Suchergebnisse

Prologue -- Historical background of Burma-Bengal cultural relations -- Describing Burma Muluk: Burma in Bangla literary discourses (1886-1937) -- Distrust and riots (1937-1948) -- World War II and Burma: heroism, violence and exodus (1938-48) -- Epilogue.

The United Nations declared 9 December as the International Genocide Day. Sixty-seven years after the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, in 2015 it was decided to globally observe the International Day of Genocide remembrance. It commemorates the victims of genocide in different parts of the world and suggests a global humanitarian responsibility to prevent such crimes. The need to observe an International Genocide Day six decades after 1948 indicates the failure to achieve the desired success in globally preventing genocide and establishing a world with effective humanitarian responsibilities. The decision to observe the day globally was liked to the growing trend of genocide or crimes against humanity – and the goal to build a humane and responsible world to prevent such crimes. Until 2015, no significant initiative was observed in Bangladesh regarding the 1971 genocide committed against Bengalis. In 2017, two years after the declaration of the International Day of Genocide, and 47 years after independence, the government of Bangladesh finally declared 25 March as Genocide Day (Dhaka Tribune, 2017). This is, of course, a matter of hope. To date, the pressure to convince the international forum to duly recognize this genocide has not been effective. Although there has been a lot of discussion in the international arena regarding many other genocides (both older and more recent), the relative silence or indifference regarding the genocide of 1971 is disappointing for the Bengali nation to say the least. […]

The 20th century evidenced how both the Sinhalese & Bengalis switched emphases between their religio-linguistic identities, utilizing them as primary & secondary ethnic markers, to pursue their respective goals. By first emphasizing religion as a primary identity marker, the Sinhalese energized the quest for Sri Lankan independence, while the Muslim Bengalis helped legitimate Mohammed Ali Jinnah's claim regarding a "two nation theory" & seceded from India to become a part of Pakistan; but by switching to emphasizing language as the identity marker defining nationhood in the immediate postindependence era, the Sinhalese marginalized Sri Lanka's minorities to achieve relative political & economic ascendance while the Bengalis successfully seceded from Pakistan to create Bangladesh. The two religio-linguistic movements, when compared, consequently show that despite both groups' different historical trajectories, their socioeconomic status influenced them to pursue similar strategies. Today, according to the situation at hand, both the Sinhalese & Bengalis conveniently pick one or the other identity or resort to "multi-symbol congruence." A theoretical foundation is proposed & the two cases accordingly evaluated to analyze both groups' manipulation of religio-linguistic identities. 1 Figure, 12 References. D. Bajo

The 20th century evidenced how both the Sinhalese & Bengalis switched emphases between their religio-linguistic identities, utilizing them as primary & secondary ethnic markers, to pursue their respective goals. By first emphasizing religion as a primary identity marker, the Sinhalese energized the quest for Sri Lankan independence, while the Muslim Bengalis helped legitimate Mohammed Ali Jinnah's claim regarding a "two nation theory" & seceded from India to become a part of Pakistan; but by switching to emphasizing language as the identity marker defining nationhood in the immediate postindependence era, the Sinhalese marginalized Sri Lanka's minorities to achieve relative political & economic ascendance while the Bengalis successfully seceded from Pakistan to create Bangladesh. The two religio-linguistic movements, when compared, consequently show that despite both groups' different historical trajectories, their socioeconomic status influenced them to pursue similar strategies. Today, according to the situation at hand, both the Sinhalese & Bengalis conveniently pick one or the other identity or resort to "multi-symbol congruence." A theoretical foundation is proposed & the two cases accordingly evaluated to analyze both groups' manipulation of religio-linguistic identities. 1 Figure, 12 References. D. Bajo

In Sylhet, Bangladesh, remittances sent home by sons and husbands working abroad have led to new inequalities conducive to the proliferation of sorcery accusations. In cases of illness, sorcery is often the preferred diagnosis. The virilocal rule of residence positions the son's wife as an outsider and, as such, she has been traditionally viewed as the prime suspect in cases of sorcery. This structural tension has been intensified by overseas migration as sons working abroad increase the isolation and vulnerability of their wives. Patients and their families do not passively act out structural contradictions but actively pursue a sorcery diagnosis. Through a detailed case study of one woman's struggle to come to terms with infertility, I show how a diagnosis of sorcery acts as a face‐saving mechanism in situations of material inequality between kin.

Résumé L'auteur analyse en profondeur les concepts, les conséquences et la nouvelle problématique issus de la partition du Bengale en 1947 en se plaçant sous l'angle des déplacements de populations. Entre autres thèmes importants, elle traite de la formation de l'État et de la construction de la nation, la partition étant intervenue au moment où se déroulait une lutte anticolonialiste qui a conduit à l'instauration de deux États indépendants : l'Inde et le Pakistan. Soulignant la place du Bengale à ce moment important de l'histoire, l'auteur montre comment les réfugiés du Bengale oriental à Calcutta compliquent la formation de l'État et de la nation en ébranlant les notions d'identification religieuse et ethnique ainsi que d'appartenance. Leur langue commune, leurs traditions bengalies syncrétiques, leur participation à un combat nationaliste collectif et, souvent, un vécu commun font apparaître les contradictions des projets de construction d'un État et d'une nation. Ces contradictions font des processus d'exclusion et d'intégration, des droits sociaux et du maintien des frontières des domaines clés de négociation et des éléments d'un processus qui ne s'est pas achevé avec la mise en place politique des frontières des Etats-nations. L'interprétation qui nous est ici livrée donne à penser que les divers réseaux, parcours et négociations associés au déplacement déterminent les pertes subies par les différentes catégories de migrants, leur réinstallation et leur réadaptation et que la formation du sujet national est un processus qui en découle et qui n'a pas dépendu, et ne peut pas dépendre, d'identités et d'identifications fixes.