I grew up with a lofty idea about pristine patriotism since my school days. It was above everything in my perception. My belief, almost an article of faith, stumbled while I was living in Boston for higher study. I took it as a bounden duty to adore the birthplace as my mother and preserve every parcel of land belonging to my country with a fierce sense of commitment. Birthplace and home country were almost synonymous to me when I finished my education at the Dhaka University. I joined the war of liberation to save my motherland, my country and my nation comprising Bengalis from the barbarous onslaught of Pakistani occupation army. Birthplace, motherland, home country and nation were all congealed into one and the same meaning by the alchemy of the word patriotism.
In the USA I had the opportunity to interact with citizens of diverse countries. During this time as a part of my preparation for the doctoral thesis, perforce, I had to study books on logic and philosophy. This had tremendous influence on my way of thinking and observation. I was wedded to dispassionate analysis devoid of predisposition and personal emotion. I could discern the marked distinction between a country and a nation. The supreme importance of birthplace and birthland was diffused. I found that many individuals were in places far away from where they were brought up, may be in different countries. This was particularly true for those whose parents were in transferable jobs. They have hardly any emotional attachment to their place of birth. Their birth place would ring to them as "Amar Kote" might have done to Emperor Akbar. It is just a piece of information. They do not visit their place of birth, have no intention to do so in future. The specific place of where they might have lived for a few months or years as babies have no importance in their lives. On the contrary, they have fleeting memories of the places where they have passed their school days and early youth, because, inter alia, they had assembled friends and playmates in those places. Usually they do not have a strong attachment for the places as such.
Those who lived in the USA as permanent residents in the late seventies did not evince keen interest in the affairs of the country. They were consumed by their concern for longer stay in the States, particularly about the prospect of getting American citizenship. All efforts, covert or overt, were directed to that end. Their prime interest revolved round their own selves and the members of their family. The idea that a permanent resident status in the USA implied smooth sail and prosperity touched them with a euphoric kick. They were not to be burdened by the happenings and the potential of their country. They would not mind to severe their relation with the country on a permanent basis, if that need be. Nothing would supersede the personal interest. The euphoria of the group knew no bounds as any one of them was handed over the citizenship of the States. His/her friends, relatives and neighbours were all agog to congratulate him/her profusely. This phenomenon appeared significant to me. The people around considered the conferring of American citizenship as a big achievement for their fellow man. Bangladesh government recognises dual citizenship, the American government does not. That means if a Bangladeshi-American is implicated in any civil or criminal case the embassy of Bangladesh cannot intervene in the case claiming him/her to be a Bangladeshi. To American government (s)he is only an American, none else. Those who are conferred the citizenship are not bothered about this. American citizenship is everything to them, Bangladeshi citizenship is of peripheral importance to them.
The emotion, exuberance and the lofty vision that moulded our thought process do not have any special appeal to rational thinkers and dispassionate researchers. They consider a country as another formidable organisation created by human beings. Boundaries of the countries changed over time, so did the constitutional framework. The administrative regime changed more frequently. They, therefore, hold that the emotional attachment to a country is not hinged on any scientific basis. To them a country is nothing more than a comparatively enduring organisation which homo sapiens have built and rebuilt to suit their needs. They assert that a country is nothing but a comity of individuals defined over a geographical region. It is amenable to transformation and is incapable of sustaining the emotional content of individuals logically and permanently. During anti-colonial movement the world over, the top leaders, particularly those of the sub-continent, catapulted the country to the status of beloved mother in order to bolster the movement. At times they also equated the country to deities. Their press statements and public utterings were couched appropriately to suit this stance. Poets, writers and intellectuals produced volumes of literary works following the same line. The common people were led to believe that the country was equivalent to their mother and utmost sacrifice was warranted to protect her interest and honour. Their response to political issues was anchored accordingly.
The argumentative philosophers do not discard totally the influence of emotion and irrational disposition in their analyses; they, however, are not ready to perch these elements to high pedestal. A country is created by its people, a group of them rule it, control the man and material in accordance with their preference. If the ruling regime turns out to be benign and is intent on improving the welfare of the citizens the country is blessed with good governance. People live happily. If the rulers are tyrants and self-seekers, citizens of the country are doomed to infinite unhappiness and consternation. Insecurity poses a perennial threat to life and property of innocent citizens and members of their family. Their work environment and routine activities, including his/her means of livelihood, are adversely affected. In such a suffocating situation, (s)he has no love lost for the country, the earlier (s) he can leave it the better. During Natzi rule Jews migrated en masse to Europe and America to save their life. Some of the emigrants later on became world famous professionals in their respective fields. When the Pakistani occupation army embarked on genocide in the newly-independent Bangladesh, many of us left the country for a safe haven in India. We heaved a sigh of relief on crossing the border. Hundreds of workers and leaders of JSD fled to Germany and other European countries in the late 70s to escape persecution by the ruling regime. Some of them have been living in those countries permanently. People do not at all hesitate to leave their home country if their life and property are at stake. The level of patriotism of a citizen may be assessed through well-designed research work. Love for one's life and material prosperity is taken for granted, it does not need any research work to confirm the validity of the statement. Persons like Aquino and DN Aidit are exceptions, they are far above ordinary mortals. Death yields to their greatness.
Nationalism belongs to another world. It conjures up a connotation far away from the country. Its seeds have been sown at a deep layer. Roots have gone much deeper. The colour of my skin, the structure of my physique, the texture and pattern of hair indicate my nationality. Added to these are my language, food habit, dress, beliefs and superstition and above all, my way of life. These may be congealed in one joint word, "my culture". These things are not alterable. I am a Bengali wherever I live in the world. The contour of my country may change but not my nationality. The word may at best be given a binomial nomenclature by adding a suffix or prefix to it. Examples are Bengali Muslim, African American, non-white mulatto, transgender Bengali. My experience in the States revealed that the Bengalis of Bangladesh and West Bengal mixed amongst them freely, organised various events and celebrated culturally important days in an atmosphere of friendliness and spontaneity. On the contrary, citizens of the USA differ so much culturally that they seldom join together to organize socio-cultural events on a common plane. Close family ties are conspicuously absent amongst heterogeneous communities because of a crevasse in their culture.
At a time when the appeal of patriotism was being subdued by the onslaught of convoluted logic of humanism, internationalism and individual freedom, I was bludgeoned by the electrifying shock of patriotism all of a sudden. The incident brought back the old issue for a new thought. It was May 1999. Bangladesh was struggling against Pakistan cricket team in the One-Day World Cup tournament. Bangladesh did not have any luck against Pakistan in any One-Day game prior to that match. It was natural at that time. Pakistan was ruling as world class performer all through. Bangladesh was a neophyte, it was wiggling on baby foot in the world cricket arena. The Pakistanis were, as usual, over-bearing trying to trash Bangladesh by every innuendo. They would not spare the Bangladesh team of disparaging comments as they did to us, all Bangladeshis, during our uneasy co-existence with them. The game started against such a backdrop of events. I was watching the game with rapt attention. It appeared that Bangladesh was not doing badly in the game. As the match unfolded Bangladesh's position steadily improved. Soon the table was turned, winning the match was no more a far cry for Bangladesh. I was glued to the screen following every moment and every movement with nervous attention. Tension had overpowered me completely. I had, as if, suffered a rigor mortis. The crucial moment exploded at long last. Bangladesh won the match. The world was flummoxed. May be, many were euphoric as well.
So long I was watching the game in my television sitting in a room adjacent to an internal road in our residential area. I did not utter a single word. The winning of Bangladesh signalled a metamorphosis in me. Usually a sober person, secretary to the government, I jumped out of my room and started shouting, "Where are you all? Come out and rejoice. Bangladesh has won the match. We have defeated Pakistan."
The definition of a country appeared blurred to me for a long time owing to the influence of rational philosophers and the dispassionate analysis they propounded. I relished to visualise a borderless world. Individuals were best regarded as universal citizens; I was one of them. I still cannot fully comprehend the loci of the fugitive patriotism bursting out of my self from an unseen bolt-hole. It appears that the umbilical nexus between us and the country reverts us to our childhood and youth when we prefer to immerse ourselves in irrational exuberance by belonging to a group of identical individuals called the fellow citizens over a geographically defined region called the country. In the process we come out much more enriched as human beings. We thunder our presence with a clarion call, "You all please come out. Bangladesh has won."
Dr. Saadat Husain is a former chairman of Public Service Commission.
saadathusain@yahoo.com
Bolt-hole for the fugitive patriotism
Saadat Husain | Published: June 02, 2015 00:00:00 | Updated: November 30, 2026 06:01:00
Share if you like