Denizens of the esoteric world
Shahid Alam likes a work on an unexplored subject
Public Intellectuals and Partisanship in Bangladesh is, I suspect, a near-verbatim reproduction of Nelofar Parvin's doctoral dissertation. The pitfalls of a straightforward conversion of doctoral composition into a published book format have been well documented by scholars, particularly those from the West. And they have a very good point. Nelofar Parvin, a Dhaka University professor in the Political Science department, has written on a relatively unexplored topic, one that correlates public intellectuals and partisanship in Bangladesh. However, the book itself reads like a research dissertation, complete with all the rigours that the academic exercise demands, but missing the intangible, yet familiar, feel of a published book. Most glaringly, some rather careless editing manages to highlight this point.
The book provides a 6-page Introduction. Here is a sampling of some plainly faulty, or confusing, construction of sentences, or parts of them, from that brief preface to the seven chapters and the conclusion that follow. "The individual meaning of public and intellectual if combined does not reflect the meaning of public intellectual pulls toward associated with intellectual while the meaning of intellectual pulls backward to public to settle down to a central meaning of public intellectual." And, "…public intellectuals…have been responded in partisan politics…." Furthermore, "…what is the affect of partisan politics...." Then, "They are the agent of social change in developing countries and are professionally involved though." Read on: "As political actors they have been performed very significant role…." And, "…the mass upsurge of 1990…contributed in re-seating the military dictator…." Or, "…partisanship developed at the eve of transitional phase…." Then, again, "…partisanship…has also another contribution of this study…." The point I am trying to make here is the noticeable contrast of the Introduction with the rest of the chapters in the book, which are almost totally free from construction gaffes. It gives the impression that they were carefully cleaned up during the arduous period of the composition of the thesis, which has been kept intact almost verbatim in the book, while the Introduction was added prior to its publication without having been subjected to careful editing.
To the book's contents, then. Its declared objective is to examine the role of public intellectuals and explain how the current partisan politics has affected their role in the public sphere of Bangladesh. The term "public intellectual" itself is a relatively recent concoction, popularized by such eminent writers like Edward Said, although its connotations go back in recorded history to describe such persons engaged in similar pursuits. Parvin includes writers, educators, social workers, journalists, lawyers, judges, cultural activists, members of think tanks, NGO personalities, and artists in her constitution of public intellectuals. She utilized twelve academic, and thirty non-academic, public intellectuals for purposive sampling as part of her study. The author narrows her focus down to a particularly significant phenomenon that has cropped up in Bangladesh: pervasive political partisanship among both academic and non-academic public intellectuals. She comes up with an insightful, if broad, perspective: that a partisan attitude negatively affects "the critical function of public intellectuals, and compromise both their public role and the development of democracy as a whole." She is right, of course, and provides this succinct graphic to illustrate just how far and deep the rot has gone: "Academic public intellectuals have come to depend on partisan politics with regard to their selections, promotions, and rewards….It also exists in all workplaces (such as the press, judiciary, media, art and literature, and even in the NGO sector) of non-academic intellectuals."
Parvin concentrates on partisanship, political activities, and political parties for the major part of her book. Since, theoretically, public intellectuals are expected to give voice to public concerns, and to do so for the weak and unorganized public, "a partisan stance can make their position problematic and the public may begin to question their reliability, trustworthiness and integrity." They may, and often do, but the author might have made a note of the cynical political culture that has emerged over the years since the early 1990s, with the state having been reached where many of the very people who would criticize political partisanship by public intellectuals with a view to gaining lucrative perks and rewards would not think twice of taking the same route if the opportunity presented itself. The political culture and the moral fabric of the society have deteriorated alarmingly. Sadly, public intellectuals, with exceptions, seem to have joined the bandwagon of dysfunctional politics, weak political institutions, and cynical values.
Partisanship per se is not necessarily evil. In fact, rational choice is a bulwark of a robust liberal pluralist democratic system. Even in the media, especially in the print version, some political bias in the form of editorial policy is not a bad thing, provided the preferred viewpoint is made objectively, and not at the expense of irrationally demonizing other perspectives. A political party/ideology-inclined newspaper, if perceived by the average reader to be responsible and objective, will actually provide both the government and those in opposition an opportunity to realistically assess the country's political and economic state. That eventuality would serve the cause of democracy, based as it is on the concept of pluralism. However, when partisanship turns virulent, manifesting intolerance of opposing viewpoints, mirror imaging each other's negative tactics when in alternate power and opposition situations by the major political parties, and when used primarily for the purpose of personal gain, then the very spirit of liberal pluralist democracy is mocked.
The cancer of virulent partisanship has spread across different sectors of the society. In this context, the author makes a valid observation: that, although the civil society "feigns independence" of thought, it "has not had an independent moral voice." Consequently, although some will disagree with portions of the author's statement that, "In recent years, public intellectuals have not performed their role adequately against communalism, fundamentalism, minority sufferings, or gender violence, although they now enjoy more opportunity to intervene in public issues, under a democratic government," not many would rationally dispute her contention that, "When politics become prominent within academia, academic excellence cannot be maintained." She invokes the opinions of public intellectuals (who, as Parvin maintains, constitute a small minority even within the numerically restricted group of academic intellectuals) like Anisuzzaman, Najma Chowdhury, and Muntassir Mamoon, who hold the politicization of universities as being responsible for the decline in the country's quality of education.
Parvin comes up with some significant comments and observations. One is that not all public intellectuals favour getting directly involved in politics, because they feel dissatisfied with the existing political process where the political parties actively pursue them for taking them within their fold. However, according to the author, this is only the displaying of a façade of self-righteousness as "(m)ost public intellectuals who call themselves 'independent' are psychologically committed to one political party or other." The caveat has to be made here, though, that one can always have an inclination towards a political party in a pluralist democracy, and one is not sure exactly what the author has in mind when she makes the statement. She is very clear, though, in her views on truly independent public intellectuals in Bangladesh: "…independent public intellectuals who are critical, provocative, and non-establishment are few. They are not interested in entering party politics, but this does not mean that they are unaware of socio-political problems, since they join social, political, and cultural movements, and write and speak about contemporary problems." Maybe that should be the role of at least the academic public intellectual. In this context, the names of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn of the United States come to mind.
Nelofar Parvin has commendably taken it upon herself to study at depth a relatively unexplored subject matter in Bangladesh. There are stylistic flaws, in addition to the ones mentioned at the outset of this review. Maybe it has crept in as an outcome of the impulse to reiterate important points on multiple occasions in a doctoral dissertation, but the reader of the book might be jarred at the repetition of several points throughout the book, when the initial mention would have sufficed. Public Intellectuals and Partisanship in Bangladesh has shed light on a topic that had not been previously explored at length in relation to Bangladesh, though it has not led to any ground-breaking theory on the topic. Nonetheless, it will allow the interested reader get more than a cursory glimpse into the world of the public intellectuals in Bangladesh and their involvement with its political culture.
Shahid Alam is Head, Media and Communication Department, Independent University Bangladesh (IUB) .
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments