Honour for Bangladesh or reflection of a servile mentality ?
Saturday, 15 May 2010
Enayet Rasul Bhuiyan
THE becoming of a member of the British parliament (MP) by one RushanAra Ali of Bangladesh origin is making waves. The media in Bangladesh is making much ado about it as if it is like a triumphant feat that would be similar to Bangladesh winning a cricket test series against England or a Bangladeshi getting the noble prize for something. People in Sylhet where she was born brought out victory like procession waving British flags following the news. The behaviour of some of these marching people seemed as if they were Harijans (untouchables) expressing joy from one of them being given access to the upper class Brahman society.
But is it really a triumph of value for someone with a debatable Bangladeshi identity ? For all practical purposes this person has become assimilated in British culture and society and is fully British. She even styles her name fashionably as Rushan and not Rawshan. If asked, what her identity is, she would very likely say it is British. So, where is Bangladesh in this scheme of things ?
If it were a case of a genuine or full fledged Bangladeshi doing something outstanding to be considered as greatness earned at the international stage, then it would make sense to show esteem to her or lavish admiration on her for such an achievement. But this is not the case. Just like any other British person, either native or naturalized, she was elected to the parliament of that country as a matter of course.
There are large ethnic communities in UK today. This country now strives to identify itself as a multicultural or multiracial society . They allow members of ethnic minorities to get elected as a way of showcasing to the world that they enable representation in their parliament all sections of residents in Britain. This is part of their politics and political strategy.
In what way does that bring honour to herself or Bangladesh ? Indeed, why should her becoming a British MP in a routine manner be perceived as bringing prestige to Bangladesh just because she was born in Bangladesh or have parents of Bangladeshi origin. She has, after all, lived and grown up in Britain and become British. She identifies herself-- body and soul-- to that country. Possibly, she is proud of that fact that she is British or in the depth of her mind takes satisfaction as a British citizen than as a person with past links to Bangladesh. So, why Bangladesh should consider her as its own ?
And why should becoming a British MP be a matter of jubilation in Bangladesh ? But the media in Bangladesh was awash with photos and accounts of Rushanara as if she earned great honours for Bangladesh when she is neither a Bangladeshi nor asserts her Bangladeshi connections .
Also, it cannot be a matter of any pride for a true Bengalee or Bangladeshi to recognize as any attainment becoming member of a legislature that has presided over the brutal colonization of Bengal, including today's Bangladesh, for two hundred years. Any conscious or well educated Bengalee or Bangladeshi cannot forget the cruel subjugation of their homeland by the British and the very many wrongs committed by them all through their colonial occupation.
Bangladesh can be only proud of those sons and daughters of it who discharged great and selfless services to their motherland or won laurels internationally through their very great or outstanding contributions in different fields such as the one Rabindranath Tagore made in literature. Bangladesh cannot be proud of ones who cling on to a servile mentality thinking, as in this case, that becoming the MP of a former oppressive imperial power lends to them a positive or special distinction. Rather, such fancied distinctions are signs of a deep seated inferiority complex and reflect a slavish mentality. It is something like appreciating the titles Roybahadurs, Khanbahadurs, etc., that the imperial British gave to decorate their most obedient subjects in the subcontinent. But these titles were rightly so despised by the local patriots as the symbols of servitude and cowardice.
All of the above, however, is not to say that everything about the British or the British rule in the Indian subcontinent, was bad. The first stage of the British rule in India under the East India Company was completely unprincipled and tyrannical. But when the subcontinent came to be governed under the Queen as part of the British empire subservient to the British government, the ruling style changed considerably. The governance gradually become more responsible and responsive. The British gave Indians limited self government. The administration earned respect for dispensation of justice specially at grass roots level. The imperial overlords also planted the seeds of constitutionalism, rule of law and other modern and liberal ideas among the progressive subcontinental gentry through the spread of their education system in their most coveted colony. They introduced to some extent modern science and technology and services like the railways which were factors in creating a base for further development of the nations created in the subcontinent after they departed. A renaissance of sorts in the subcontinent was aided considerably by the enlightenment experienced by distinguished Indians from their exposure to British and European learning and ideas.
But let us remember that notwithstanding these positive legacies, the natives of undivided India under British rule who distinguished themselves for their learning and striving to win their country's freedoms, never forgot their true identities and the fact that their own people were being kept in servitude sinfully by the British. They earned their renown by the dint of their own contribution to their communities and took particular pains to distance themselves from the British or the flattering titles sought to be given to them. Thus, when the Viceroy tried to honour Rabindranath Tagore after the Queen had knighted the noble laureate and titled him Sir Rabindranath, the greatest of Bangladesh's poets in the modern times, he politely declined to accept the offer. Such was his sterling qualities of peaceful rejection of anything that identified him with those who kept his country and people under wrongful subjugation. Rabindranath and the other great figures of his time were also never forgetful of their great past meaning the Indian civilizations as a whole or the part of Bengal or today's Bangladesh in the same. They did not believe that they needed decorations from their imperial masters to prove their greatness. For them such honours were like badges of slavery to be only vehemently tossed aside to prove the measure of their patriotism and take pride in their own civilization.
The likes of Rushanara Ali will not understand such feelings. They are too much soaked in the ways and culture of their adopted country to take any real pride in the land of their ancestors. For them, respect and honour means getting some kind of recognition in the societies in which they are always destined to play only second fiddle.
THE becoming of a member of the British parliament (MP) by one RushanAra Ali of Bangladesh origin is making waves. The media in Bangladesh is making much ado about it as if it is like a triumphant feat that would be similar to Bangladesh winning a cricket test series against England or a Bangladeshi getting the noble prize for something. People in Sylhet where she was born brought out victory like procession waving British flags following the news. The behaviour of some of these marching people seemed as if they were Harijans (untouchables) expressing joy from one of them being given access to the upper class Brahman society.
But is it really a triumph of value for someone with a debatable Bangladeshi identity ? For all practical purposes this person has become assimilated in British culture and society and is fully British. She even styles her name fashionably as Rushan and not Rawshan. If asked, what her identity is, she would very likely say it is British. So, where is Bangladesh in this scheme of things ?
If it were a case of a genuine or full fledged Bangladeshi doing something outstanding to be considered as greatness earned at the international stage, then it would make sense to show esteem to her or lavish admiration on her for such an achievement. But this is not the case. Just like any other British person, either native or naturalized, she was elected to the parliament of that country as a matter of course.
There are large ethnic communities in UK today. This country now strives to identify itself as a multicultural or multiracial society . They allow members of ethnic minorities to get elected as a way of showcasing to the world that they enable representation in their parliament all sections of residents in Britain. This is part of their politics and political strategy.
In what way does that bring honour to herself or Bangladesh ? Indeed, why should her becoming a British MP in a routine manner be perceived as bringing prestige to Bangladesh just because she was born in Bangladesh or have parents of Bangladeshi origin. She has, after all, lived and grown up in Britain and become British. She identifies herself-- body and soul-- to that country. Possibly, she is proud of that fact that she is British or in the depth of her mind takes satisfaction as a British citizen than as a person with past links to Bangladesh. So, why Bangladesh should consider her as its own ?
And why should becoming a British MP be a matter of jubilation in Bangladesh ? But the media in Bangladesh was awash with photos and accounts of Rushanara as if she earned great honours for Bangladesh when she is neither a Bangladeshi nor asserts her Bangladeshi connections .
Also, it cannot be a matter of any pride for a true Bengalee or Bangladeshi to recognize as any attainment becoming member of a legislature that has presided over the brutal colonization of Bengal, including today's Bangladesh, for two hundred years. Any conscious or well educated Bengalee or Bangladeshi cannot forget the cruel subjugation of their homeland by the British and the very many wrongs committed by them all through their colonial occupation.
Bangladesh can be only proud of those sons and daughters of it who discharged great and selfless services to their motherland or won laurels internationally through their very great or outstanding contributions in different fields such as the one Rabindranath Tagore made in literature. Bangladesh cannot be proud of ones who cling on to a servile mentality thinking, as in this case, that becoming the MP of a former oppressive imperial power lends to them a positive or special distinction. Rather, such fancied distinctions are signs of a deep seated inferiority complex and reflect a slavish mentality. It is something like appreciating the titles Roybahadurs, Khanbahadurs, etc., that the imperial British gave to decorate their most obedient subjects in the subcontinent. But these titles were rightly so despised by the local patriots as the symbols of servitude and cowardice.
All of the above, however, is not to say that everything about the British or the British rule in the Indian subcontinent, was bad. The first stage of the British rule in India under the East India Company was completely unprincipled and tyrannical. But when the subcontinent came to be governed under the Queen as part of the British empire subservient to the British government, the ruling style changed considerably. The governance gradually become more responsible and responsive. The British gave Indians limited self government. The administration earned respect for dispensation of justice specially at grass roots level. The imperial overlords also planted the seeds of constitutionalism, rule of law and other modern and liberal ideas among the progressive subcontinental gentry through the spread of their education system in their most coveted colony. They introduced to some extent modern science and technology and services like the railways which were factors in creating a base for further development of the nations created in the subcontinent after they departed. A renaissance of sorts in the subcontinent was aided considerably by the enlightenment experienced by distinguished Indians from their exposure to British and European learning and ideas.
But let us remember that notwithstanding these positive legacies, the natives of undivided India under British rule who distinguished themselves for their learning and striving to win their country's freedoms, never forgot their true identities and the fact that their own people were being kept in servitude sinfully by the British. They earned their renown by the dint of their own contribution to their communities and took particular pains to distance themselves from the British or the flattering titles sought to be given to them. Thus, when the Viceroy tried to honour Rabindranath Tagore after the Queen had knighted the noble laureate and titled him Sir Rabindranath, the greatest of Bangladesh's poets in the modern times, he politely declined to accept the offer. Such was his sterling qualities of peaceful rejection of anything that identified him with those who kept his country and people under wrongful subjugation. Rabindranath and the other great figures of his time were also never forgetful of their great past meaning the Indian civilizations as a whole or the part of Bengal or today's Bangladesh in the same. They did not believe that they needed decorations from their imperial masters to prove their greatness. For them such honours were like badges of slavery to be only vehemently tossed aside to prove the measure of their patriotism and take pride in their own civilization.
The likes of Rushanara Ali will not understand such feelings. They are too much soaked in the ways and culture of their adopted country to take any real pride in the land of their ancestors. For them, respect and honour means getting some kind of recognition in the societies in which they are always destined to play only second fiddle.