I would not demand an apology from Mahbub Kamal if he had expressed himself
"a bit rudely" in the following post.

First, I must clarify that the phrase "poorly qualified Muslims" was not used
against all the Muslim teachers of Dhaka University. I myself talk about the
fact that some of my best teachers were at Dhaka University, and they did not
abandon their Muslim identify. That, however, does not erase the fact that
during the partition of India in 1947, a lot of "poorly qualified Muslims"
got the chance of filling the vacancies created by the departure of
professors who were Hindus. That also does not erase the fact that "the
cycles of mediocrity and promotion without qualification have translated to
irresponsibility" which has been hurting Pakistan as well as Bangladesh.

Now let me comment on some of the specific points made by Mr. Kamal.

In a message dated 7/11/2001 10:58:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mahbubk@... writes:

> It was the 'poorly qualified Muslims' and their disciples (Muslims, Hindus,
> Christians, Buddhists), who strived to uphold the glory of their
> mother-tongue (Bangla, not Arabic). It was 'poorly qualified' people like
> Barkat, Salam, Rafiq, Jabbar -who sacrificed their lives. It was 'poorly
> qualified' Muktijoddhas who fought for an Independent, Secular Bangladesh.
> It was Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, a 'poorly qualified Muslim', whose name
became
> synonymous with the War of Liberation.

Upholding the glory of the mother-tongue has been a huge exaggeration in
Bangladesh. First, a large portion of even the university graduates of
Bangladesh can not speak standard Bangla. They use local dialects, not
because they wish to be friends with the grass-root population, but because
they are incapable of speaking standard Bangla. Second, most of the "shahids"
mentioned above were not really participants of the language movement, they
were innocent spectators, one being a very minor child. And the sad part of
the story is that the Bangla nationalists do not have the wisdom to speak the
truth, to identify the truth.

Describing the fighting for independence as "for a secular Bangladesh" is
also another, albeit less serious, exaggeration. The extreme brutality of the
Pakistan army forced the creation of Bangalee nationalist groups of freedom
fighters. They cared about getting the Pakistanis out of our soil, they cared
less about what form of state or government Bangladesh would have in the
future.

Making Sheikh Mujib's name synonymous with the war of liberation is another
huge exaggeration. If Mujib was really that honorable, vis-a-vis the war of
liberation, he could not have given Zulfiker Ali Bhutto a red-carpet welcome
in Dhaka, and gone to Lahore for an OIC meeting that did not even mildly
criticize Pakistan for its crimes in Bangladesh, all within only about two
years of independence.

> Unfortunately, in many cases, it is the 'poorly qualified' people who
> provide exemplary leadership. It is the 'highly qualified' cynics (for
> example Nirod C. Choudhury) who disowns their motherland, and refers to an
> independent country as 'So-called Bangladesh.

I know very little about Nirad Choudhury, and I do not care how many million
people disagree with me, but the phrase "so-called Bangladesh" was not really
out of line. The fact of the matter is that almost half of Bangla is not part
of our Bangladesh. Too many people of Bangladesh do not even have the spirit
of identifying themselves closely with the other half of Bangla.

> ....................

> I apologize, if I expressed myself a bit rudely.
>
> Om Shanti.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mahbub

A final comment for now: Bangladesh has a lot of false glory. Is it rooted in
the falsehood of the concept of Pakistan that was responsible for the
Bangladesh that we have now?

With best wishes to all,


Sukhamaya Bain