#Title

123rd Birth Anniversary of Abul Mansur Ahmad

Abul Mansur and his political wisdom
Morshed Shafiul Hasan
Abul Mansur Ahmad was a polymath well-known for his work as a writer, journalist, editor, legal expert and politician at the same time. Few others possessed such a diverse set of talents—in that he remains unmatched in contemporary history. He cemented a permanent place in our literature with his satirical pieces, but he achieved monumental success in other areas as well. He authored the historic 21-Point Programme of the United Front in 1954. He served as a provincial minister of East Pakistan and also a minister for the central government of Pakistan. He briefly assumed the role of prime minister when Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy went on foreign trips. His books, including “Amar Dekha Rajnitir Panchash Bachhar” (1968), “Sher-e-Bangla Hoite Bangabandhu” (1972), “End of a Betrayal and Restoration of Lahore Resolution” (1976), and “Atmakatha” (1978) are important documents of the socio-political history of this land, especially in the last 100 years or so.
In 1958, when martial law was imposed in Pakistan, Abul Mansur was arrested along with many other politicians. Eventually, he was banned from active politics in accordance with the Election Bodies Disqualification Order. During this period, he had to endure jail time twice, with a total duration of three years. After he was released from jail, he did not return to active politics, focusing principally on writing instead. He authored the aforementioned books and others as well as a host of political articles. After the liberation of Bangladesh, he wrote another book titled “Beshi Dame Kena Kom Dame Becha: Amader Shadhinota” (1982).
Though not a political scientist per se, he was a keen observer of political developments and poured out his thoughts and ideas on the pages of newspapers, which showed his deep political insight and foresight. Abul Mansur equally supported the ideologies of democracy and socialism as enshrined in our constitution, and emphasised that neither should contradict or substitute the other as the sole political objective. He called socialism the “fairest” of all economic theories, in that it promotes equitable distribution of wealth and equal justice in society. He also acknowledged the necessity of going through class struggle to enact socialism or build a society free of oppression. In his view, it is possible to channel and reap the dividends of a class struggle in a “systematic, democratic and peaceful” manner.
In addition to supporting constitutional commitments towards socialism, he also mentioned the need for the public and private sectors to coexist and for foreign investments in the industrial sector. But he was clearly opposed to the post-independence expectation of some people to see a revolutionary government undertaking revolutionary steps or reforms, bypassing the imperatives of a democratic system.
He rejected any idea for government formation without an election. “I do not support revolution as a means of forming a government,” he said. “When a government is formed through a revolution, it takes another revolution to change it. In contrast, to change an elected government, all one needs is another election. During a revolution, power changes hands on a few people’s whims. In an electoral system, power changes hands because of the collective will of the people.” Clearly, not only did he not support using violence to form a new government, he also claimed himself to be a Gandhian in principle.
However, Abul Mansur was aware of the fact that within a bourgeois economic system, even democracy can be used as a tool to serve the interests of the rich.
Despite criticising the post-independence Awami League government for its mistakes and failures, he espoused its continuation of power for the sake of having a stable government at the helm. But he wanted that continuation to come through a democratic means, through elections where people’s expectations are reflected.
While commenting on the newly formulated constitution of Bangladesh after independence, he said as people and their representatives—who are a mixture of good and bad like any other people—devised this constitution, it might not be absolutely faultless. But, as a whole, he considered the constitution to be acceptable. But he emphasised more on the application of the constitution than on the questions of its accuracy. He lauded the constitution for its insistence on rulers coming to power with the support of the people through elections. But he mentioned two major risk factors for democracy: 1) Lack of a proper election, and 2) The possibility of power being usurped by the military. He likened the obligation for holding fair elections for a democratic state to the necessity of breathing for human beings. “Even when Hitler’s forces were raining bombs upon them, the English still conducted their election,” he reminded us.
“To reap the benefits of democracy, we have to walk the path of democracy,” he said. He emphasised on the importance of a democratic culture and mentality within the political institutions—not just in the ruling party, but the opposition as well. When it comes to elections, he said: “The ruling party’s responsibility will be to refrain from using government power, vehicles and instruments of publicity and to build confidence in the minds of opposition parties about impartiality, fairness and neutrality in the election.” The opposition’s responsibility, he added, will be not to indulge in unfair means to disrupt the electoral process or unseat the ruling power.
We know that in his long illustrious life, Abul Mansur Ahmad always believed in the distinct linguistic and cultural identities of West and East Bengal (present-day Bangladesh). Not surprisingly, he saw the emergence of the state of Bangladesh in 1971 not as a negation of the two-nation theory leading to the Partition of India, but rather as a delayed execution of the Lahore Resolution of 1940. But in politics, he was a democratist through and through. And he always considered secularism as an essential prerequisite for democracy. In that regard, he cautioned against any kind of compromise or exception.
While discussing the importance of having a strong opposition party coexisting beside the ruling party, and playing an active role in order to ensure the overall success of democracy, Abul Mansur Ahmad compared both camps with the “positive and negative charges of electricity”, or “two peas in a pod”, or the two feet of a human being. One cannot function without the other, he said. It is expected that in a parliamentary system, there will be lively discussion and heated debates in parliament regarding the government’s policies and activities. Noticing the absence of such discussion in the sessions of the first post-liberation parliament, he lamented: “Our parliament is almost a one-party parliament, and hence there are no lively, detailed and illuminating debates. It’s a lamentable situation for parliamentary politics.”
He also regarded freedom of press as an essential precondition for the development of democracy. “Just like the opposition is an inseparable part of the government in a parliamentary democracy, a free press is also an essential requirement, along with the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the state,” he said. A newspaper must ensure that its readers and people in general can trust the truthfulness and accuracy of the news items that are published. If such a trustful environment does not exist, that newspaper cannot extend any help towards the betterment of the country or the government. And also, in his words: “if a credibility gap is created between the people and the press, then it does not matter whether the media continues to exist or not.”
Abul Mansur Ahmad’s thoughts on democracy and what it needs to survive and flourish can offer many important lessons for us today, and we need to pay attention.
Morshed Shafiul Hasan is a researcher, book editor and political analyst.