In December 2000, a professor of political science at Dhaka University (DU) proclaimed at a public gathering that the Bangladeshi national anthem should be changed. The remark caused an instant furor nationwide. Mass condemnation and calls to censure Aftab Ahmed, the professor, came from students, leading cultural activists and other prominent members of civil society. He was roundly denounced for making a comment that was, among other things, "derogatory, objectionable, anti-Independence, anti-state and deeply hurtful to the sentiments of the people."
Three days later, an emergency meeting of the University Syndicate placed the Ahmed on forced leave for three months. Angry students rampaged through the campus and set fire to his room in the political science department. The influential Ghatok Dalal Nirmul Jatiya Sammanya Committee (National Coordinating Committee to Resist Wartime Criminals and Collaborators) demanded that the university authorities expel Ahmed. Some student organisations demanded his expulsion because "he had lost every ground to be a teacher of Dhaka University, the birthplace of all progressive movements in the country". The following week, The Dhaka University Teachers' Association (DUTA) adopted a resolution to terminate immediately the membership of this 'errant' faculty member. The DUTA also called for Ahmed's expulsion from the DU faculty.
These events followed on the heels of another controversy over the national anthem. In November 2000, the Awami League government charged the editor, publisher and director of the Inquilab group of publications, along with a writer, with sedition under the draconian Special Powers Act. The Bengali daily Inquilab, a major vehicle of right wing Islamist political parties, had earlier published a parody of the anthem, Amar Shonar Bangla. As it happened, the piece also used the anthem to mock the alleged corrupt practices of the Awami League regime and its leader, Sheikh Hasina. Among other things, the writer was critiquing the Awami Leagues's self-professed hegemony as keepers of the authentic nationalist spirit.
As with so many other issues in contemporary Bangladesh, debates on either side rapidly descended into partisan jingoism. This is not surprising, for as historian Willem van Schendel notes, "Hyperbole and accusations of betrayal of the national interest have formed the core of the political discourse of the country for so long that they seem almost natural". He goes on to say, however, the question does not end there. To the external observer, the explosive sentiments and state responses triggered by tampering with the national anthem might seem extreme. Such an observation begs other questions: Who can speak for the nation and under what circumstances? Exactly what was at stake, and for whom, in the defence or denouncement of the Bangladeshi national anthem? Why would a professor lose the 'right to teach' at Dhaka University for simply expressing his/her opinion on the subject? What kinds of vulnerabilities were revealed by the overwhelmingly emotional and legal responses that were elicited? In the rest of this essay, I attempt to outline some of the answers to these questions.