1. I buy what Dr. Bain has said. I don't want the majority (Bengali speaking people) to show chauvinism and suppress the rest of the tribal languages and cultures. If they have the potential (I am sure they have) I will encourage and support them to flourish their languages and cultures. As a matter of fact, Bangladesh has been doing this since her inception. I am sure more has to be done. Linguistically being a majority, naturally Bengalees are in an advantageous position (e.g., Bengali is a recognized language in the UNO), but that must not mean that other languages and cultures have to be ignored. If possible, tribal people must be allowed to have their education (at least up to a certain level) using their own languages as the media of instruction.
2. As regards nationality, the word "Bangalee" has become a sensitive issue for the Bengalees and as such is very hard to change to Bangladeshi (or keep it as Bangladeshi as it is now.) The other reason why AL may want to change it to "Bangalee" (if has not been done already) is that "Bangladeshi" was imposed on the people by the Zia's military dictatorship in a controversial manner. Zia's political motive was highly questionable although it made many tribal groups happy. If "Bangladeshi" as the nationality is not acceptable to AL, it can think about an alternative name, but retaining "Bangalee" as the nationality would be chauvinistic. The Bangalee majority must realize that by accepting a replacement for "Bangalee", they will not lose any thing (Bengalees of India are still Bengalee although their nationality is "Indian"); they will still have the opportunity to call themselves Bengalees and identify themselves with Chandidas, Lalon, Rabindranath, and so on. Can we really expect a Chakma to completely identify himself with the above mentioned great Bengalee writers? Well, I am sure the richness of Bengali literature will attract an Abu Sayeed Ayub (a non-Bengali turned into a great Bengali writer after being attarcted by Rabindranath and his literary works) from among the Chakmas, Garos, and Santhals.
3. In this connection I will refer the Muktomona readers to the 7th issue of Ogrobeej (a half-yearly Bengali magazine) edited by Dr. Shoumyo Dasgupta. The said issue has rich articles on Bengali nationalism and the related problems.
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 9:29 PM
Subject: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 9:29 PM
Subject: [mukto-mona] Re: The sprit of Bangalee nationalism?
Bangladesh is a political entity, as opposed to a cultural one. May be, Najrul Islam's Bangla Desh and Ravindranath's Sonar Bangla were cultural, and those included more than the political entity of Bangladesh ; they also excluded at least the Chittagong Hill Tracts, which is a part of today's political Bangladesh .
Citizenship (nationality) is not cultural. I wish the secular politicians and intellectuals of Bangladesh did not start this non-sense of Bangalee nationalism in 1971-72. It was wrong to ask the CHT people to call themselves Bangalees. Again, Bangalee nationalism was not really the spirit of all movements during 1947-71, and should not have been unless if we wanted to merge with West Bengal and allowed CHT to secede from us. Fairness, respect and dignity for Bangla and the Bangalees should not be considered the same as Bangalee nationalism. Bangalee nationalism would have demanded a separate nation for the Bangalees, even if the western Pakistanis treated the Bangalees with due respect. Our real spirit was no nationalism; it was fairness, respect and dignity for us.
Citizenship for anyone who seeks it? It is not done anywhere in the world. All countries have their laws to govern how a non-citizen would be given citizenship.
I would not ask Awami League to revive the so-called Bangalee nationalism (citizenship), rather I would ask them to respect all peoples of the land with respect; much like I would not ask them to call all Bangladeshis Muslims, much like I would not ask all Indians to be known as Hindus, much like I would not desire all cultural, linguistic and ethnic groups of the United States to be called Christians or English.
Well, so long for now,
Sukhamaya Bain
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] HAVOC CREATED BY JAMATI'S !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] HAVOC CREATED BY JAMATI'S !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| Dr. Bain's comments tells me that, in my last sarcastic comments, I did not clarify my points enough; hence confusions. I was looking for a cultural identity for the people of Bangladesh. I explored 3 conventional identities (Bangalee, Bangladeshi, and Moderate Muslim), which have been used in the past to represent the people of Bangladesh. But, none of them seemed to encompass all people. As a result, the identity crisis still remains, and we do not know who we are. After Bangladesh was born, our cultural identity (Jatiota) was Bangalee, and our nationality was also Banglalee. Ershad changed our nationality to Bangladeshi. The motive was to include all the people of Bangladesh, so he told us at that time. Was it really the motive? If that was true – all non-Bangalee Biharis should have been citizen by now, and Father Tim, the former Principal of Notre Dame College, would have been citizen already. If you say that our nationality is Bangladeshi - then we should grant citizenship to any permanent resident of Bangladesh, if they seek one. In my view, it was done purposefully to defuse pre-independence secular mindset, and neutralize the Bangalee-Jatiotabadi spirit, the spirit of independence movement. As you know, Quranic verses and state religion (Islam) were also introduced in the secular constitution right around that time. Dr. Bain, Bangalee-Jatiotabadi spirit has been the driving force behind all movements in the East Pakistan since the language movement in 1952. Even though Sheikh Mujib was not seeking independence at the beginning, but his movement was fueled by the Bangali-Jatiotabadi spirit. This is the spirit that still can unite the mjority in Bangladesh. That's why - I have been asking Awami League to revive that spirit for their sake. Thanks for your comments. Love to hear from you. Don't be a stranger. Jiten Roy --- |
__._,_.___
