As we stress a lot over pro-choice argument these days, somewhere down the line another significantly relevant issue became overshadowed. This is definitely about choice, but also about how minorities are literally and figuratively brought to trial for their beliefs, traditions, and culture. Anything that differs from the belief system of the majorities is silenced with “you live in a country of 90.4% Muslims.”
Are we stuck in a majoritarian society?
According to a Dhaka Tribune report, a probe panel looking into the reported harassment of college teacher Lata Samaddar by a policeman claims to have found some evidence proving the allegations to be true. Lata Samaddar was wearing a teep on her forehead that day, and police constable Nazmul Tareque was riding his bike on a wrong route.
As Lata questioned his counterflow driving, the constable got back at her in the most officious way. I will get back to the point again as to why I find this act of audacity “officious.”
Fast-forward since that incident, when the topic was raised in the parliament by a veteran actress-parliamentarian, it became a topic of debate as to “whether Islam allows women to wear teep or not” overnight. And another group started scoffing at the whole issue: “Amidst a whole lot of burning issues in a country, talking about such trivial things is nugatory.”
Can we look into the incident while addressing the identities of the characters associated with it?
Lata Samaddar-
*A woman
*With a Hindu surname
*Wears saree and a Teep on her forehead
*Works as a college teacher
*Commutes on rickshaw
Police constable Nazmul Tareque-
*A man
*With a Muslim surname
*Wears police uniform
*Works for the law-enforcing sector
*Commutes on his bike
I can clearly read the power dynamics at play here. A “second gender” with a Hindu surname, in a not-so-powerful profession is, by default, vulnerable in our political, economic, and socio-cultural aspects. In contrast, Nazmul Tareque, who is a Muslim man in khakis embodying law-enforcing power (legal or illegal), who can continue riding his bike on the wrong side of the road, harass a random woman for her harmless choices, hurl obscenities at her, and get away with all of of that without consequences. He harassed the college teacher just for wearing a teep because he felt that he could. Those of you who think this is just about a teep -- no, this is about a sick system, a system incapable of protecting the safety and dignity of regular people.
Let's say, hypothetically, that Islam indeed does not allow women to wear the teep. Is this still not audacious and inane of someone to expect for every person in a country to conform to Islam's rules and regulations? Especially those from different religions with very distinct beliefs and traditions. Even if you strongly disagree with their culture, it is still not a crime in terms of the constitution. Nor can you explicitly impose your own beliefs on them, much less harass them for their beliefs.
We have to learn to agree to disagree.
People from other religious communities might have enormous respect for you and your rights to your religion, but they are not morally, ethically, nationally, constitutionally or in any other way obliged to follow your religion.
Among the South Asian countries, Bangladesh became the first constitutionally secular nation, having declared itself as an explicitly secular state in 1972. Even though it has a state religion, yet again, it was the first and only Muslim-majority country in South Asia to incorporate secularism into its constitution.
Say, I'm a practicing Hindu. There are practicing Christians, Buddhists, believers of other faiths, non-believers, and atheists. Why would all of them be obliged to follow your religion? They can promise you to never disrespect or intervene with your religious values. And they can demand the same from you. I repeat, they can demand, not “expect.”
By letting them be by themselves and live their lives the way they want to, you are not doing any favour for them, not by any stretch of the imagination. Because the country comprises of Muslims who make up 90.4% of the total population, they do not automatically become first-class citizens. Nor can the minorities be labelled as their subordinates -- the remaining 9.6% people of the population are just as important.
Diversity is natural and inevitable, and therein lies the beauty of coexistence. If anything needs to be changed it is the perspectives of the intolerant, who must understand that the world is not uniform.
Sharbani Dutta is a freelance contributor.
