“A state with a national religion can easily become a religious state.” This book has been given by Bangladesh government the highest honor that any government can ever give to any book – a ban. The book follows the story of one Sudhamay and his children Suranjan and Maya. The father and son have both been involved in nationalistic movements of Bangladesh and believe in their country. Sudhamay can’t stand the idea of leaving the country while his friends and relatives have – he even asks those who are about to leave whether they don’t feel ashamed of leaving their country in peril - and hence the title 'Shame'. All his life, he has compromised on his religious identity for sake of national identity. The novel follows the disillusionment of this father and son about their country. What was born as a secular state has a Department of Religion which has a heavy budget almost all of which goes to promotion of Islam. A very nominal sum is allotted for minority religions – in fact four times that sum goes only to rehabilitation of those who chose to converted to Islam. Hindus in the country have declined from 22 % around 1951 to 8.5% in 2011 - the others, left, got killed or got converted. The schools have special Islamic classes which makes minority kids feel alienated. There is discrimination in job allocation with almost no Hindus ever making to upper steps of hierarchical ladder. Hindus don't get licences to start business except when it is in a partnership with a Muslim. There are several other ways in which the Hindus are discriminated, and both were aware of them, but if you are emotionally invested in some belief you hold on to it against much contrary evidence. To be fair, such discrimination is present in some degree in most of Indian subcontinent countries. The book is set in the back-drop of riots that followed demolition of Babri Masjid. Nasrin is not afraid to call spades by their names – questioning both destroyers of Mosque (BJP, Hindu Vishav Parishad, RSS etc ) and indifference of ruling Congress. She often gives the death toll of riots in India. And that goes for Bangladeshi spades too - again questioning the communal party who was causing riots and secular ruling party which had maintained silence. Obviously it was Hindus in India and not Bangladesh who were guilty of destroying mosque, but it has always been a tendency of weak minds to carry out their anger not on those who they are angry at, but on those on whom they can afford to be angry at. There are countless examples - instead of questioning powerful business-people and politicians for not raising wages and jobs, people would rather blame minorities, immigrants and reservation quotas; instead of being angry at police for not providing protection, people will rather blame the women who got raped for being out in the middle of night etc. And so, Bangladeshi Hindus had to suffer - destruction of temples, riots, murders, rapes, forced conversations, black-mail about leaving the country etc. Suranjan doesn’t think that the word ‘riot’ describes what was happening in Bangladesh. The word ‘riot’ assumes a case of two sides fighting in each-other as in India where Muslims had replied to Hindu violence in kind, but in Bangladesh, Hindus had done nothing in reply and so it wasn’t riots, it was mass-murder. Nasrin's characters realize that powerful will always oppress the weak – the men will oppress the women, the majority religion people will oppress the minorities, the rich will oppress the poor and so on. The book sometimes reads like fictionalized non-fiction with arguments and information being the key subject of book and story only getting the second seat. Almost half the book goes to listing every incidence of riot that ever occurred in Bangladesh – naming city and number of people killed, women raped and temples destroyed there. She also lists at least some incidences of India. These longs lists although effective initially in giving the sheer volume of violence, soon gets a bit boring and even skim-able. Another problem is that this incidences are being mentally listed by characters in their mind and orally recited to each-other, as if they have crammed all this information like news channels reporters do. But that is the problem, the information is not even being broadcast-ed on television – they just seems to know about incidences occurring in distant cities by intuition. It is a minor thing but it keeps occurring again and again. Similarly Surnajan seems to remember sayings of Jinnah and Kalam (okay) as well as the constitution along with the many amendments that have gone in it (not okay). It would have made more sense if the omniscient narrator herself had shared the information and arguments directly instead of giving her characters hard-disk memories. Regarding disputed land, I've always believed like Suranjan that all religious places should be destroyed and houses for poor, orphanages, hospitals, schools etc- in short something actually useful should be built in their place, and if you have enough land for that already, sell the land and use the money for charitable purposes but am against destruction of worshipping place of one religion for building that of other. Although I also had an Uncle who had another attractive, practical and secular idea as to what should be done to disputed land and if you were to extend the idea a little, it will solve all religious problems at once - his idea was to build a pub in that place, and both Hindus and Muslims would drink in the pub in complete communal harmony. I would rather make Alcohalism the sole religion for the whole world ... no, I'm not joking, just look at the benifits - conversions will be so far more intresting; every once a year we can line-up and kill all those teetotaller infidels, they are hardly living anyway; and for one month every year, people will drink nothing but drink alcohal. We shall baptise at age of five - by feeding the kid half a glass of Jack Martin, it will still be better than all the funny things religious people keep doing to their children. And if you consider it blasphemous, just look at evidence - Christ turned water into wine and gaveth it to people - I mean what does that tell you? Holy Grail wouldn't have been half as interesting if Jesus had drunk water from it - and what kind of rest you think God was having on seventh day? He obviously didnt go to church. Almost all Sufi poets talk about wine; and what do you think that 'somras' that Hindu dieties loved drinking so much was? Why, friends, it was just your every day Blenders Pride brewed with a lot of sugar at initial stages to give it a sweet taste. And Greeks and Romans actually had Gods of wine - Dionysus and Bacchus; who can easily serve for those into idol worship. Admit it, it is that one God that every religion worship - and being a deeply pious soul myself, it kills me to see how so many people miss the obvious truth. There are other benifits too, including the fact that making confessions are so far easier if you are drunk - and chances are if you are frequently drunk, you will have something real to confess about; wine comes in many brands and chances are you will like one brand or other and so it is far more attractive religion and above all, all religions offer their Utopias (otherwise called 'heavens' or 'paradise') only after death - I mean it's a life time of wait; and even that with a lot of stipulations as to what you can or can not do meanwhile; and they will give you a hell of time if you fail to fulfil them. Alcoholism is only religion that provides services of instant Utopia for price of a few bucks and a bit of hangover. And so, if you are wise enough to adhere my summons, then it is high time we replace priests with bartenders
