Communicating with the world
THE people of Bangladesh have just celebrated one of the most important events in our history, February 21, International Mother Language Day, a day that in the opinion of many had sowed the seeds of the liberation war. If one traces the history of the independence struggle of India against the British one would find two provinces of British India at the forefront of the anti-British struggle, namely Bengal and Punjab.
Although Mahatma Gandhi of Gujarat and Mohammed Ali Jinnah of Karachi/Mumbai/Gujarat gave the leadership, the independence, or more appropriately the partition, of British India was the result of the unified urge of the people of the entire sub-continent to be free of British domination. But then, the liberation movement of Bangladesh proved that the partition was an incomplete project and based on a fallacious theory of division on grounds of religion.
But then, if common religion or common culture cannot be the basis of nationalism, as Larry Diamond (Stanford University: Why are there no Arab Democracies -- Journal of Democracy -- Jan. 2010) illustrates, can common language be a basis of nationalism? Again, can a common language yet different religions constitute a divide among nations or part thereof?
Despite the resurgence of religion as a political force, commonality of language, as in the case of Bangladesh, has proved to be the cementing factor. Regarding religion, the alarmists among the neo-liberals and ultra-conservatives, frightened by a strident Islamist movement as opposed to a self-effacing native culture, would insist that there should be a common language for all citizens of a country. The proponents of multi-culturalism contest the thesis that any one or two elements would constitute the basis of nationalism.
Samuel Huntington postulates that primacy of "culture and cultural identities -- broadly defined as civilisations -- are the primary factors that shape cohesion, conflict and disintegration within and between nations," a thesis discredited by some academics and political leaders.
To bring about a cohesive society amidst seemingly different forces, Professor Bassam Tibi (of Gottingen University) suggests that assimilation of the Muslims in Europe rather than integration that calls for total surrender of the self through cultural conformity would be helpful.
Bangladesh, being a Muslim majority country, has to face Islamophobists' fear that by 2050 Europe would be unrecognisable because of, what they claim, due to low fertility rates among the natives, massive immigration from Muslim countries, and an assertive Islamic culture vis-à-vis a self-effacing European one, leading Europe to losing its Western identity.
A spate of books, such as Christopher Caldwell's Reflection of the Revolution in Europe, Gisele Littman's Eurobia, Oriana Fallaci's The Rage and the Pride, Melanie Phillips's Londonistan, has inflamed the already existing anti-Muslim feelings in the West, dampening the data based analyses presented by scholars like Italian Stefano Allevi, German Wermer Schiffauer, French political scientist Oliver Roy, that deconstruct the facile fear of Islamisation of Europe. The US National Intelligence Council estimates 18 million Muslims in Western Europe, or barely 5 percent of the total population. The number is even less in the European Union.
An NIC study finds that children of immigrants often emulate the culture of their adopted country with less fertility rate, declining immigration to Europe due to discrimination in jobs and social exclusion by the natives, and, no less, increasing detachment from practicing religion. A 2009 Harvard University working paper reveals that over time the basic cultural values of the Muslim immigrants evolve to conform to the predominant culture of Europe. In the ultimate analysis, the Muslim diaspora in the West is more concerned with bread and butter issues than trying to establish a caliphate in Europe.
The subject of religion in the practice of democracy creeps in due to increasing influence of religion beyond its formerly defined border, with the conviction that religion is bred in the bones and that Professor Richard Madeson's cultural secularism as "a move from a society where belief in God was unchallenged and indeed was unproblematic, to one in which it is understood to be one option among others, and frequently not the easiest to embrace" may no longer be a viable option.
Similarly, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, globalisation's most prominent critic, has now transited to making globalisation work by eliminating negative externalities, the cost that some firms, individuals or nations impose on others, and reforming international institutions that would be equitable to the poor and the needy.
In this task we, in Bangladesh, facing the most serious challenges of the 21st century, should not abandon the English language that has become one of the official language of the UN and its institutions. A Science Citation Index report in 1997 said that 95 percent of its articles were written in English even though only half of the authors came from English speaking countries.
Linguistics Professor David Crystal calculates that non-native speakers now outnumber native speakers by a ratio of 3 to 1. As the Flat Earth of Thomas Friedman is becoming a reality with the government committed to a digital Bangladesh and millions using mobile phones and internet coupled with individualistic and inclusive approach to learning English, control is given to individual authors to write and spell as they wish within the bounds of standard conventions.
Learning English would increase Bangladesh's competitiveness in the international market for jobs and exports. Let us not abandon the demands of the international community while celebrating Ekushey February.
Comments