Factual error
Farooque Chowdhury adds :

Badruddin Umar's article is not factual on at least one issue, and it carries contradictory and confusing analysis.

It is the issue of 195 Pakistani military personnel/"forgive"ness that Mr Badruddin mentions in the article. A careful review of related documents, statements, news, etc. by Mr Badruddin would have helped him to avoid the misrepresentation of facts. The 195 were handed back to Pakistan with the understanding that the 195 would be tried in Pakistan. Moreover, there were a few hundred-thousand Baangaalees in prisons/detention camps in Pakistan. Can Mr Badruddin ignore and turn indifferent and irresponsible to the figure: a few hundred-thousand citizens in prisons in another country? A major concern of Bangladesh was to bring them back home. This commentator doesn’t know the way Marxist historian Mr Badruddin has skipped the facts. It's quite amazing! A deeper look would have taken him into deeper issues related to the 195. Moreover, there were issues related to geopolitics, regional balance of power, state of the Bangladesh state, the segment at the helm of the state, limitations and alliance the segment inherited and was "enjoying", etc. These would have made his analysis realistic and credible. Rather, misrepresentation of facts takes away at least a bit of credibility from this article.

Contradictory and confusing analysis: In paragraph 10, Mr Badruddin writes: Jamat helped AL [Awami League] immensely; and in paragraph 13, he writes: "BNP [the main opposition party] helped AL." Then, it seems, from the analysis, on the Shahbagh Movement question, the three parties—Jamat, BNP and AL—are in collusion, they are collaborating with each other, Jamat and BNP are helping AL, and they are hand-in-hand to help the Shahbagh Movement that Mr Badruddin as a Marxist politician tries to dissect/analyze. Is it fact? Shall anyone in Jamat and BNP and in Bangladesh with a sensible head agree to this observation? Even, a Marxist viewpoint is sometimes missed by many and sometimes by all although the viewpoint is correct. So, an analysis does not get nullified if none agrees to but if it's correct. Mr Badruddin writes the Shahbagh Movement carries deeper undercurrent of social dissatisfaction and promises for deeper change in the coming days. So it now stands : All the three parties are 1. joining hands and extending support to the movement, 2. helping articulate deep rooted social dissatisfaction, 3. facilitating the future change. Has not Mr Badruddin characterized the parties —represent ruling elites—in the article? Is it possible that these parties will play the role, Mr Badruddin informs, with that characterization he has made? In truth, none of the parties shall accept the collaboration task (mutual in this case and with Shahbagh), none of them will be appeased with the statement, not a single observer of the incidents will agree with the analysis, and facts shall not support the assertion he makes. Shall a reader err if the reader tries to search the root and orientation of these confusing comments, etc. and finds it reactionary? It’s not clear whether this is a Marxist analysis by a Marxist politician and historian or an exercise in anomaly.

Similar confusing analysis prevails in other parts of the article. Mr Badruddin writes: AL, one of the parties representing ruling elites, tries to contain the movement (paragraph 9). Before to that, he finds : ‘‘Plastic bottles were thrown at AL leaders and were not allowed to speak (same paragraph). Then, he writes: the initiators are under the umbrella of pro-AL intellectuals and cultural activists" (paragraph 14) If AL controls the movement or manipulates it then why shall the leaders be "presented" bottles and why shall not they be allowed to speak? What's the sum total of these incidents? Or what's the trend? Mr Badruddin is silent. And, there are some gaps in the presentation of facts by Mr Badruddin. A scientific analysis can't be done with gaps within facts. Is Marxist analysis devoid of scientific approach to presentation or gathering of facts?

Mr Badruddin writes: The movement spontaneously spread to all over the country within a short period. Who were there in those places that organized those? Were they the handful of bloggers and online activists? If not, who were they? What's their social composition, class character, alliances, social-political orientation? In Shahbagh, there was half or full, complete or intermittent control of this party or that party, as Mr Badruddin mentions. But who had control in those places?

Mr Badruddin tells : 1. the movement reflects deep rooted dissatisfaction developed since long, and 2. it carries the promise of wider future movement. Then, would not an analysis of the movement spread over different places in the country have provided a reader a wider view and would not have it been decent instead of spending a sentence on toilet in Shahbagh. Actually, presentation of facts related to toilet, etc. not only sounds vulgar, but exposes a crude way of confusing a reader with an attempt to hide a hidden motive.
Mr Badruddin tells: A certain political party tries to control the movement. Shouldn't it and all political parties try if it's/they're political party? Shouldn't it if it represents a part of ruling elites? Or should it submerge in inactivity and indulge with slogan mongering as a section of Marxist politicians practice and keep them isolated from facts, people and reality? Should pro-people, Marxist politicians expect that political parties representing ruling elites will sit idle and look at a movement that carries great promise of change, that has spread to wide areas within a short time? Shouldn't they try to control it, try to manipulate it? And, here remains a gap in comprehending the political incident that Mr Badruddin tries to look at or he has avoided the issue, but the approach doesn't help people, a job—not helping people—Marxist politicians avoid.

So, the article doesn't mention the role Jatio Mukti Council (National Liberation Council), Mr Badruddin heads, plays/playing in the movement. Shouldn't a reader of this article know the role being played by and the position being taken by the council? What about the other social forces/political parties or organizations? He is silent.

Frontier
Vol. 45, No. 41, Apr 21- -27, 2013

Your Comment if any