Old battle, new front: Attack on bauls signals a larger struggle over power and pluralism

The arrest of Baul singer Abul Sarkar in Manikganj and the subsequent attack on his followers which left three injured have once again brought Bangladesh to an uncomfortable crossroads. 

Since last year, mobs under the banner of 'Touhidi Janata' have disrupted cultural gatherings and demolished multiple sufi shrines, sending a troubling message — the state is gradually failing to protect minorities.

However, chalking it up as mere theological dispute would be an oversimplification of the matter. 

It is a political struggle over public space, cultural identity and the very character of the new Bangladesh promised by the July Uprising. 

Centuries-old battle

To understand how we got here, we should look deeper into the history of religious tolerance and coexistence of various religious sects. 

Mir Hojaifa Al Mamduh, researcher of religion and society, says, "The confrontation between pirs and puritan groups has been going on for a very long time. Its roots go back to the 17th century. They criticised local religious practices, and local scholars, in turn, criticised them."

This is not a new cultural rift but an old ideological trench widening under new political conditions. Mamduh argues that Bangladesh's religious culture has always been pluralistic, layered with local traditions. 

"Within the Muslim community, there was a substantial cultural sphere often described as 'Hindu-influenced'. But why could these cultural elements not simply be rejected? Because Islam, when it arrived in this region, took root by absorbing many of those elements," he explains.

He reminds us that Bauls — with their syncretic, liberal worldview — have existed far longer than modern puritan movements. Their presence is not an anomaly; attempts to erase them are.

A return of colonial tools

Abul Sarkar was detained by Detective Branch members from a music show in Madaripur in the early hours of 20 November and was later sent to jail on the same day in a case filed in Manikganj over allegations of hurting religious sentiments. 

Cases have been filed against Abul Sarkar under Sections 153, 295-A, and 298 of the Penal Code. In other words, he has been accused of deliberately provoking riots or violence and hurting religious sentiment — all offences that carry a maximum sentence of less than two years.

"I think the government's position here is problematic. They should be taking action against groups that resort to violence against others. And there is also a question of why such cases are being accepted so easily. Over the last year, we have spoken so much about freedom of expression — what it means, how it was suppressed, and how it was enforced. These issues should have been reviewed." Barrister Sara Hossain

According to another provision of the law, in offences punishable by up to two years' imprisonment, the court may, if it wishes, release the accused after issuing a formal admonition, Supreme Court lawyer Shahdeen Malik told BBC.

He also pointed out that the original Penal Code of 1860 contained no provision related to "religious insult". This clause was added later, through an amendment in 1925, in the aftermath of a communal riot.

Supreme Court lawyer Barrister Sara Hossain sees something deeply alarming in the state response — not only the arrest but the legal justification behind it.

"Now we are seeing a different pattern. The Cyber Security Act is no longer being used. Instead, colonial-era laws — the very same ones used during British rule — are being applied. We've seen this before in the 1980s and 1990s: religious extremists using these laws against minorities or against particular subsets of minorities. And sometimes the targets weren't religious minorities at all, but ideological minorities or simply people holding different views. 

"We saw, for example, how in the '80s or perhaps the '90s, cases were filed against Bauls. Those who are doing these things — meaning those attacking our cultural heritage — are perfectly free to express their own ideology. There is no restriction on that. But expressing one's ideology by harassing or attacking others is not acceptable in any way. Under our laws, it certainly should not be acceptable," she explains. 

Prominent human rights activist Nur Khan Liton says, "This is an ominous warning. These incidents are taking place at a moment when the country is entering an election atmosphere. At the very early stage of the journey back toward democracy, our law enforcement agencies and civil administration are, in many cases, effectively hostage to mob culture." 

He adds, "As a result, we have seen what happened in Goalando — a man's dead body was exhumed, his tomb desecrated and corpse burnt. And now we see how Baul Abul Hossain was arrested and how a mob was mobilised to attack his followers. This is deeply unfortunate. It is not only an assault on the centuries-old Baul tradition but also an attack on Bangla culture as a whole." 

Prominent poet and thinker Farhad Mazhar delivered perhaps the sharpest warning at a protest rally in front of the National Press Club on 24 November. 

"We are now witnessing another kind of religious nationalism. This is religious fascism. Its journey began after 5 August through the desecration of mazars," he said. 

The mass uprising delivered a clear message about upholding individual rights, dignity and freedom of expression — all of which, he alleged, have been increasingly violated since 5 August.

A government caught between pluralism and pressure

Mostofa Sarwar Farooki, the adviser on Cultural Affairs, took a cautious position on his Facebook post. 

He insisted that the state is trying to act responsibly, "The Ministry of Home Affairs is trying to handle this extremely delicate and sensitive matter with the utmost responsibility."

But he also said that the repression of Bauls is not new — it has happened under multiple governments, "Even if you look back at the Awami League era, you will find numerous instances where Bauls were attacked — their hair cut off, their instruments destroyed." 

However, that is a rather poor defence for a government which came on the promises of undoing all ills of Awami League. 

His emphasis, instead, is on cultural pluralism as a national project, "We have taken an unequivocal stand in favour of pluralism… This is the stance of the 'new Bangladesh' — a country where every community will have a stake."

Meanwhile, Shafiqul Alam, Press Secretary to the Chief Adviser, condemned the violence. 

"The attack was deplorable. The administration is actively working to identify those involved in the attack. They will be arrested and brought under the rule of law," he told TBS. 

But condemnation without action rings hollow — especially when attackers operate publicly and with apparent impunity. 

Barrister Sara Hossain said, "I think the government's position here is problematic. They should be taking action against groups that resort to violence against others. And there is also a question of why such cases are being accepted so easily. Over the last year, we have spoken so much about freedom of expression — what it means, how it was suppressed, and how it was enforced. These issues should have been reviewed.

"Why isn't that happening? To me, that is a major problem. And when someone is detained and moved from one district to another, prevented from meeting their lawyer, and denied access to their family, the authorities must take action against such treatment," she adds.

Mamduh says, "The state is supposed to ensure coexistence for everyone. But it is failing to do so. Or rather — I would say it is choosing not to. At this point, we must acknowledge that the government is not acting and instead is nurturing the majority's dominance." 

Just religious differences, or politics? 

"What we are actually seeing is a group of people driven by a desire for power, people who want to silence opposing viewpoints. If someone offends religious sentiment or commits an offence, the law exists for that. The state exists to deliver justice. But taking the law into one's own hands — how should we understand that? It is abhorrent. Such behaviour has no place in any state," Mamduh says. 

He adds, "Another point is that 'religious sentiment' is extremely abstract. I also view religious sentiment in political terms, because it becomes political in many ways — especially when you have a majority, when you have power, when you have money. All of this shapes what we call 'sentiment'. Sentiment is not some fixed, absolute thing; it is a social construct." 

Mamduh's most powerful warning is political, not religious. 

"Anyone who acts with the arrogance of the majority must understand that power never remains in the hands of a broad majority. Power always becomes centralised. That is how states become authoritarian, fascistic and destructive."

If the attacks on Bauls continue, he argues, it will not simply destroy cultural diversity — it will accelerate the centralisation of power in the hands of a few, which never ends well. The question is whether the state — and society — will listen.

Long ago, Baul Shah Abdul Karim once said, "One day, the world will be a world of Bauls." Let us hope we have not strayed too far from that path.