Is the national anthem debate rational?

Nothing is above criticism. And therefore, I don’t see any reason to ascribe unquestionable sanctity to our national anthem and flag. They are only symbols of a country or state. When a whole state can change, why can’t its symbols? Naturally, questions about the anthem and the flag may arise and even demands for change, while those who oppose change may present their counter-arguments.
However, those who want change must first clearly present their rationale and answer why the current anthem or flag is no longer suitable. What new reality are we facing that we need the change? “I don’t like this song” or “Our flag is too simple” are not arguments! Our current flag and anthem have a history; we fought in the Liberation War carrying these symbols. New proposals should be made with that in mind, and the reasons stemming from the new reality must trump that of ’71.
Those making such demands in current times should remember this: their statements and arguments have to differ from the ones made by those who opposed the Liberation War. It’s important for us to be aware of Awami League’s (AL) Liberation War-centric rhetoric and, at the same time, not fall for anti-liberation propaganda while opposing AL’s narrative. And so, when the son of Ghulam Azam—top war criminal and former leader of Jamaat-e-Islami, the defeated political power of 1971—talks about changing the national anthem, his intentions should be scrutinised.
The son, Abdullahil Amaan Azmi, was subjected to immense torture in Aynaghor, and for that, I express my sympathies. However, talking about changing the anthem and doubting the number of martyrs of the Liberation War, are signs that Jamaat has not yet discarded the politics of opposing the Liberation War. After the 2013 war crime trials, the party had an opportunity to start anew by apologising to the nation for its role in the Liberation War. But no, under the circumstances, its political foundation seems to be the opposition of the Liberation War. The defeated forces of 1971, 1990 and 2024—Jamaat, Jatiya Party, and the AL respectively—should apologise to the nation before taking part in politics. The more they justify their crimes, the more they will earn the people’s hatred.
With that being said, regarding recent objections and demands, let’s first address the national flag. I have seen suggestions on some Facebook pages (unsure if they are Jamaat-run) to change the national flag. I think, when the state witnesses major change through an uprising, the situation to alter the flag can also arise. But this need must be reflected in the uprising itself. However, we have seen the opposite. Far from discarding our current flag, the protesting students clung to it throughout the whole movement! Police gunshots and arrests targeted those who tied the flag on their head. Just as people bore red and green while stepping into the Liberation War in 1971, so did the students. As the flag is still relevant, I see no reason to change it.
Now, as far as the national anthem—Rabindranath Tagore’s “Amar Shonar Bangla”—is concerned, chief among the objections is that the lyricist is Hindu. Interestingly, when the ruling group of West Pakistan pressured us to boycott Hindu poet Tagore, we instead embraced him during our anti-colonial fight against Pakistan. “Bangla” in Tagore’s “Amar Shonar Bangla” became synonymous with then East Pakistan. We needed such a song that concentrated our nationalist sentiments around this land.
Just like the West Pakistani ruling group wanted to isolate “Hindu” Tagore from us, the main objection of anti-liberation forces is the poet’s religious identity. Although now, they do not present the “Hindu” reasoning openly to profess their hatred of Tagore.
Another strong objection is that when Tagore wrote this song, he did not refer to current Bangladesh, but rather “undivided Bangla,” comprising the east and west. As a result, the “Bangla” we love in our national anthem is not only our Bangladesh, but also West Bengal of India. Another argument added to this point is that Tagore’s piece is a protest against the partition of Bengal, so the song is against the spirit of Bangladesh.
It is true that Tagore participated, mentally and physically, in the anti-partition movement that arose after Bengal was divided in 1905, organising rakhi bandhan (a ceremony to tie friendship band) to unite Hindus and Muslims of erstwhile Calcutta. However, this was largely a struggle to fight British powers working to divide Bengal rather than opposing the creation of East Bengal. In fact, many Muslim leaders also stood against the initial proposal of 1904, including Nawab Salimullah (later on, following his advice, the province called East Bengal and Assam was created with Dhaka being the capital).
As much as Tagore was vocal against the 1905 partition, he changed his stance later on realising that backward communities of East Bengal would benefit from a separate province. Therefore, just as it cannot be said that Tagore was against the people of East Bengal because of his involvement in the 1905 anti-partition movement, similarly, we cannot term “Amar Shonar Bangla” as anti-East Bengal.
Yes, the “Bangla” in the song refers to both the west and east. The poet envisioned the union of both Bengals. Besides, the two Bengals became two separate provinces after the 1905 partition, East Bengal had not become a separate country yet and ties between the two Bengals did not disappear. Judging all these, there is no scope to deem this song to be against the spirit of Bangladesh.
When someone from West Bengal sings or hears this song, the “Bangla” can mean both “Bengals” or just West Bengal. But for us, this means Bangladesh. Why or how? After the 1947 partition, West Pakistan got its name and a part of India was West Bengal or “Pashchim Banga” in Bangla. But at that time, we wanted to claim the name “Purbo Bangla”. Before 1947, our region was called East Bengal or “Purbo Bongo” (colloquially sometimes as “Purbo Bangla”), but after ’47, we never called ourselves “Purbo Bongo,”, while we called West Bengal “Poshchim Banga” instead of “Poshchim Bangla.” This means, we have given “Bongo” to India and kept “Bangla” for us. Even in the Pakistan Assembly, we demanded our name be “Purbo Bangla” instead of “Purbo Pakistan.”
Therefore, when we started singing “Amar Shonar Bangla” during the independence movement, we did not imagine both “Bengals,” but the East Pakistan or East Bengal that became Bangladesh. When we took Tagore’s song, we gave it a different dimension, a different meaning.
Putting all these aside, the question we should be asking is, has this song lost its relevance? The left-wing parties sees nationalism as harmful, and glorifies internationalism, but a sovereign, capitalist state survives under the spell of nationalism. This nationalism can unite people to demand democracy and fundamental rights, to free them from the grip of imperialism or against autocracy/fascism. And that’s why, the national anthem and flag, symbols of the state, are, or should be, associated with nationalism. Does our current national anthem not arouse a sense of nationalism among the people? Does it not motivate us to face any crisis in this land? I believe, if one listens with deep understanding, it can do all that.
Translated from Bangla by Shoaib Ahmed Sayam.

Anupam Shaikat Shanto is a writer and activist based in the Netherlands.
Views expressed in this article are the author’s own. 
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.