This article was published in The Independent and BDNews24.com Op-Ed section on September 1, 2010

http://opinion.bdnews24.com/2010/09/04/to-celebrate-or-not%E2%80%A6/
(“To Celebrate or Not…”)

http://www.theindependentbd.com/paper-edition/oped/7415-opposites-can-co-exist.html (“Opposites can co-exist”)

The month of August is a tough month for us because there was a recent death that occurred in this month in our family.  The month of August also brought celebration and joy from the birth of my nephew.  The birth and death did not coincide on the same date, but what would have happened if they had?  Would mourning have priority over celebration or should it be vice versa?  What should drive this decision?

There has been great debate about the celebration of BNP leader Begum Khaleda Zia’s birthday on August 15, which also happens to be the same date Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was assassinated.  Many argue that August 15 is the national day of mourning and hence there cannot be any celebration.  They also accuse Mrs. Zia of fabricating her date of birth (it is alleged three birth dates have been used by Mrs. Zia.); they suggest that she purposely choose August 15 as her birthday to insult the death of Sheikh Mujib.  I would not be surprised if riots broke out due to this argument one day.  What I have noticed is that people are hypnotized by party politics; arguments raised by most people are shaped by the party line, instead of their own insight, thought, logic or reason.

In the history of USA, there have been many national tragedies, from assassinations to terrorism.  Every year the death of JFK, MLK and Lincoln (all from assassination) are remembered (maybe not to the same level of fanfare as in Bangladesh.)  JFK belonged to the Democratic Party, while Lincoln was a Republican.  Democrats and Republicans who are typically bickering like teenage kids are united on these death anniversaries.  Statistically there have to be some Senators, Congressman and other leaders who are born on these anniversaries as well as on national tragedies such as such as 9/11 and the Oklahoma bombing.  I am sure in public these leaders pay respect to the dead, but in private they celebrate their birthdays.  The public may watch television specials that are shown on these tragic dates, but they continue with their daily lives (sporting events are not suspended, restaurants serve customers, shops are open for business.)  If someone has a birthday on September 11, they celebrate, and also remember those who died on that date.

In a recent editorial (“Of birthdays, of respect for the dead” The Daily Star, August 18, 2010) the writer argued that “sensitivities matter” and therefore on August 15 “birthday songs are far from our minds.”  I do not disagree with the writer’s assertion — sensitivities do matter; but they should never trump logic, reasoning and fundamental rights.  While Bangladesh battles birthdays and deaths, in the USA, there is a great debate about building a mosque (“the ground zero mosque”) few blocks from where the Twin Towers once stood.  Many who are not in support of building a mosque at that location, argue with the weapon of “sensitivity.”  They make the case that rights of “others” need to be trumped due to “sensitivities.”  I draw this parallel because I know that the vast majority in Bangladesh who are using the “sensitivity” card to protest the birthday of Mrs. Khaleda Zia would not use the same “sensitivity” card to block the building of the mosque.  Doesn’t ones decision making process need to be consistent?  One goes down a slippery slope if one makes “sensitivities” the primary issue.  I am always fearful when people use emotions (and party affiliations) to justify their actions instead of remembering the primacy of fundamental rights, logic and reason.

Those who have birthdays on dates that coincide with tragic events can have both events near their heart; I would not make a negative judgment.  However, if someone purposely chooses a date as a birthday for spite, then I would question who they are.  I am not too concerned if Mrs. Khaleda Zia was born on August 15 or not, whether she ate cake or what sari she wore on the occasion (there seems to be a lot of focus on these irrelevant matters); what I think is more important (and raises the question about the system in Bangladesh) is how one person can have three birth dates.

In most developed countries the birthdays of opposition party leaders do not get much air time (if at all.)  In Bangladesh trivial issues rule the minds of the rulers; debate focuses on the non-critical; reason and logic give way to party affiliation.  And then one wonders why there is regular electricity outages, why there is shortage of gas, why there is deadlock traffic and why people are dying from curable disease and head-on car accidents daily.

From all accounts of what I have read and stories I have heard from those who knew Sheikh Mujib, he was a great leader who united people.  I think he would not have wanted any particular date to be used as a political weapon of division (by his party or the opposition.)  I am also confident that as a leader, his focus was more on the future than things that mark the past; and if certain arguments move the nation backward instead of moving forward, then those irrelevant arguments should be considered just a distraction.

Births and deaths are a natural part of life, and should be remembered.  Human history is full of tragic events, and there will be more dates in the future people will mourn.  We will soon run out of “good dates,” to celebrate, if people cannot learn to celebrate and remember simultaneously.  The same logic holds true for land; if a piece of land can be made sacred (even it is several blocks from ground zero) then we have allowed sensitivities to rule instead of being sensitive to rights.  These issues are not unique to Bangladesh and USA; this basic framework of enmity has been replicated all over the world.  When irrationality is the source of reason, fighting and disputes will forever continue.  I write about this issue not to side with any political party or ideology, but to be on the side of logic and reason — which are fundamental law and should never be compromised.  In the final analysis what is sacred are not dates on a calendar, land, or even people; these are simply tools and symbols used to arouse the mass for a particular agenda.  The most sacred are ideas, thoughts, freedom, truth, and justice; these are things we should fight for without surrender.

Ikhtiar Kazi
Economist/Capital Markets Professional
Resident of Chicago, currently residing in Dhaka
 https://strategyandexecution.wordpress.com/

All rights reserved.  No part of this publication can be altered, copied, reproduced, stored, or distributed, in any form, without the full written permission of the writer.  Copyright © 2010 by Ikhtiar Kazi