In Bangladesh, too, we adopted similar measures, until a military strongman, General Zia-ur-Rahman, came along and reversed the changes. He privatized formerly nationalized firms and struck off the secularism clause in the constitution in favour of Islam. The second military strongman, General Ershad, went further along these lines. Neither of these military generals showed the remotest interest in women’s headgear or their midriff, in skullcaps or the Hijri calendar, which coexisted peaceably with the Gregorian as well as the local Bengali calendar. We shall see below that even greater levels of sanity were displayed by two other Muslim rulers in East Asia.
Yet nationalism plays a role among the elite: and its puerile manifestation can be seen in such contests as that between the saree and the shalwar-kameez (Bangladesh is still a long way from the mini-skirt, which I first saw in Istanbul en route to London in 1970). The Islamists resent the saree, which, they aver, reveals too much and is the dress worn across the border by Hindu women; the nationalists deplore the shalwar-kameez, which is worn by the Muslim state of Pakistan, from which we broke away: respect for the saree is all of a piece with respect for Bengali, which is spoken in Indian West Bengal, where women wear the saree. To appreciate how childlike these feelings run, let me tell you about a relative of mine who was made manageress of a bank branch. No sooner had she been promoted than she made it mandatory for all women to wear a saree, and never shalwar-kameez! At Manarat School, the authorities insist that girls wear hijab, while at Green Herald International School, run by Catholic nuns, girls must wear skirts. Holy Cross School, run by a different order of nuns, and Viqaroonnessa Noon School, a local school, have sensible policies in this regard: uniforms for girls consist of shalwar-kameez, for no one, not even nationalists, expect young girls to wear a saree. Of course, for most men and women, the subject is a non-issue, but the nationalists and the Islamists make noises so loud, you have to hear.
The ritual dimension of nationalism was pushed to the extreme by the Shah of Iran: the Shah saw himself as heir to the kings of ancient Iran, and in 1971 held a celebration of 2,500 years of Persian monarchy. In 1976 he replaced the Islamic calendar with an “imperial” calendar, which began with the foundation of the Persian Empire more than 25 centuries earlier. These actions were viewed as anti-Islamic and resulted in religious opposition. Again, as in Turkey, a narrow elite among women wore skirts, and the majority wore headscarves. Unlike Ataturk, however, the Shah never appeared as a hero who had saved his country from the western powers. Most Iranians – except the elite surrounding him – were happy to see him go.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
