There’s a long-standing notion in this country—the politics of division (bibhajoner rajniti). Yet, I’ve never found a clear understanding of it anywhere; it seems to me that various factions complain about their political enemies in this regard, and all of them claim that the way to end this harmful politics is to achieve unanimity on their respective points. Therefore, I want to draw everyone’s attention to this matter.
I’d say right away, if we begin to rely on the foundation of historical truth and justice, it doesn’t seem too difficult to put an end to it!
The Root of Division: The Idea of ‘Nation’
The very root of division is the idea of the ‘Nation’ itself. We’ve found an advantage here now, through the overthrow of Bengali Nationalism—which had become a branch or offshoot of Indian Nationalism in the person of Hasina on August 5, 2024.
Now, we can comfortably think of ourselves as ‘Bangladeshi’ as a Confederational Nation. This process began earlier, initiated by Zia. We can observe that many former ‘Bengali Nationalists’ have joined the BNP and started relying on Bangladeshi Nationalism. We can place Hazrat Fazlu in this category, and there are many others like him.
However, Nationalism cannot be entirely viewed as a positive idea. It should only be activated in an existential situation, as a cultural weapon in resistance against attack. Therefore, this ‘Bangladeshi’ nation needs to be thought of merely as a political-economic identity, a territorial entity. And this confederational nation is one that we are building with many cultural nations—Bengali, Chakma, Bihari, Santal, or Marma.
The path to ending the politics of division is to accept the many national identities and then collectively create a Confederational Nation. But if we begin to think of Bangladesh only as belonging to Bengalis, or only to Muslims, then the politics of division begins. Among Bengalis, there are Hindu Bengalis and Muslim Bengalis. Some, in Bankim’s terms, call themselves ‘Bengali Muslims.’ I don’t actually oppose this; my estimate is that the order of the words doesn’t determine the primary-secondary nature of the identity; rather, it’s stated according to the location. For example, when many kinds of Muslims gather during Hajj, we would be categorized as ‘Bengali Muslims’ for management convenience. But if we gather in a field with various kinds of Bengali speakers, the categorization would be: Hindu Bengali, Muslim Bengali, Buddhist Bengali. So, it’s not a big deal; if someone feels comfortable saying ‘Bengali Muslim,’ that’s fine.
So, since Hazrat Fazlu and many others left the cluster of Bengali Nationalism and came to stand under the Confederational banner of Bangladeshi Nationalism, are we going to send them back to that cluster? Or should we figure out how to refine the style and demeanor of our own side so that more and more people step out of that cluster and stand under the banner of Bangladeshi? Rokom Shah’s job is to broker a peace, based on what Hazrat Fazlu’s side will accept from ours in exchange for what we accept from them—and Rokom Shah has a settlement for this!
The Settlement: Accepting an Essential Entity
To present that settlement, I first spoke of the Confederational Nation. I feel this is acceptable to all parties. I would present this to the people of the hills by saying: according to UN settlements, and drawing from the experience of America and Australia, you can see yourselves as culturally distinct nations within this framework—not one, but many. Clashing with Hindu and Muslim Bengalis by staying within the Indigenous People (Adibashi) discourse cannot be a wise move. I estimate that if the Chakma Nation, for instance, can establish its cultural-legal-religious rights within the Confederational Nation, the possibility of peace will increase.
So, note that the fundamental premise of my settlement is that Bangladesh is an essential entity. To end the politics of division, we must first accept this, and proceed by relying on the territorial integrity of Bangladesh. Staying within the UN settlement on this is the condition for peace. Discussions about Pakistan, or even Greater Bengal/Bengal Delta, can lead us toward conflict. We will not respond to Indian Imperialism [Akhand Bharat] with a reciprocal imperialism.
I think some citizens may find it difficult to accept Bangladesh as an essential entity. To resolve this difficulty, the parties involved must accept some claims of the opposition based on historical judgment. How?
First, consider the birth of a child. The child may be ill-formed, may lack an eye or a hand, but once born, we must accept it. Not accepting a child as a member of human society after its birth would be inhumane, oppression (zulm). We must think of Bangladesh similarly: the Mujib League may have been an Indian agent, there may have been Indian conspiracies, and India certainly had an agenda to break up Pakistan. But however it happened, Bangladesh was born in history, and both India and Pakistan have recognized Bangladesh. Therefore, Bangladesh is an essential entity.
I would ask Hazrat Fazlu’s side to accept that: there was an Indian conspiracy, genocide of Biharis occurred, we did not win the Liberation War—Pakistan lost to India, so we don’t have much glory there. Instead, there is shame; we killed prisoners of war by bayoneting them. But this does not make Bangladesh cease to exist. For your satisfaction, you can think that we used India to secure a state for ourselves, and later, when India tried to gain extra advantage, we overthrew that India, along with its collaborators (razakar bahini), in 2024.
On the other hand, I would tell the opposing side that there is no defending the Pakistan Military. The Pakistan Army did not then, and still does not, accept that the authority to run the state belongs to civilian politicians as the representatives chosen by the people. The Pakistan Army has been anti-people since 1958 and remains so.
‘Operation Searchlight’ on the night of March 25 was certainly an attack by the Pakistan Army on the citizens of Pakistan. Under the pretext of eliminating Indian agents, it was actually an attack on Hindu and Muslim Bengalis—the beginning of a genocide that validated/justified the complaints of Bengali Nationalism. Besides the civilian population, Bengali members of the police were killed that night. They also killed Bengali members of the EPR and the Army. This attack and these murders cannot be justified by the attacks of Bengali Nationalists on Biharis before March 25. If you believe the Bengali Nationalists’ attack on Biharis justifies Operation Searchlight, then you are accepting that Hasina’s ‘Operation Flashout’ at Shapla on the night of May 5, 2013, and her similar justifications in July ’24, were valid—something the authoritarian ruling party (Bakshalira) is still doing.
Furthermore, consider this: if we accept Bangladesh as an ‘Essential Entity,’ you can’t even call the events a ‘Civil War’; because Bangladesh claims that it was founded on March 26 [Kalurghat, Zia]. Therefore, the Pakistan Army was an occupying force from March 26 onwards. If we consider Pakistan as a necessary idea, I would say that for it to succeed as a state, Democracy was essential, which Ayub/the Pakistan Army completely murdered. The riot of 1950, after Jinnah’s death, can be considered the first blow of the axe at the root of the Pakistan idea. The Pakistani government never revealed how many Hindus died in that riot, but the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan signed an agreement on the security issue of minorities. In 1971, the Pakistan Army violated that agreement, and Hindu Bengalis were a special target—the attack on Jagannath Hall and Shankharibazar in Old Dhaka are clear evidence of this.
The last chance to save Pakistan was to hand over power to Mujib after the 1970 election, even if Mujib was an Indian agent! That is, Mujib himself might have created the true justification for Operation Searchlight within 2-3 years. I estimate that the very Bengali Nationalism Mujib rode to be elected would have consumed him, along with the demand for justice for the murder of Biharis. But the Pakistan Army lacked that patience, for they had already forgotten the right of civilian politicians to rule; the Pakistan Army was saturated with Army Supremacy. On top of that, Mujib was a Bengali, with the added suspicion of being an Indian agent.
So, I will tell both parties to acknowledge human pain and suffering, and to recognize oppression by believing in the basic principles of Justice. If you can acknowledge human pain, suffering, and oppression without being blinded by hatred or love, you will see that the victim is sometimes Bihari, sometimes Bengali, sometimes Hindu. You will also find different oppressors at different times—sometimes Bengali Nationalists, sometimes the Pakistan Army, sometimes the Mujib Bahini, sometimes the Indian Army.
I would especially ask the former Bengali Nationalists to abandon the whole thing—that stuff is a branch of Indian Nationalism, a racist-fascist idea. And since the war was one we didn’t win, but merely had the opportunity to commit some murders, there is no glory there; do not take pride in a matter of shame. However it happened, we secured a state, and its success is significant. Let us now think about the redemption of all sins. I also say: our deeds are written on our foreheads. Someone else will speak about those deeds; we must be willing to listen. If someone says, ‘You killed Biharis,’ accept it. Say, ‘Yes, we did, we won’t do it again, it was a mistake.’ If someone says, ‘Collaborator (Razakar),’ accept it. Say, ‘I was, but I am no more; my belief and hope are now in Bangladesh.’ If you calculate, you will see that enough revenge has been taken; countless people have died on all sides, and all sides have committed countless murders.
The Gender Issue and Public-Private Territory
Another likely issue in the politics of division is Gender. We should start by having all parties agree that this is a very sensitive, delicate issue. The existing UN standard on this does not align with the feelings of 95% of the country’s population. Therefore, the way to end the politics of division here is to define the public and private territories. When 95% demand that certain symbols not be flown publicly, we must consider how to uphold the rights of the remaining 5%—there must be an agreement on duty and right. One party will promise not to do certain things publicly, not even invite others publicly if necessary, but in return, their personal space must not be intruded upon. We must avoid the conflict between social standards and personal practices, and if necessary, create separate spaces.
And if you want something, if you want to establish a moral standard, enter politics, gain the acceptance of citizens, win the election with your manifesto, and then make a law. But please do not interfere outside the law. Citizens have the right to do anything that is not illegal; this is the fundamental core of the basic social contract for staying on the path of peace. We must respect this contract. Leave sin to the individual. The individual will answer for their sin to God. An individual’s sin is not automatically a crime; it may sometimes become a crime, in the eyes of that 95%, if it involves public promotion or celebration in society—and the system for preventing that crime is the law. Do not push with force; remain within the law. If you have a moral message, preach it; do not police or enforce it. If you enforce it, you are trapping citizens in servitude, which is oppression, a violation of justice. Even if Islam is someone’s agenda, it means their agenda is peace, and establishing justice by preventing oppression is the true condition for peace.
In God We Trust.
#RokomShaherNosihot (Rokom Shah’s Advice) August 28, 2025
comment/ফতোয়া