Sun 19 Feb 2006
“To classify Bangladeshis, for example, only as Muslims and overlook their Bangladeshi identity is seriously misleading. To drown all that into a vision of ‘you are just a Muslim - please be moderate and likeable and replace all those extremist imams with moderate and likeable ones’, that is simply wrong-headed.”
Sen is also critical of the growing consultative power given to the religious organisations of Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus. It does, he believes, magnify the power and authority of religious leaders at the expense of a healthy democratic debate. “Suddenly the Jewish, Hindu and Muslim organisations are in charge of all Jews, Hindus and Muslims. Whether you are an extremist mullah or a moderate mullah, whether you’re Blair’s friend or Blair’s enemy, you might relish the idea of being able to speak for all people with a Muslim background - no matter how religious they are - but this may be in direct competition with the role of Muslims in British civil society.”
More of this interesting interview came out in Guardian
February 21st, 2006 at 4:21 pm
I agree with the first bit, i.e, Bangladeshis are not simply Muslim, even though Muslims and non-Muslims have something of a ‘wholesale’ attitude towards Bangladeshi Muslims. The objective is to deny the Bangladeshis and Bengalis (as some might say, to draw a preconceived distinction between Bangladeshis being, more often than not, Muslims, and Bengalis being mainly Hindus. I say this after an odd conversation with the great musician Ravi Shankar) their history beyond arrival of Islam.
Countless times, I have astonished by the sheer ignorance of school children in Bangladesh, even those attending college seem to lack historical understanding.
My personal experience of mullahs and imams in Bangladesh has always been that of intellectual battering. I gained very little from my interaction with them. Critical analysis is not something they are familiar with.
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Imagine having to take sides between your parents — mom or dad? That is exactly what the recent trend is — “modern secular” minds asking Bangladeshis to choose between being Bangladeshi or Muslim (much like what the DP article ‘04 “Recent_News: Is an Islamic revolution eminent in Bangladesh?” contends in great detail …”Your country worths more than any religion.”) For a vast majority of Bangladeshis (and the human race for that matter), any value system is closely tied to a set of belief systems. Sure, strong beliefs have potential for conflict … so the solution is to abandon religious values and shelter ourselves in the comfort of a “secular” national identity? If the objective of religious gearing is to deny Bangladeshis “their history beyond arrival of Islam”, then the objective of pure nationalism is to deny Bangladeshis their history from beginning of time itself.
February 24th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
What’s happened to my response of Feb. 23rd?
March 1st, 2006 at 6:41 am
Muhamad can you post your Feb 23 response again? LOoks like somehow it didn’t come through.
March 1st, 2006 at 7:13 am
The people of east bengal do not have any crisis about their identity. There is more of a crisis about the identity of east Bengalis in west bengal than in east bengal.
People in east Bengal, I feel, being an independent nation, does not have much problem in identifying themselves. And even if there are occassional commotions, they don’t care much about it.
Bookshops in Bangladesh are filled with books from west bengal, east bengal people live and die with music from west bengal.
If there was a identity crisis, it would not happen.
Bengalis of east bengal are predominantly muslims. Historically for hundreds of years, they preserved both the bengali and muslim identity quite effectively.
However problem with general people in west Bengal is that, they simply can’t accept bangladeshis as bengali’s. They themselves are more eager to protray Bangladeshi people as muslims rather than Bengalis.
They will try to spell and pronounce Bengali muslim names in as less bengali way as possible. They will resist reading literature from east bengal.
May be it comes from their own vulnerability as bengali, especially in the face of relentless hindi invasion.
They don’t want to see the hub of bengali culture move from Kolkata to Dhaka.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:03 am
Unfortunately I didn’t save it.
I was asking for clarifications from Naureen on “pure nationalism” and “beginning of tiime”, etc.
March 8th, 2006 at 11:42 am
(very belated response!)
when i say ‘pure nationalism’ i am drawing implicit distinctions between forms of nationalism (liberal, moderate, globalistic, patriotic, etc) and contending that pure nationalism promotes a sense of contagious ’secularism’ devoid of religious grounding….while i can see certain virtues in that concept, it is by and large, unrealistic…what do you think?….
‘beginning of time’ — where do i begin? realize that when i posted my comment i had in mind that bangladeshis are both muslims (or any other religios or nonreligious denomination they subscribe to) and bangladeshis…owing their emotion, intellect, and activism (or lack thereof often!) to both their religious identity and motherland — remember “we are infinitely more than what we think” (Gibran)….from a belief standpoint, beginning of time is literally that –the very inception of God’s time (which means ‘arrival’ of Islam becomes a mute point from an Islamic point of view)….adam and eve? maybe…maybe even before that…
March 8th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
The religious values and the nationalistic values can both reside side by side (just like the siblings desribed in Jhumpa’s latest piece). You don’t have to choose between the two. But the age old question is which one takes priority. In England, it is often discussed, are you a British or Muslim first? It is a logical question. Where does your loyalty lie first — to the countrymen or to the people of the same religion? I think its best left up to the individual. Because to each his own. One size does not fit all.
The dilemma is that Islam does not recognize the geographical man-made borders. So often times Muslims are confused on this point.
March 8th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
I agree. With just one exception, it is not that Islam does not recognize man-made borders (one needs only look at hadith that speaks to obeying the laws of the land one resides in, the pacts that the Prophet (SW) made with other tribes/nations, the process of incorporating and assimilating cultural/traditional values as long as it does not conflict with religious ones to the extent that a number of Hajj rituals reflect that, etc. — btw, John Esposito’s work on political Islam is worth checking out in this context), for it certainly ‘recognizes’ borders and related concepts as realities of life. But it’s just that Islam does not ‘promote’ creating man-made borders when ideology should be the utopian commonizing factor.
March 11th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Dear Naureen,
are you using ‘pure nationalism’ as an umbrella expression for all forms of nationalisms, ‘liberal, etc’, or are you using it as an opposite of the rest?
Adam & Eve? Those unfortunate few with a scientific disposition can’t relate to this.
March 11th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Secular democracy, as dear Asif appositely put it, is (and can be) accepting of religious and non-religious people in a given society. That is, at least, the accepted understanding of secular democracy. Having been thoroughly influenced by the Koranic culture, all of us must be aware of the sura Al-Kafirun in the Koran. That particular sura epitomises the Arabic secular values very well. We don’t need Gibran’s assurances, it’s all there in the Koran. Is this unrealistic?
Going back to Gibran, it seems rather tautological, it reminds me of a similar proclamation “know thy self.” Can one do such a thing?
Asif, as someone who was born and brought up in the UK, I see myself as an English speaking person, and, if I might be so bold as to say, culturally English in so many ways. This will not undermine (unless I do so) my connection to any other part of the world. I agree with you on leaving it to the individual to decide for his or her self (this is an example of what I understand to be secular values).
Islam doesn’t recognise borders in so far as Islam encapsulates a borderless dominion. This isn’t exclusively the aspiration of Islam…
March 11th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Good points … we are definitely defining terms very differently. But hey, the more eclectic, the better!
Started typing up a long-drawn verbose response, then decided to leave this trail of discussion with one final thought for all reading (any?!?!) ;)… there is a fine line between exegesis and eisegesis … just be cautious with whether you are interpreting any text in its own context or reading your own interpretation into it….
March 11th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Dear Naureen,
I’m sure you are an exemplary exegete.