To celebrate or not…

The month of August is a tough one for us because there was a recent death that occurred this month in our family. The month of August also brought celebration and joy from the birth of my nephew. The birth and death did not coincide on the same date, but what would have happened if they had? Would mourning have priority over celebration or should it be vice versa? What should drive the decision?

There has been much debate about the celebration of BNP leader Khaleda Zia's birthday on August 15, which also happens to be the same date as that when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was assassinated. Many argue that August 15 is the national day of mourning and hence there cannot be any celebration. They also accuse Zia of fabricating her date of birth (it is alleged that she has previously used three birth dates); they suggest that she purposely chose August 15 as her birthday to insult the death of Sheikh Mujib. I would not be surprised if riots broke out due to this argument one day. What I have noticed is that people are hypnotised by party politics; arguments raised by most people are shaped by their party line, instead of their own insight, thought, logic or reason.

In the history of USA, there have been many national tragedies, from assassinations to terrorism. Every year the death of JFK, MLK and Lincoln (all from assassination) are remembered (maybe not with the same kind of fanfare as in the case of Sheikh Mujib in Bangladesh) JFK belonged to the Democratic Party, while Lincoln was a Republican. Democrats and Republicans who typically bicker like teenage kids, are, however, united on these death anniversaries. Statistically there have to be some senators, congressman and other leaders who are born on these anniversaries as well as on national tragedies such as 9/11 and the Oklahoma bombing. I am sure in public, these leaders pay respect to the dead, but in private they celebrate their birthdays. The public may watch television specials that are shown on these tragic dates, but they continue with their daily lives (sporting events are not suspended, restaurants serve customers, shops are open for business). If someone has a birthday on September 11, they celebrate, and also remember those who died on that date.

In a recent editorial in a leading English daily newspaper titled "Of birthdays, of respect for the dead" published on August 18, 2010, the writer argued that "sensitivities matter" and therefore on August 15 "birthday songs are far from our minds." I do not disagree with the writer's assertion — sensitivities do matter; but they should never trump logic, reasoning and fundamental rights. While Bangladesh battles birthdays and deaths, in the USA, there is a great debate about building a mosque ("the ground zero mosque") few blocks from where the Twin Towers once stood. Many who are not in support of building a mosque at that location, argue with the weapon of "sensitivity." They make the case that rights of "others" need to be trumped due to "sensitivities." I draw this parallel because I know that the vast majority in Bangladesh who are using the "sensitivity" card to protest the birthday of Khaleda Zia would not use the same "sensitivity" card to block the building of the mosque. Doesn't one's decision making process need to be consistent? One goes down a slippery slope if one makes "sensitivities" the primary issue. I am always fearful when people use emotions (and party affiliations) to justify their actions instead of remembering the primacy of fundamental rights, logic and reason.

Those who have birthdays on dates that coincide with tragic events can have both events near their heart; I would not make a negative judgment. However, if someone purposely chooses a date as a birthday for spite, then I would question who they are. I am not too concerned if Khaleda Zia was born on August 15 or not, whether she ate a cake or what sari she wore on the occasion (there seems to be a lot of focus on these irrelevant matters); what I think is more important (and raises the question about the system in Bangladesh) is how one person can have three birth dates, as is often alleged.

In most developed countries birthdays of opposition party leaders do not get much air time (if at all). In Bangladesh trivial issues rule the minds of the rulers; debate focuses on the non-critical; reason and logic give way to party affiliation. And then one wonders why there is regular electricity outage, why there is shortage of gas, why there is traffic gridlock and why people are dying from curable and preventable diseases every day.

From all accounts of what I have read and stories I have heard from those who knew Sheikh Mujib, he was a great leader who united people. I think he would not have wanted any particular date to be used as a political weapon of division (by his party or the opposition). I am also confident that as a leader, his focus was more on the future than things that mark the past; and if certain arguments move the nation backward instead of forward, then those arguments should be considered just a distraction.

Births and deaths are a natural part of life, and should be remembered. Human history is full of tragic events, and there will be more dates in the future that people will mourn. We will soon run out of "good dates," to celebrate, if people cannot learn to celebrate and remember simultaneously. The same logic holds true for land; if a piece of land can be made sacred (even if it is several blocks from ground zero) then we have allowed sensitivities to rule instead of being sensitive to rights. These issues are not unique to Bangladesh and USA; this basic framework of enmity has been replicated all over the world. When irrationality is the source of reason, strife and dispute will forever continue. I write about this issue not to side with any political party or ideology, but to be on the side of logic and reason — which are fundamental law and should never be compromised. In the final analysis what is sacred are not dates on a calendar, land, or even people; these are simply tools and symbols used to arouse the mass for a particular agenda. The most sacred are ideas, thoughts, freedom, truth, and justice; these are things we should fight for without surrender.