Rahnuma Ahmed on Ramu


I myself am reminded of attacks on Hindu homes right after the 2001 parliamentary elections, generally known to have been committed by supporters of the Jamaat-e-Islami and the BNP. I am reminded of the mother in a Barisal village who had pleaded with the men who’d invaded her house. She’s so little, she’s only thirteen, one after the other please, I beg of you. I was reminded of Prashanta Mridha’s short story, based on the incident, where he’d drawn parallels with Saadat Hasan Manto’s partition story, of the worried-to-death Muslim father who had been separated from his daughter during the riots, of his being vastly relieved when his daughter was brought into the hospital. The doctor, unsure of whether the girl was dead or alive, instructed someone to open the windows, it’s stuffy in here. Khol do. Her fingers quivered, her father was overjoyed that his daughter was still alive, but the doctor was aghast, for her fingers had imperceptibly moved down, to loosen her trouser string.
Part 1: Punishing The Innocent

Lastly, in the introduction to Annexure-2 (How the Incident Began), I stumble over the authorial voice, who is the author: probe committe members, or Muktadir? Look at what the authors’ write while describing the sequence of events after the offensive picture had been discovered in Faruk’s computer shop in Ramu’s bazar, some men entered the shop saying they wanted to see it: “since people had [already] learned about the picture, fearing that Uttam Kumar Barua may delete it from his account Abdul Muktadir went to Faruk’s facebook wall from his own account and captured a [screen]shot with his [Uttam's] profile.” Since Muktadir’s “fear” led to actions which had disastrous consequences, is it not necessary that his fear not be viewed unproblematically?
Part 2: Govt response to communal attack in Ramu

One comment on “Rahnuma Ahmed on Ramu

  1. idune
    November 14, 2012

    “I myself am reminded of attacks on Hindu homes right after the 2001 parliamentary elections, generally known to have been committed by supporters of the Jamaat-e-Islami and the BNP.”

    in contrast, overwhelming evidence of Awami League involvement in the carnage was very tactfully masked.

    “The unified whole extended to include Rakhain Buddhists too, as Bengali Muslim men, mostly youths, poured into Ramu town, some on motorbikes, many in hired buses and trucks. The gathering at Choumuhoni swelled, speeches were delivered, the mood grew angrier; groups armed with sticks, curved swords, stones, gunpowder, petrol and home-made cocktails broke away and entered streets and lanes, they attacked Buddhist monasteries and temples belonging to both Baruas and Rakhains, they struck down statues of Lord Buddha, beheaded some, looted those made of gold, broke open donation boxes, helped themselves to the cash. Some moved from one monastery to another, other groups went directly to ones more distant from Choumuhoni Chottor. They ransacked, looted and burned, their actions seem to have been well-coordinated.”

    This is how story is told with tainted view of political biased.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on November 14, 2012 by in Politics, Religion, Rights.



Enter email address to follow

Join 5,674 other followers


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,674 other followers

%d bloggers like this: