Our psychology is getting more complex and crooked day by day. Each of us is like a replica of each other. Mashed fruit on toast. Cover up the bitter bitterness in a beautiful veil. It is the ultimate crisis of civilization. Faith and principles are slipping into it. Our society, religion, and state are being stung by the poisonous sting of hypocrisy and dualism of this belief. Our principles, morals, and ideals are heading toward a dire situation. Apart from politicians, clerics, social reformers, teachers, writers, doctors, and cultural workers, people of various professions are becoming hypocritical in terms of beliefs and dualistic in terms of principles.
There were many priests, who doubted their truth. What many philosophers thought, they themselves did not do. Many scientists have that tendency too. This trend has become more pronounced with the passage of time. We are now at the final stage of civilization. Our lives have been luxurious. Consumerism has increased. Competition for adoption has intensified compared to abandonment. At any cost, we only want to get, nothing to give.
One of our biggest problems is the hypocrisy of faith. I do not say or do what I believe. I don’t think what I do or say again. Those who live in this dualism are neither stupid nor clever opportunists-shamelessly abandoning my existence for convenience. This benefit is multi-dimensional. Financial, social, political, and governmental. We have been taking these benefits for ages. still doing.
In the minds of Western champions, the most important human rights are the rights of the individual. They tend to be framed as the safeguards that defend the individual from the tyranny of the State – freedom of speech, and the right to vote for your leaders. Let’s imagine I come upon a starving homeless family dressed in rags on the street, and ask them
“What do you need most?” What are they going to reply? Anybody with common sense knows that they are going to say, “We need a roof over our heads. Clothes on our backs. Food on the table…” They won’t say, “We need political rights – freedom of speech and the right to vote for our leader…”
Confronted with this paradox, champions of Western human rights will quickly lose sight of the importance of the individual. “This analogy is simplistic,” they will tell you. “Social change can only be effected for large numbers of people through the exercise of collective political rights. A home, clothes, food – these can only be secured for the masses if their political rights are first guaranteed…” That, or something similar.
This is an obvious fallacy too, as is easily demonstrated. Many major cities in India are surrounded by sprawling cardboard slumdog shanty towns filled with millions of people. None of them have proper homes. Many of them are dressed in rags and are hungry. According to Western logic, these people must like living in these conditions, since India is a Western-style democracy, and they have Western-style political rights. So, if they didn’t like living like this, they would just use their votes, and “vote for something else.”
Behind this logic, there is a stark truth. You can vote for many things, but you cannot vote for prosperity. You cannot gain prosperity by marking an X in a box. And behind this fact, there is an even starker truth-one that is largely ignored by Western champions of freedom, democracy, and human rights. There is not a single example, in the whole history of the planet, of a country that was poor and underdeveloped, became a Western-style democracy, and went on to become prosperous and successful as a result.
The US suddenly woke up and discovered that democracy was not functioning properly in Bangladesh and that human rights were also being violated there. If the answer is negative and the US was very much aware that violations were indeed going on in this country from before, then why did the US authorities keep their eyes closed and not sounded an alarm bell to the Bangladesh government earlier, cautioning them that continued disregard or violations of these rights will face consequences? On the other hand, if the US had indeed been aware of these occurrences, and they did nothing about it, then the former can be accused of complicity. A natural curiosity then arises, why this diplomatic snub now? Is it really for the establishment of democracy and human rights in Bangladesh or is there any other hidden agenda?
