-----Original Message-----
From: Mohammad Farooq <FAROOQM@trxinc.com>
To: nabic-l@globalfront.com <nabic-l@globalfront.com>
Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 6:00 PM
Subject: On Bastardization of the Muslims of Bengal
Assalamu alaikum.
Recently, I posted an article to Alochona group in response to an offensive article about the Muslims of Bangladesh. My posting is rather long, but hopefully it is relevant and beneficial for NABIC-L as well.
Mohammad Omar Farooq
===========================================
ON BASTARDIZATION OF THE MUSLIMS OF BENGAL
===========================================
Salaam and greetings!
This is a somewhat long posting, but hopefully a relevant and beneficial
one.
Mr. Sandeep Chowdhury wrote:
>A section of Bangladeshi opinion justifies Pakistan's action even
>justifies Pakistan's action as most of the tormentors thought that
>they were Hindus. After all the Pakistan army's action in Bangladesh
>is a test prototype of how Islam swept the subcontinent, creating a
>class of bastards who would eventually let down their Mother
>Nation.
A. The Bastardization
I feel deeply offended, but not surprised, by the statement of Mr. Chowdhury. We all can make mistakes, especially with words. Therefore, his
apology is commendable.
That still leaves the substance of his statement to be dealt with. There are
so many interwoven dimensions of his statement, I am somewhat at a loss as
to where to start.
Let me first say that wrong done by ANYONE is wrong, whether it is done by a
muslim to a Hindu, by a Hindu to a muslim, by a muslim to a muslim, or by a Hindu
to a Hindu. Can this be a point of agreement for starter? Also, we
have seen enough of those efforts where differences are sought, pursued, and
magnified, rather than seeking common grounds.
I am not much concerned about the use of the specific word "Bast...". After
all, it's people's choice whether they communicate using expressions that
are dignified or vulgar. Somehow, in my whole life, I have not used this
word even in reference to what dictionaries might describe as "an
illegitimate child" or "of inferior or dubious origin".
The fact of the matter is that the choice of the word by Mr. Chowdhury is
not accidental. It is a broad reflection of what can be described as "Indian
view". In ancient Indian documents it has been stated (please excuse my
poor translation): "Boli, the king of Purbodesh (Bingo), was undefeated,
warrior, pious and wise. He gave shelter to a old and blind saint Dirghotoma, a descendant of Jajati. Then, at the request of the King
Boli,
the saint impregnated the queen Shudeshna to produce five sons. They were
named Ango, Bingo, Kalingo, Pundra and Shukko. Their descendants and lands,
thus, were named after these five sons."
By the way, the records and reputation of the saint Dirghotoma, as detailed
in the ancient Indian documents, would put modern protégés, such as Bill
Clinton, to shame.
Quoting the above statement the author of "Bangalir Itikotha" [p. 9,
Zulqarnain Publications, Dhaka] comments, "Thus, Bangali refers to the
descendants of one of the 'bast...' sons of the Aryan saint, Dirghotoma. Bingo desh is the land of that
Bingo people. The blood of Bangali is simply
mixed up with Aryan and non-Aryan sources. Thus, they are of mixed blood.
Since they are related to the Aryans by illicit blood relationship, the
Aryans have share in all the glory and contribution of Bangali. Another
words, Bangali's historical achievements can be partly attributed to the
mix of the holy lineage of the Aryans. ... It is astonishing that even a
erudite person such as Bankim Babu also conceded: 'Their (Aryan's) blood
flows through the Bangali. All the noble nations that have risen to
prominence due to the same (Aryan) blood, the same blood also flows in the
Bangali.'"
It is interesting to note that the Aryans have been described in ancient
Indian documents as Shur (deity, god), while those who stood up against,
rejected, and fought against the Aryans, including the Bangali, have been
called Ashur (demon, giant, monster, wicked). If the Aryans could not defeat
these Ashurs, they would take the revenge in another way: depicting the
history in such a way so that these people who could not be defeated and
subjugated would be bastardized.
Long before Muslims came to Bengal, and especially its eastern part (which
is now Bangladesh), the people of Bengal followed Buddhism, which originated
without Aryan contribution. These people stood up against the Aryans and
what they brought as religion. Whether today we are Muslims, Hindus, or
Buddhists from the Bingo origin, to beat the drum of Bastardization not only
defies the history, but it is also a sort of self-denial, unless those who
Bastardize think that they are either pure in carrying the Aryan blood and
heritage, or they find greater glory in carrying the Aryan blood as
articulated by Bankimchandra.
B. Servility of Bengali Muslims
Mr. Sandeep Chowdhury wrote:
>I think the sentiments of belongingness to Islamic Ummah added to the
>generally servile attitude of Bengali Muslims has been the source of
this attitude.
>After all Bengali Muslims who were the majority both
in United Bengal
>and Pakistan failed to get their due share from
either.>
First of all, as hinted in the brief discussion above as well as anyone can
read the history of the Bengal, this part of the land has never been
servile. Even Bankimchandra, who took pride in Bangali's Aryan connection,
had to admit, "This Bengal was not Aryan land some nine hundred years ago.
It was non-Aryan land and the Bengal had the same relationship with the
Aryans as now India has with the English." [quoted in Bangalir Itikotha, p.
82].
But that was matter of the ancient past. Even in the struggle for
independence from the British, the Bengal has taken a premier role. As part
of the same struggle, the Muslims of Bengal, especially of the eastern part,
have taken leading role for Pakistan Movement. Pakistan was sought by and
for the Muslims of Bengal as well as many others, not necessarily for Islam.
It was clearly manifested in the events, such as the Language Movement,
following the independence of Pakistan. No, the Bangali did not show
servility. They rose to the occasion. It might also be worthwhile to point
out that the Language Movement, initially was not lead by the secularists or
the leftists, but by conscious Muslims of Bengal, who felt that one of their
basic human and Islamic rights was being threatened, and they won't have any
of that.
The struggle of the Bangali Muslims would not have turned into a pursuit of
liberation, if the Pakistani ruling clique did not create the necessary
conditions for it. Thus, the primary and main responsibility of the break up
of Pakistan lies with the ruling clique of Pakistan. What Pakistan's ruling
clique did defies any human or Islamic norm. But it is also a fact that
India did its part and did so effectively both to support and strengthen
those, especially the secular and softer-to-India groups, who ultimately
would lead the independence struggle and facilitate the role of India as a
midwife.
But the fact that the Bangali of what is Bangladesh today would lay their
life, rather than be unjustly subjugated, speaks clearly about their alleged
"servility." This was a struggle against the injustice and discrimination
that have been perpetrated against the Bangali; it was not against Islam. I
was 11 during 1971. My uncles and cousins participated in the liberation
war, neither as member of any party or organization, nor against Islam. My
oldest uncle, whose son was a participant in the liberation war, was
brutally killed by a so-called Muktijodhdha. This Muktijodhdha refused to
give up his weapons and used his weapons for all sorts of vile personal
reasons.
When late Sheikh Mujibur Rahman called upon everyone to surrender the
weapons, he was among many who did not. Later when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
called upon the nation to turn in the names of those who have not
surrendered their weapons, my uncle signed first on a petition identifying
such non-compliant Muktijodhdhas. As I said, one day he was picked up by
this Muktijodhdha while my uncle was fishing in a remote area and later he
told everyone with great deal of jubilation that four people held my uncle
while he struck my uncle's head with an axe. My uncle was an ordinary person
and an ordinary Muslim. He encouraged his son to go and fight against the
injustice of Pakistani rulers. While his son was active in the war, our
house in the city was burnt by the Pakistan Army and my family as well as my
uncle's family were constantly threatened and harassed by the Pakistani Army
and their cohorts. But his life was brutally ended by someone who was also
supposedly a freedom fighter.
My uncle's sending his son to be a participant in the liberation struggle
was not a servile act; nor was he servile when he decided to risk his life
by signing the petition for a noble cause. Most of us have similar
experience to share.
Late Major Jalil, an indisputable freedom fighter, later on turned against
India as the ruling class in Bangladesh was cozying up with India,
sacrificing, in Major Jalil's view, vital interests of the country. Whether
he was right or wrong, he was not servile against the Pakistani Army, nor
was he servile against India, when he was convinced about it. Now, we can
say anything we want, we have that liberty, especially on the internet, but
see if we are being objective in attributing a general label of servility
against the Bengali Muslims.
The fact that many Bangladeshi Muslims might feel closer to the "people" of
Pakistan compared to India does not have anything to do with servility.
There are other relevant factors that help explain this better.
C. Spread of Islam in South Asia and the Bengal
Mr. Sandeep Chowdhury wrote:
>After all the Pakistan army's action in Bangladesh
>is a test prototype of how Islam swept the subcontinent, ...
I started with the statement that wrong done by ANYONE to ANYONE is wrong.
Has there been wrongs committed by Muslims in history? The answer is:
plenty. The victims of many such wrongs have been both Muslims and
non-Muslims. However, no such wrong is sanctioned by Islam. Rather such
wrongs have been committed in violation of Islam.
Comparing the role of Pakistan Army's action in Bangladesh with how Islam
spread in that part of the world defies history. It is a established fact
that long before the Mughal rule in India, Islam was spreading especially
through the Arakan by Muslim traders as well as Muslims of Sufi (spiritual)
backgrounds.
Why the people of this part of the Bengal turned so easily to Islam is a
different subject.
As far as others from South Asia who turned to Islam, a great many of them
simply found themselves liberated from the clutch of the caste system. The
Dalit (untouchables), among the natives of the Indian soil, who have been
pushed down to the lowest of the social ladder by the Aryans, embraced Islam
in large number, which does not require much explanation.
Islam is greatly misunderstood in the context of the experience in our
regional history. Some of it is distortion of history about Muslims and
Muslim rule, and some of it are wrongs on the part of the Muslim rulers.
But equating wrongs of some Muslim, as in the case of Pakistan Army,
generally with Islam and how it spread is also wrong. Instead of adding my
own viewpoints about this issue, let me bring some from those who have
greater credibility, especially among the Indians.
"Sense of justice is one of the most wonderful ideals of Islam, because as I
read in the Qur'an I find those dynamic principles of life, not mystic but
practical ethics for the daily conduct of life suited to the whole
world." -- SPEECHES AND WRITINGS OF SAROJINI NAIDU, Madras, 1918, p. 167.
One should read Manobendra Nath Roy's (a prominent Indian historian) The
Historical Role of Islam, where he has elaborately explained the reason of
Islam's success not only in Rome, Persia and China, but also in India. In
his view, those who want to distort the history emphasize the role of sword
in spreading Islam. He points out that it was the concept of universal
social justice, devoid of any class, race or caste that won the hearts of
those who embraced Islam.
One can find the same echo in various parts of the literature of Kothashilpi
Sharatchandra Chattopadhdhay. I have attempted to translate the following
excerpt as a sample from his novel Palli Shamaj in Shulov Sharat Shamogro,
Vol. 1, p. 164. Please excuse my poor translation.
*** ... With a touch of bewilderment Ramesh said, Why then such things
happen, auntie? There are so many muslims in the other village, but they do
not have such conflicts! No one corners a person in difficulty like this.
You already know that the other day no one was willing to even touch the
dead body of Darik Thakoor, because due to lack of means his ritual
atonement (prioshchitto) was not done.
Bishsheshshori said, I know my son, I know. But, the caste system is not to
be blamed. The fact is: Muslims still have a true religion, but we don't.
Whatever is true religion has completely disappeared from our villages. What
we really have are some superstitious rituals and conduct (achar-bichar),
and the resulting divisive partisanship.
With a heavy sigh, Ramesh asked, Is there then no remedy, auntie?
Bishsheshshori said, Of course, there is. The remedy lies in knowledge and
education. It lies only the direction toward which you have taken
initiative. That is why I urge you, please don't abandon this land of birth.
Ramesh was going to say something, but Bishsheshshori interrupted, You
might say that ignorance and illiteracy is no less among Muslims. But it is
the truth of their religion that has kept them safe from these maladies. Let
me tell you Ramesh, you can find out about it in Pirpur that they have
isolated a wealthy man by the name Jafar there. Because he does not feed his
stepmother. But the other day our Govinda Ganguli beat the widow of his
elder brother half-dead, and instead of any social reprisal, he continues to
be a social elite. Such crimes to us is merely personal virtue or vice. If
God wishes He will punish or not punish, but the rural society does not give
a damn about it. ***
D. Conclusion
Sharatchandra through the characters in his novel was lamenting the decadence of
Hindu society in terms of its ethical, social, and humanitarian aspects. As
a Muslim, I can join him now in lamenting the fact that the Muslim societies
have also followed the same path of decadence. Just like Hindus did not need
Muslims to be wronged because the problem was deeply rooted within the Hindu
society, today Muslims don't need non-Muslims to be wronged either. There
are plenty of so-called Muslims to take care of that.
As far as religion as a matter of divine truth and source of salvation is
concerned, we can and should try with mutual respect to communicate to as
well as encourage others to be knowledgeable about what we believe. There
shouldn't or can't be any compulsion in matters of faith. However, when we
talk about our social realm, instead of trying to dig for negative things
among others and hurling insults, it would be lot more worthwhile and
dignified if we can find common grounds to do good that benefit all of us.
When I read Veda, Upanishad, or Mahabharata, I might not recognize their
divine origin or I might not accept these as a source of truth, yet there
are so many good things in these scriptures. I can be a better human being
just following those few good things. Similarly, a Hindu may not recognize
Islam as a source of truth, but consider just the two quotations I have
appended to this article, you will probably agree that even just these two
statements, if anyone would follow, would be pretty good.
Instead of promoting nationalism that create distance, hatred toward others
and blind pride in one's own nation, why don't we try to find common grounds
for pursuing common good?
I have not written this rather lengthy response to offend anyone's feeling.
If I inadvertently do so, I apologize in advance. My desire is to motivate
ourselves to pursue and identify common grounds and seek ways to improve
ourselves both at the personal and social level. Feedback from Alochona
readers is most welcome.
"O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing,
and LET NOT THE HATRED OF OTHERS TO YOU make you swerve to wrong and depart
from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is
well-acquainted with all that ye do. [The Qur'an/5/al-Maidah/8]
The Prophet Muhammad (p) said: "God will definitely enforce the settlement
of all the dues to those entitled to receive them on the Day of Judgment, even the wrong done to a hornless goat by a horned goat will be addressed."
[Riyadus Saleheen, #204]
Even though I do not recognize these as from the Divine source, I can also
see the benefit and wisdom of the following:
"He who hates no creature and is friendly and compassionate to all, who is
free from attachment and egotism, equal-minded in pleasure and pain, and
forgiving ... is dear to Me. [Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Chapter XII, #13-14]
"Lust, anger and greed, these three are the soul-destroying gates of hell.
Therefore, one should forsake these three." [Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Chapter
XVI, #21]
Mohammad Omar Farooq
Associate Professor of Economics and Finance
Upper Iowa University
HOME
Index of my
writings
Have you visited my site on Kazi
Nazrul Islam?
Genocide
1971 Page?
Hadith
Humor Page?