If we can set aside the modern day concept of "citizenship" and "nation-state" for the time being, since these notions did not exist during the time of Nawab Sirajuddaula, we can attempt an answer to the basic question: Who is a "foreign ruler" and who is a "native ruler"?

As a "community", the British rulers/administrators (whether the East India Company or subsequently the British establishment under the Queen) could not or did not make the Indian subcontinent (or South Asia if you like), their own. Apart from a very few notable exceptions, the British establishment on the whole did not emotionally, culturally, spiritually identify themselves with the land and the people they ruled. They came, ruled and left as foreigners. Of course no one denies that they did leave behind a great legacy. Still they were foreigners.

On the other hand, other than the early Muslim invaders, the Muslim rulers in general particularly the Mughals, came as foreigners, but subsequently identified themselves with the land, adopted the land as their home and completely integrated themselves with the land, its people and culture. These rulers did not go back, and while they ruled they never saw themselves as "foreign rulers", neither did they see their subjects a "foreign subjects". Also there is no evidence that the general masses on the whole whether Hindus or Muslims, perceived the Muslim rulers as "foreign rulers". By the time Nawab Sirajuddaula appeared on the scene, the Muslim rulers of South Asia had become "organic" to the land they had become an integral part of the land its population, culture and ethos and as a result had already helped re-shape and enrich the very identity and character of South Asia and its people.

Since ages, South Asia has welcomed, sheltered, fostered and "become home" to people from all regions of the world, of all races, cultures, religions and faiths. And all those who came, (save the British), particularly the Muslim rulers, eventually made the sub-continent their home and contributed to making a South Asian society and culture as fascinatingly rich, diverse, evolved, alive and vibrant as we see today.

The semantic is very important here. To make the definitions of "foreign" or "native" contingent on "racial features", I am afraid is pretty misleading.

Largely, the Muslim rulers were "native" or "of the soil" in every sense, while the British rulers were "foreign" in every sense.

Therefore:

- In my view, it is fallacious to conclude that Nawab Sirajuddaula was a "foreign ruler" just because "racially" his origin was Arab-Turk.

- To say that Nawab Sirajuddaula was as much a foreign ruler as was Lord Clive, is a travesty of sort, at least in my perspective and limited scholarship.

My personal views notwithstanding, I congratulate The Daily Star and Faruque Hasan for a very interesting and thought provoking article