Cultural heritage must reflect history

Even after the people of Bangladesh established an independent and sovereign state through a nine-month-long bloody war, they still cannot contemplate the distinct national culture of Bangladesh. Their perspective is backward-looking. A section of Bangladesh’s writers, artists, and politicians exhibit a strong aversion to the culture of India, particularly the culture of West Bengal. These individuals trace the origins of Bangladesh's culture to the medieval Middle Eastern culture, especially the history of the spread of Islam. They do not wish to look beyond the conquest of Lakhnauti and Gour by Bakhtiyar Khalji. They focus on the propagation of Islam in Arabia, the Turkey, Afghan, and Mughal periods of rule in Bengal, and follow the trend of the Wahhabi and Faraji movements, leading to the establishment of the two-nation theory and Pakistan, and then to Bangladesh’s history. They emphasize the two-nation theory. It seems as though, not long ago, in 2004, a group of intellectuals gathered in Paltan Maidan with 17 horses to commemorate the 800th anniversary of Bakhtiyar Khalji's conquest of Lakhnauti, an event that gained significant media attention. A section of Bangladesh’s writers, artists, and intellectuals are devoted to Rabindranath Tagore, while another section is devoted to Kazi Nazrul Islam.

I see an ongoing cold war between these two groups of devotees. The Rabindranath devotees have an unfavorable attitude towards the Nazrul devotees, and vice versa. Mutual tolerance between the two sides is rare. For the past thirty-six years, there has been a persistent atmosphere of intolerance between the politicians of both sides, with no spirit of peaceful coexistence. If we analyze the behavior of the ruling and opposition parties in the national parliaments from 1991 to 2006, it becomes clear how intense the intolerance has been between the two groups. Although, under the pressure of the current state of emergency, both sides are coexisting without conflict, once the emergency is lifted, it is unlikely to last more than six months before they return to the previous hostile state. The dispute between the two groups revolves around their differing views on cultural heritage and culture, without any clear identification of unity and struggle of opposites. Neither side exhibits a sense of nationalism or a spirit of national unity. One side seeks to completely eliminate the other. Meanwhile, a third group has emerged, which has established dominance over all aspects of Bangladesh. This third group is staunchly pro-English, blindly following the Euro-American policies of "dominance and dependency," and they regard institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Asian Development Bank, World Trade Organization, and the United Nations Development Programme as donor agencies and development partners, unquestioningly accepting their imposed decisions with absolute obedience.

Intellectuals from NGOs and civil society organizations belong to this trend. Moreover, bureaucrats, military officers, journalists, doctors, professors, judges, barristers, and business elites are largely aligned with this trend. English-medium schools in Bangladesh have grown rapidly and continue to grow. These schools' curricula do not include Bangladesh’s history or culture. Private universities generally try to follow this path as well. Currently, this represents the dominant cultural trend in Bangladesh. Followers of this trend are highly enthusiastic about globalization and completely indifferent to Bangladesh's independence and sovereignty.

Bangladesh’s education system is so fragmented across various streams and sub-streams that it is entirely contrary to national unity or the unity of the people. NGOs are exacerbating this division. Some NGOs are actively working with policies that oppose unity and solidarity between the indigenous population and minority communities. Feminist agendas and anti-fundamentalist programs also work against the unity of the people. These groups often make provocative statements about religion, which complicate and exacerbate the situation. In our country, diversity in public life used to be described as "unity in diversity." Both "diversity" and "unity" were thought to deserve equal importance, and efforts were made to eliminate artificial discrimination created by the state and society. While it was never perfect, the long history of communal violence between Hindus and Muslims in the 20th century in Bengali-speaking regions, despite the turmoil, led to the removal of British colonial rule and the establishment of Pakistan. Later, after the liberation struggle, Bangladesh was established as an independent and sovereign nation. However, today, the ruling classes of Bangladesh, across all political parties, are completely indifferent to state sovereignty and independence. The principle of "unity in diversity" and "solution through coordination" showed the power of the people, but this principle is no longer upheld, and people's unity is now lost. Bangladesh’s independence and sovereignty are now under threat. Subsequently, the policies introduced under the Euro-American influence have embraced multiculturalism, which has undermined the concept of national culture and national unity. The theory of cultural pluralism, by stirring up conflicts between the various groups within the nation, has effectively shattered national unity.

It is natural to have differences of opinion regarding the foundation of our culture, cultural heritage, and culture itself. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to think the same way. However, the perspectives, thoughts, and behaviors observed within the previously mentioned trends today lack any sense of normalcy or truthfulness. Those who think sincerely and strive to live honestly have a responsibility to approach the entire matter of national culture and cultural heritage with a free mind, free from disillusionment and preconceived notions, and to judge it afresh.

We must not forget that even before the spread of Islam in Bangladesh, before Bakhtiyar Khalji established his rule, there were established populations and religious diversity among the people, including Jainism, Buddhism, Shaktism, Shaivism, Vaishnavism, and others. At that time, unified Hinduism had not yet emerged. People converted to Islam primarily through conversion from these religions. The Turkish, Afghan, and Mughal rulers did not bring many people with them to the land. Those who came were fortune seekers, not missionaries. During that time, Bengali Muslim society was clearly divided into Ashraf and Atraf categories for seven centuries. There were no marital or kinship ties between Ashrafs and Atrafs.

Bangladeshi Muslim society has evolved over time, with numerous internal and external changes. Before the British period, during British rule, and in the post-colonial era, the material and mental lives, education, manners, and customs were not the same. Is there any doubt that without considering the history before Bakhtiyar Khalji’s time, our history remains incomplete? Excluding the era of the Sena and Pala dynasties, and the smaller kingdoms outside the reign of the Senas and Palas, our history remains incomplete, leaving out the periods of emergence and development.

The archaeological sites from the Buddhist era, such as Paharpur, Mahasthangarh, Savar-Dhamrai-Vikrampur, Maynamati-Lalmia-Chandina-Chittagong, and the Hill Tracts, are crucial to understanding the history and culture of Bangladesh. To ignore the history and cultural heritage tied to these sites would be a grave mistake. Without recognizing them, we risk losing our roots. We must also understand that even before the emergence of Islam in the Arab world, people lived in those regions. These individuals converted to Islam, abandoning their ancestors' religions and forming Muslim societies. Ignoring the pre-Islamic cultures of these countries while thinking about their national culture would be an error. To understand Islam, we must first understand the realities of Arabia at that time. The Quran and Hadith are rooted in the historical contexts of Mecca and Medina, which is evident from the interpretations of the Quran and the narrations of Hadith. The history of Islam's spread in Arabia must be integrated with the long-standing history of Bengal, and only then can we truly comprehend the propagation of Islam and the development of the Bengali Muslim community. Focusing solely on Arabia and neglecting Bengal is a mistake. Knowledge of history is essential for understanding anything fully. This understanding is crucial for grasping the formation and development of Bengali Muslim society.

If we are to build a new future and break free from conventional thinking, we must reconstruct our understanding of the past. Sticking to old perceptions of history will only lead to stagnation, not progress. Those who have a deep admiration for Indian culture must understand this, and it would be a mistake to express extremism. Bangladesh’s distinct history and national culture must be recognized and shaped. If this is neglected, no positive outcome will come out. Similarly, those who blindly follow Euro-American culture need to be cautious. Their behavior is not being well received. We must understand and adopt European and American philosophies, sciences, and technologies in ways that suit our needs and capacities. However, accepting everything imposed by imperialist powers to fulfill their dominance agenda is self-destructive. European and American philosophies, sciences, and histories—along with their political strategies, intelligence policies, propaganda, interest-based economies, and the policies of dominance and dependency—must be viewed separately.

In this context, I am reminded of a quote by Motaher Hossain Chowdhury. In his essay titled "The Beginning of the Renaissance and Our Perspective," he writes: "The reason why Nazrul Islam wrote about Hindu heritage, while Rabindranath did not write about Muslim heritage, is simple: Hindu heritage carries the legacy of Muslims, including Nazrul’s, but Muslim heritage does not carry the legacy of Hindus, including Rabindranath. Since there is no vital connection, it is difficult to comprehend external religions and cultures. However, the culture and heritage of the country is like a kind of climate; it is simple to understand, not difficult to grasp, and you don't have to learn it— it reveals itself to you, though we don’t always realize that we have learned it. Those who deny the straightforward truths, who refuse to accept the bonds of the soil, are doomed to wither like dried leaves."

Motaher Hossain Chowdhury further writes: "The fact that Hindu heritage is also Muslim heritage is proven by the fact that Muslims know, understand, and enjoy much of Hindu culture. There are several reasons for this knowledge: 1. Not all Muslims came from Arabia, Iran, or Turan; at least fifty percent of them were converted from Hinduism. 2. It is foolish to think that the remaining fifty percent of foreign Muslims brought wives from their native lands; at least twenty of them married local women. 3. Hinduism is festive, and its festivals are intertwined. Through contact with various Hindu festivals, particularly with folk performances like jatra, panchali, and kobi gaan, Muslims have unknowingly absorbed many aspects of Hindu religion and culture. 4. As culture, Hindu religion has generally been embraced, and as a result, it has found a way into the Muslim consciousness. Through literature, especially poetry and storytelling, it has touched our hearts, and we could not keep the door of our hearts locked like hard-hearted people. While Islam and its literature could have found a place in the consciousness of Hindus, this attempt has not yet been realized. Arabic and Persian literature, while important, cannot unlock Islam's potential in this regard unless it is freed into the light of the mother tongue. Therefore, in addition to love for Islam, love for one's homeland is also necessary. For a sick person, affection for the doctor is essential for the doctor's success. But with the encouragement of writing in mixed Arabic and Persian, it seems that such hope is misplaced. It appears that these works are being written only for Muslim readers who understand Arabic and Persian, not for the general Bengali audience."

Motaher Hossain Chowdhury further wrote: "For these reasons, the inheritance of Hindus is largely also the inheritance of Muslims. Out of jealousy, Muslims may deny this forcibly; but that does not make it false. Even today, Bengali Muslims have not become true Muslims—this sorrow gives strength to the truth of our words."

This writing is likely from the British colonial era. A lot has changed since then. Old problems have passed, and new issues have emerged. Even today, we can view this perspective on Hindu culture with more significance. Furthermore, the positive aspects of Bengali Hindu culture, in various eras, can uplift the mindset of Bengali Muslims. Motaher Hossain Chowdhury mentioned that "at least fifty percent of Hindus have converted to Islam." This assumption is not correct. In fact, many more people have converted from Buddhist, Shakta, Shaiva, Vaishnava, and other religions to Islam—perhaps more than ninety percent.

When we observe the anthropological characteristics of mankind, we see three major racial groups: the black people (primarily from Africa), the yellow people (primarily from Japan, China, Korea, and the countries of Indochina), and the white people (primarily from Europe). Through various forms of intermingling between these groups, different nations and ethnic groups have developed. The people of Bangladesh do not fall into any of these major racial categories. Since time immemorial, two human groups have lived in this land: the black people and the yellow people. The Ramayana and Mahabharata mention the Nishads (black people) and Kirats (yellow people). In addition, there has been a slight mixture of white people, which could be described as minimal, like a drop of water in the sea. Those who have studied the ethnic characteristics of the people of Bangladesh have all referred to this population as mixed or hybrid. This mixing or hybridity can be seen among Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians alike. This hybridity is also evident among small tribal groups.

In Hindu society, the caste system existed and still exists. In the Muslim society, there was a distinction between Ashraf (noble) and Atraf (commoner), although this is not sanctioned by religion. However, the impact of such distinctions is not seen in the anthropological traits of the people. This is because, due to the intermingling of blood over the ages, no one can claim pure blood anymore. From an anthropological perspective, there is no difference between Hindus and Muslims in Bangladesh.

All these considerations come to the forefront when we reflect on our cultural heritage. We cannot exclude any of these factors from our consideration. Rigidity and obstinacy are not beneficial. Flexibility is required alongside principles. In fact, we must establish our cultural inheritance by considering the historical events as they have unfolded.

Abul Quasem Fazlul Huq: Thinker and former professor, University of Dhaka.