Mita Huq, the famous Tagore singer, recently made comments on a talk-show on Ekkator TV which have gone viral.
She argued the nation is facing an identity crisis because there is no consistency with our Bangalee identity for some women to cover their heads or men to wear tupis and sport beards. Naturally, her comments have generated much debate.
Are we really suffering from an identity crisis, or just being made to feel so? What should our identity be in the first place: Bangalee, Bangladeshi, Muslim, Hindu, Adibashi (Tribal people) or something else? Must we have only one identity and rule out the possibility of multiple co-existing identities?
There is a need to question the significance of Mita Huq’s comments. First, it needs to be said, Mita Huq deserves credit for consistently acknowledging the rights of adibashis as distinct from the umbrella term “Bangalee,” which has been a hard-fought battle in itself.
The original 1972 Constitution made the famous mistake of calling citizens of Bangladesh “Bangalees” thereby suppressing the “tribal,” “Jumma,” or adibashi identity mostly prevalent in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Thanks to subsequent constitutional amendments, we are now all Bangladeshi citizens.
Unfortunately, Mita’s argument went on to say adibashis are the only Bangladeshis, implying that the rest of us are Bangalees. This is deeply concerning.
First of all, it is factually incorrect as Bangladesh hosts other ethnicities and cultures besides Bangali and Adibashi; for instance, the Urdu-speaking Bihari.
The second and more shocking implication of Mita’s assertions is that Bangalees aren’t, or cannot also be Bangladeshis, which is wrong.
All citizens of Bangladesh are Bangladeshis, and this brings to the fore the idea that the cultural and linguistic identity of being Bangalee trumps the national identity of being a Bangladeshi. Question: Does it really?
The answer is a resounding no. A simple way to illustrate this would be with the example of fans of the Bangladeshi cricket team.
To elaborate, when watching a cricket match played by the Tigers, fans feel Bangladeshi and their Bangladeshi identity is at the forefront regardless of whether they identify as Bangalee or Chakma, or even, Hindu or Muslim.
The birth of Bangladesh on March 26 is also celebrated regardless of cultural, linguistic, ethnic or religious identity.
At the same time, while a cricket fan’s national identity may be ignited during a cricket match or independence day celebrations, they may feel as Bangalee as ever at the Ekushey Boi Mela and the Bangalee New Year celebrations and very Muslim when offering prayers or fasting during Ramadan.
This conclusively illustrates a person’s capacity to bear multiple co-existing identities.
Our cricket fan may typically, at the same time, hold Bangladeshi (national), Bangalee (cultural/linguistic) and Muslim (religious) identities, each of which may be dominant at different times. The number of identities a person can hold is not limited.
Adding to one’s ethnic, cultural, national and religious identities, there may be others based on profession, family, gender, class, political allegiance and so on.
Besides being Bangladeshi, Bangali and Muslim, one may also identify as a lawyer, a socialist, a woman, not to mention, a cricket-enthusiast!
The assertion that an individual must adopt one identity at the cost of all others or that the expression of one identity requires giving up other identities is, therefore, farcical.
Mita Huq’s one-identity theory is therefore incorrect, but then the question remains: Why all the fuss? The answer is that Mita Huq’s opinion is now as public as it could be.
A publicly expressed opinion by a public personality opens itself to scrutiny and inflames ongoing debate – that is why it matters.
If Facebook home-feeds and readers’ comments on online newspapers are any representation of public reaction, the general sentiment predictably has been a strong assertion of the Muslim identity, which seemed most under attack in Mita’s comments.
Although some people, who disagreed with Mita, have then in part adopted her one-identity theory to state that “We are Muslims/Hindus first and Bangalee second.”
Such debates which bring out divisive sentiments are counter-productive in a multicultural, multi-religious society. Mita Huq’s speech reeked of an “us versus them” mentality at a time when what is needed is a more understanding, tolerant and inclusive society.
While social media has given great power to the people to voice their opinions and concerns, public personalities have a responsibility to protect and promote social cohesion.
As for the supposed crisis in Bangladeshi identity, a multiplicity of identities is to be expected in any modern vibrant society. There perhaps isn’t any crisis; being Muslim or Hindu does not conflict with being Bangalee in this country.
To quote Jane Elliott, an American schoolteacher and activist:
“We don’t need a melting pot in this country, folks. We need a salad bowl. In a salad bowl, you put in the different things. You want the vegetables – the lettuce, the cucumbers, the onions, the green peppers – to maintain their identity.”