Amidst all the kerfuffle over who said what and how the term Razakar was used callously, we have what most would call moments of defiance in the face of death, armed, only with ideals and self belief.
In the image of Abu Sayed with outstretched hands, challenging bullets with an open chest,society finds the dauntless spirit of today's youth.
Incidentally, the term Razakar has been used indiscriminately in the last few days and while in Bangladesh, it has a severely pejorative connotation, in reality, it means 'Volunteer'.
One is not wrong in stating Abu Sayed voluntarily stood in front of a hail of bullets and bylaying down his life, proved there are young who are willing to resolutely stand by their beliefs without being indoctrinated by any particular ideology.
Youth power had, over the ages, been deemed as the force for change, as the catalyst that influences values and ideals.
That is exactly why Tagore, in his Sabujer Gaan, exhorted the youth to come and break down the walls of insular beliefs.
Abu Sayed and all those who gave their lives in the recent anti quota movement and thousands of those who have been wounded reflect a society,which desperately needs to re-evaluate its priorities.
At this very moment, the situation remains volatile but as we have seen countless times before, all turmoil eventually end.
As Shakespeare cannily said: Come what come may, time and hour will run through the roughest day!
However, in the end, there's always the acute sadness for the lives lost. The youth movement, in my opinion, also speaks volumes about the current day zeitgeist.
BBC World Service, in their report, mentioned the eruption of accumulated grievances that go beyond the quota issue.
Perhaps, the government needs to deeply analyse the entire gamut of youth emotions, not from one angle of the quota reform, but from a wider perspective.
Why are general students disenchanted?
The first issue that needs to be intently evaluated instead of the done to death narratives about extremists and fundamentalists is the ethos of the current day young. The fact that they are ready to give their lives for job security speaks volumes about how coveted government employment is. Providing security, financial stability and social prestige, government jobs are always on the top list of preferences for youth, not just here, but everywhere.
However, in South Asia, where unemployment rate is still high, government employment had always been looked as a rock solid guarantee of a secure future.
Add to this the socially ingrained sense of honour associated with government service. Be that as it may, for public university students in Bangladesh, the foremost aspiration is always to compete for the civil service. Naturally, when a sizeable number of jobs are given to those falling under quota preferences, there will be indignation.
Let's also look beyond the most apparent reason. Students may be protesting the quota but in their collective voice there's an outpouring of resentment towards the pervasive aberrations of society.
The mind boggling corruption by several on service and retired police officers, revelation of perverse amount of wealth in the names of low ranking public servants, discovery of vicious job rackets aimed at swindling people, rising inflation, endemic graft at all levels, laundering of millions, revelation of off shore accounts in the name of public figures, rampant nepotism, cronyism, rise of social disparitycoalesce to form a chilling snowballing impact.
Students are reading the papers, browsing the net and the image created is a malady afflicted, greed and hubris dominated society where integrity is more of a liability than an asset.
The outpour of current anger is a protest not only against quota but against a rotten social creed.
Not every student has to be political activist: Going to a public university does not mean a student is obligated to be involved in politics. Whether a student wants to be politically vocal or not should be his/her prerogative. Sadly, engaging in political activities while adopting a political dogma just for the sake of surviving within the campus is an existing anomaly.
Both the politically active and the general student should have equal rights. At least, a democratic definition of student politics would endorse a harmonious cohabitation of all kinds. Similarly, all are not compelled to follow any one political philosophy. One often hears the line: we will root out anti independence forces from the campus! I am curious to know what this line really means. What is meant by anti independence force? Fifty three years after independence, this appears vacuous and meaningless! No one wants to hand over sovereignty to any outside force! How about using the line: root out anti independence forces of 1971 who are still masquerading as pro independence voices? Lest we forget, there was a notorious 16th division in 1971 - a term used widely back in the 70s to sarcastically refer to those who picked up weapons on 16 December and conveniently changed colours as defeat seemed imminent. Shouldn't we catch the chameleons first?
One feels, in students protests, there is a deep seated discontentment/outrage over thecultureof imposing certain political beliefs. As crucibles for socio political transformation of Bangladesh, public universities have in the past and will in the future be pivotal in shaping the social ethos, featuring a plethora of political beliefs. Students want pluralism - that is a significant underlying message from the current movement.
Intellectuals, where art thou?
The vacillation of intellectuals to assertively express an opinion on the matter is somewhat disquieting. Students need an intellectual guidance too but some of the comments from the so called 'Buddhijibi' class have been downright abominable. Unfortunately, the art of sycophancy in current society has reached to such an extent that blatant boot licking is no longer hindered by scruples.
Reminds us of a quote from late Humayun Azad: "when intellectuals are happy with society, they become domesticated animals!"
Instead of taking sides, intellectuals should have come forward to act as a conduit between the government and the students. If an intellectual section came forward to act as a mediator creating a space for both sides to sit for a dialogue, Abu Sayed and several others would still be live.
But let's not see any more lives lost! At this moment, violence will only trigger more conflict and social division. Intellectuals, civil society plus the government should approach with a conciliatory stance and sit down for a resolution. Not all problems can be solved by muscle power - at least that is the lesson inextricably intertwined with the history of Bangladesh.
Pradosh Mitra is a social observer
