The world has been divided into fragments. People have divided up the world according to their will and the strength of their power. The more power someone has, the more they dominate. From this reality, various theories have emerged. One of them is “nationalism.” States are created, sustained, or broken apart through the force of this ideology.
Nationalism is a political and cultural concept that places the nation and its identity at the center of society. It can unite people, but in its extreme form, it can also create division. What, then, is nationalism? It is a belief or ideology that asserts that there should be harmony between the nation and the state. In other words, the people of a state should live together on the basis of a particular national or cultural identity.
European nationalism emerged mainly during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era. During this period, people’s sense of identity, language, and culture came to be seen as the foundations of state formation. Nationalism unified countries such as Germany and Italy, while also contributing to the breakup of multinational empires such as Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire.
European nationalism gave birth to the modern nation-state, while nationalism in Bangladesh brought people together in the struggle for independence. The common feature of both is that national identity was made the basis of the state. At first glance, it may seem that Bangladesh developed a form of cultural and linguistic nationalism. In reality, the difference between Europe and Bangladesh is relatively small. In both cases, political and territorial forms of nationalism were evident.
The emergence of Bengali national consciousness took place during the British colonial period. In literature, we see its reflection in the writings of Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay. In Bankim Chandra’s eyes, the country was a mother. Here, he viewed Bengal and India as one. His nationalism combined devotion to the motherland with sacrifice and strength. His novel Anandamath and the song “Vande Mataram” provided Indian nationalism with a cultural and spiritual foundation among a vast population, which later became a source of inspiration for the independence movement. However, many believe that Bankim’s nationalism was Hindu nationalism.
Another giant of Bengali literature, Rabindranath Tagore, viewed nationalism from a deeply humanistic perspective. He rejected narrow national pride and sought to connect nationalism with universal humanity. He believed that if nationalism excluded or generated hatred toward other nations, it was contrary to humanity. In his view, extreme nationalism imprisoned people’s freedom of thought.
The Bengali nationalism that we refer to today actually began after the partition of India. Muslim nationalism had once emerged in opposition to Hindu nationalism, and the state of Pakistan was born on that basis. However, it could not remain united for long.
Creating a nationalist idea and mobilising a movement around it requires an opponent. Hatred is one of its accompanying elements. After Pakistan was established in 1947, Bengali nationalism emerged from the people of the East’s grievances and accusations of discrimination against them by the West. Slogans such as “We are Bengalis, our language is Bengali” and “Rice and roti do not go together” helped create a particular mindset during the 1950s and 1960s. This was reflected in politics.
Pakistani rule came to be seen as foreign rule; non-Bengalis were viewed as the enemies of Bengalis; and Bengalis wanted a separate state. Yet this was not merely a political ideology. It was accompanied by a cultural movement and a desire to see the Bengalis of East Pakistan as a distinct people with a separate identity.
It began with the Language Movement of 1948–52 and ended with the armed resistance war of 1971. Throughout this period, three slogans nourished and energized nationalist ideas in this region. The first was: “Tomar amar thikana, Padma Meghna Jamuna”—“The Padma, Meghna, and Jamuna are our address.” In other words, the land washed by the Padma, Meghna, and Jamuna rivers was our true home, the country we aspired to have. The second slogan was: “Tumi ke, ami ke? Bangali, Bangali”—“Who are you? Who am I? Bengali, Bengali.” This meant that our identity would be Bengali, with no place for non-Bengalis. The third slogan was: “Joy Bangla.” Embedded in this slogan was the dream of establishing a national state for the Bengalis.
All these aspirations were fulfilled. East Pakistan became independent and turned into Bangladesh. A large portion of the non-Bengali population was driven from their homes and took refuge in the Geneva Camp. Yet one question remains: Has the question of nationalism been settled? Has Bangladesh succeeded in becoming a national state for the Bengalis?
The geographical territory known as East Pakistan until 25 March 1971 became Bangladesh.
The 1972 Constitution identified us as Bengali in terms of our national identity. But is Bangladesh the state of all Bengalis? There are, after all, tens of millions of Bengali speakers outside the state of Bangladesh who are citizens of other countries. So what is the basis of the identity “Bengali” here? Language is certainly a factor, but geography is even more important. In other words, Bangladesh is not the state of the Bengali nation (in the sense of all Bengali speakers); rather, it is the state formed from the Bengali-majority region of Pakistan.
There may have been a certain confusion among those who framed the state’s identity. Simply inserting the Bengali identity into the Constitution did not resolve the issue. On passports, under the nationality field, it was written “Citizen of Bangladesh.” One interpretation of this is that linguistic identity is secondary to state identity. Someone may say, “I am Bengali by nationality or ethnicity. But as a citizen of Bangladesh, I am Bangladeshi.”
After the political transformation of 1975, we saw a change. In opposition to Bengali nationalism as the national identity, the concept of Bangladeshi nationalism emerged. The former is language-based, while the latter gives greater importance to a state-based civic identity.
But the geography of our state was not created by Mujib. Nor was it created by Jinnah. It was created in 1947 by the stroke of the pen of Sir Cyril John Radcliffe, chairman of the Punjab and Bengal Boundary Commissions appointed by the British government. Jinnah and Mujib later inherited that geography. So should we call Radcliffe the father of this nation-state?
Over time, nationalism took two different forms in the ideologies of Bangladesh’s political parties. The Awami League has retained Bengali nationalism as part of the cultural legacy of the Liberation War, while the BNP has based Bangladeshi nationalism on a state-centered civic identity. Both forms of nationalism have influenced the country’s political culture. However, the conflict between them has been a major cause of Bangladesh’s political divisions. This conflict is not merely cultural; it is largely political and has had a profound impact on state policies.
In the eyes of the Awami League and those aligned with it, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is the “Father of the Nation.” This phrase is repeatedly invoked in their speeches and writings. The question is: Father of which “nation”? Bangladesh is not the state of all Bengalis, is it? If he is to be regarded as the Father of the Nation, then one would have to say that he is the “Father of the Bangladeshi Nation.”
Bangladesh was born in 1971. The emergence of the Bengali national identity did not begin in 1971. It has a history spanning a thousand years. Can the father of a Bengali-speaking population that has lived for ages in eastern India emerge in 1971? It is true that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was the principal leader of the politics that led to the establishment of the state of Bangladesh. He was the architect of this state. The Liberation War was fought under his name.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the “Father of the Nation” of Pakistan. We created Bangladesh. We replaced Jinnah with Mujib. The idea that a country must have a “Father of the Nation” is a kind of emotionally driven patriarchal notion. We have been having a political “quarrel” over this for 55 years.
But the geography of our state was not created by Mujib. Nor was it created by Jinnah. It was created in 1947 by the stroke of the pen of Sir Cyril John Radcliffe, chairman of the Punjab and Bengal Boundary Commissions appointed by the British government. Jinnah and Mujib later inherited that geography. So should we call Radcliffe the father of this nation-state? I raised this question during a discussion on a television channel. A daily newspaper made a photo card about it. That was enough. Immediately, a group of people descended on me on social media—people who read and listen to nothing beyond photo cards. Many of those who dominate the political arena and the media do not understand sarcasm. What are we to do with such a nation?
* Mohiuddin Ahmad is a writer and researcher
* This article appeared in Prothom Alo print and online and has been rewritten by Ayesha Kabir for Prothom Alo English Online
The views expressed are those of the author.