Religious vs. National Identity

Last year brought home an essential question for Bangladeshis. Should we be known for our national or religious identity i.e. should Bangladesh be an Islamic Republic or a people's republic.

This was a dangerous intrusion that toyed with our minds and divided this nation into two over the longest debate that I could recall in this country, at least in my life time. I admittedly was in favour of a controversy of this kind because not only do they spark debates but simultaneously open closed doors of unwillingness behind which the term 'patriotism' tends to hide, which has always been a big question mark in this country.

Let me pause here slightly and take a detour to explain that I am not a big fan of nationalism. However, seeing the constant regress towards communal violence, minority oppression and conversion into a majoritarian Bangladesh causes me more distress than nationalism does.

It is distressing to see a Bangladeshi complaining about racism overseas or working in an international environment when sadly, they are unable to give a clear answer to the simple question of what being a Bangladeshi means to them. If 43 years of staking a freedom, paid for at an extremely high premium, fails to instill a sense of pride then no amount of verbal abuse should. Because that would only indicate insecurity borne out of embarrassment for being who we are!

Sadly, a case of insecurity is what is in motion here. Like a scorned teenager we like to lash out at our own people at the first given opportunity on charges of complexion, height, weight, money and the favourite: religion. If a name sounds a bit different to ours, we are afraid, if the languages they speak differ, we are afraid. The sons and daughters of Rozarios and Chakmas can by no means rub shoulders with the Ahmeds and Khans because again, we are afraid. Well if we are so afraid of the differences among us then where is the genuine celebration for togetherness? Why does the conflict not stop there and still infiltrate groups representing similar identities? The answer is simple. Our biggest fear lies not in our differences but breeds from the insecure thought that we ourselves just might not be good enough.

This pursuit to exclude and cancel out competition has led to an absolute digress, not only in our own backyard but recently in our neighbour's too. The thought of BJP coming to power in India has been a concern for Bangladesh with the contrasting majorities of religion and conservatism in the party policy of the former, indicating a looming possibility of discord between the two countries. Narender Modi, however, had come as a relief with a smooth transition into the Prime Minister's office and had successfully created an identity of his own, separate from the party. It had been so far, so good. News of the party Modi ascended from though continues to spread disturbing connotations not so inclined towards Modi's dream of an inclusive India.

BJP through its mouthpieces like Yogi Adityanath, a controversial BJP lawmaker, is one of the party's key campaigners for by-elections in Uttar Pradesh, a state already sparked with tension followed by the deadly riots in September last year. Under these turbulent circumstances, he kicks up a political storm by being caught on a video purportedly vowing that for "every Hindu converted, 100 Muslim girls would be converted as retaliation" amongst other provocative comments.

This is seen as a means to polarise voters ahead of the by-elections and led to a fiery debate, in the biggest democracy of the world and a nation considered epitome of secularism, over its identity of being Hindustan, and the implication of the word Hindu in it. It drew various speculations that took the debate back to the Mughals who named the region beyond the Indus River as Hindus in Modern Persian, which combined with the Farsi suffix – stan results in Hindustan, "land of the Hindus". This never did specifically have significance with the religion Hinduism but is under scrutiny now post the remarks from the BJP campaigner.

It provides little satisfaction to watch a country celebrating 67 years of the most diverse secularism in terms of language, religion, culture, food preferences (vegan vs non-vegetarian) have its identity questioned by a mere provocative comment from a politician, and poses a much larger question perhaps as to when, nations, universally would be able to separate their religious and national identities.

The question cannot be which comes first – religion or state? Rather, which is for all?