive foreign rulers. It has made life of each of the next generation the costliest, not the cheapest or as much disposable as the supporters of student politics tend to think. Being driven by emotion for the past, fallacies of the present or illusions for the future, will not exonerate each of us from the guilt that we could not save the nation's most valuable assets like the lives of Abu Bakar, that we have put our sisters vulnerable, that we failed to protect our brothers from being what famous philosopher Roger Williams could attribute as being soul-raped (forced to do something against the will), that we could not ensure a sound educational environment what other nations have ensured for their students. Let us dispose of student politics and not students and our future. The writer, based in Japan, can be reached at e-mail: hossain_sainul@yahoo.co.jp
Before I delve deep into the captioned topic, let me first clarify the definition of student politics in our present context. By 'student politics,' I am referring to the organisational presence and practice of political party-related activities in the educational or any institutional premises, as evident in prominent national universities and colleges (like Dhaka College etc.) and as absent in some well-known private universities or colleges (like Notre Dame College). To further clarify, student politics does not include any student practising politics outside any educational or institutional premises. A student, like any other citizen-be he a rickshawpuller or a rocket-scientist-can go to a village to publicise the doctrines of Bangabandhu or Ziaur Rahman. That is part of national politics and not student politics. There is no limit to the damage the practice of student politics has done to our national fabric. In principle, it was intended to allow freedom of thought. In practice, for whatever reasons, it is deterrent and inhibitor to free thoughts and innovations. Male students are continuously being 'soul-raped' by being forced to join a party or the other for survival in the halls or on the campus. Many female students in one of the most famous universities have been subjected to physical violence in this connection. Students have been killed. Violence, threat and terrorism have become the norm of the day. Yet, we have many critics who do not consider it worthwhile to ban student politics. Some may have vested interests. And a lot may just feel 'awkward' or perplexed with the issue of banning such a once-glorified practice. My article is intended to try to go over some of the popular beliefs and logics which favour student politics and assess how valid they are. One very popular logic is that student politics is essential to uphold and respect the glory of the past (liberation movement days). This logic is inconsistent in the sense that the supporters of this logic have not proposed to allow arms in each house though we had a glorified armed struggle for our independence. The logic does not only stand the test of consistency with upholding of our other glories of the past, nor does it even pass the test of time. One cannot pay respect to Shaheed Asad or Shaheed Matiur by taking the lives of others in our educational institutes. We can pay respect to their sacrifices by upholding life and their dreams for the next generations. There is another logic that student politics can act as a safeguard against the loss of democracy. This logic is without any proof or evidence to support such claim. First of all, student politics could not work as deterrent to the emergence of dictators. Student politics existed all the time, yet the nation experienced the demise of democracy under the very founder of the nation who fought all his life for democracy. The nation also suffered the killing of the founder of the nation by the power-monger miscreants, the subsequent emergence of martial-law a number of times. Student politics failed to prevent the chaos or distortion in the national politics or the loss of democracy by the power of the guns. What about correcting the distortion? Again, it has failed there. Instead of helping to remove the distortion, student politics only replaced the distortion. Guns of the military have been replaced by muscles of the "lathials." Am I wrong? Let me fast forward to the 90s which is often quoted as the period where our student politics have gained back the glory of the past. Yes, Ershad-regime saw vehement student opposition, but contrary to popular belief, this student politics was for reinstituting the Madam or Apa in power, not regaining democracy. The bloody end of alliance in the combined student movement right after Awami League opted to participate in 1986 election; the prolonged period of Ershad regime exploiting the division; the post-Ershad inclusion of Ershad's key accomplices into the AL or Bangladesh Nationalist Party cabinets; the unchallenged open and shameless race between AL and BNP to take Ershad as an ally belies the fact that student politics did anything to bring back democracy. In an independent nation where enforcement of law is weak, this is a fallacy to expect or claim that student politics can work as safeguard against dictatorship. Some also support student politics as the grooming vehicle for future leaders. I have seen (on TV, not in person unfortunately) some old leaders talking about their past golden days when they, being student leaders, had respected each other, not chased each other. And some also mention that absence of the students' unions like DUCSU and CUKSU are impeding the growth of leaders in the national politics. How valid is such fear or proposition? There are far more advanced nations or newly advancing nations which do not have student politics, but still are much ahead of us in terms of national prosperity. And how are they getting their leaders to lead themselves? Have they imported our DUCSU, CUKSU leaders to lead their countries? No, not. Now, let us turn our attention inside. I respect our old student leaders as they have undergone tremendous sufferings, hardships and showed both dedication and sacrifice in the movement on the road. But, while in power, have they shown any leadership in building consensus, promoting democracy and leading the nation to prosperity? We need to accept the hard truth that destruction and construction cannot follow the same recipe and hence, do not require the same sets of skill. It is easy to incite the herd, hurl stones at the windows and break glass panes. We needed it when we have been enslaved by foreign rulers. But, it is much more difficult to unite the herd and install the glass panes. A simple stone is not enough there. We need technology, we need skilled labour, we need considerable investment of time, money and labour and we need supply of logistics. No, sorry to say, this writer of the post-liberation generation has not seen any student-leader-turned-national politician who had demonstrated leadership as a role model respecting democratic norms. Even key politicians like Jalil and late Mannan failed to rise to the occasion in the pre-111 crisis. So, in reality, the logic of grooming of future leaders by student politics dwells in a false premise. Far from grooming, it is hampering the academic atmosphere and blocking the growth of knowledge-powered, self-challenging leaders the nation very much need in different domains, not necessarily in the political domain only. Some supporters of student politics often claim that terrorists do not belong to any party. Some different versions of the same logic are those who are engaged in terrorism are not students at all. A softer version is to refer to this bad student politics as "so-called student politics," implying that there is another version of student politics other than the mainstream student politics. The reality is that the terrorists are also students. They have enrolment in an institution and belong to some departments. They might be the proxy of someone or of themselves to carry on terrorism, but it does not alter the fact that they are students. It also does not alter the fact, that many of them, before entering university or colleges, were not terrorists or rapists. Rapists have been given the chance to sit for examinations in private rooms and the reason that they have been given such right is that they were students and they were in student politics. The most powerful logic often given against banning student politics is that whether it is apt to tear off the head when there is a headache. This logic has turned into mere rhetoric. If I follow their logic, student politics is compared to "head" and hence not severable and then what is the "ache" here? Perhaps, students are the ache here. And that is why these logic-mongers are happy with disposing the lives and future of the students, rather than disposing student politics. Are we sane? If we want to protect our education, build our most valuable human resources for prospering as a nation, then, to me, the ache is the student politics. In fact, it is more than an ache. It is the 'cancer cell' that is expanding and corrupting not only the once respected faculties in the educational institutes (e.g. look at the university VCs), but also the post study professional work-places (e.g. look at the corrupt practices by the professional medical bodies). It is for the sake of the body and head that we remove this headache or destroy the 'cancer cell.' Finally, no other single nation paid the sacrifice in blood of 30 million people to get independence from oppressive foreign rulers. It has made life of each of the next generation the costliest, not the cheapest or as much disposable as the supporters of student politics tend to think. Being driven by emotion for the past, fallacies of the present or illusions for the future, will not exonerate each of us from the guilt that we could not save the nation's most valuable assets like the lives of Abu Bakar, that we have put our sisters vulnerable, that we failed to protect our brothers from being what famous philosopher Roger Williams could attribute as being soul-raped (forced to do something against the will), that we could not ensure a sound educational environment what other nations have ensured for their students. Let us dispose of student politics and not students and our future. The writer, based in Japan, can be reached at e-mail: hossain_sainul@yahoo.co.jp