Since the onset of recent Hefazat and Jamaat activities following the Shahbagh protests, I have noticed an increased tendency among people for them to become more conscious about their multiple identities.
“Perceived” conflicts between religious and national identities are suddenly gaining more media attention. Guests in several talk shows are suddenly talking about what constitutes national and religious identities. They are raising questions about what isn’t Islamic and what isn’t a part of Bangali culture.
It is very natural for this to happen after a movement started with nationalistic fervour was challenged by one charged with religious sentiment. However, some of the guests in these talk shows are making rather inappropriate comments without carefully thinking and articulating their opinions.
I feel it is necessary to talk about two such personalities, Mita Haque and Shahriar Kabir, and their comments in two different talk shows that particularly caught my attention. Both of these guests commented about clothing in Bangladesh and in doing so criticised and ridiculed certain segments of the population. Video clips of their comments have gone viral on social media and have also drawn criticisms.
To begin with, Mita Haque, the revered Rabindra Sangeet singer, stated on Ekkator TV that people in Bangladesh are going through an identity crisis as they struggle to dress up like proper Bangalis. She carelessly implied that those adorning themselves in burqas, hijabs, tupis and beard are not behaving like Bangalis.
Furthermore, Shahriar Kabir, the famous journalist turned writer, human rights activist and head of Ghatak-Dalal Nirmul Committee, went a step further in Somoy News. He claimed that hijab is un-Islamic and is part of Wahhabi culture that came to Bangladesh, through the efforts of Saudi Arabia and some returning expatriates from the Middle East.
According to Shahriar, many of the expatriates have been brainwashed to adopt the Wahhabi culture of hijab for their female relatives. In his defence, he did point out that back in the 1960s, hardly anyone wore hijab and films in Islamic countries like Egypt and Pakistan portrayed women freely wearing sleeveless dresses and other more revealing outfits more than today.
I personally found both these comments rather silly and insensible. However, I would still engage with them before drawing a general conclusion about how such comments inevitably harm the social fabric of our country.
Response to Mita Haque
When she talked about how Bangladeshis who wear tupis and sport beards are not Bangalis, the first images that came to my mind were that of Tagore’s dense beard and Nazrul’s famous tupi-clad portrait. I will not go further into what a Bangali should or should not wear as that is a personal choice.
However, what I found ridiculous was how she, as a cultural ambassador of Bangladesh, singled out men with “beard and tupi” and “women in burqas” to associate them with Jamaat supporters and anti-Bangalis.
I find it surprising that those wearing Indian styled saris, kameez, jeans, pants, shirts, and western outfits have not caught her attention all these years. True Bangalis, according to her are those who wear traditional secular-themed clothes.
But this is not true. We are Bangalis by virtue of the collective promotion of our language, literature, culture, traditions, food habits, etc. and not simply by the clothing we choose to wear.
Response to Shahriar Kabir
I always revered him for his efforts in promoting the war crime trials. However, I was stunned by his argument, where he chose to rule hijab as anti-Islamist by drawing examples from traditional outfits of Pakistanis, Turks and Egyptians and what actresses of those countries wore half a century ago.
Seems it never occurred to him that he should validate his arguments on the basis of the Qur’an, hadith and those Islamic law books which are traditionally considered to be authoritative throughout the Muslim world.
I leave it up to individuals to decide whether hijab is un-Islamic when dressing up modestly is reiterated in the Qur’an and hadith, and major Islamic schools of law instruct women to cover their hair.
Impacts of such comments in Bangladesh
Firstly, such comments are divisive because they hurt the sentiments of certain significant segments of the population.
These particular segments already feel under attack from the more secular segments of our society due to the Hefazat-Jamaat conjured propaganda that the secular government is anti-Islamic. At a time of turmoil, such insensible comments only create discord among the population. Moreover, such comments only promote stereotyping to ridicule people, the last thing Bangladesh needs at a time of unrest.
Secondly, many of these personalities are inclined towards the ruling party through overt endorsement. As such, their comments are often assumed to reflect the mind-set of the government. This gives more substance to those spreading propaganda to create unrest and divide among the population along secular versus religious lines.
For example, their comments are already being circulated by pro-Jamaat activists over social media who argue those promoting war criminal trials are anti-Islamist and are working to undermine Islamist values. This, in turn, harms the causes people like Shahriar Kabir and Mita Haque promote in society such as trials for war criminals and encouraging Bangali culture, etc.
The time has come for TV channels and their talk show guests to become more responsible and better prepared so that they can save themselves from endorsing comments and stereotypes, which can be misused in such ways and may encourage division.
It is important for commentators to understand how a single naive or callous comment can suddenly jeopardise their credibility and harm the causes they promote.
