“Of Suhrawardy Udyan of history and golf”
Syed Badrul Ahsan has doubtless a facile pen. By my watch, he is the best among his peers in Bangladeshi journalism in crafting precision English syntax. But unfortunately, in his post-editorial titled “Of Suhrawardy Udyan, of history and golf” printed in your daily on 14 November, 2007, his thoughts have gone off-key. He has dismissed with a whiff of derision the repeated assertion by the Dhaka Club authorities that the golf course in Suhrawardy Udyan is 81 years old, that the Club shall never be the owner of the golf course, and that the Club will simply renovate, refurbish and maintain the 25 acres of the eye-catching green turf that has been there ever since 1926. What seems curious is that he is all for stamping out the golf course, but conversely in favour of reinstating the Kali Mandir that was destroyed in the late hours of the Pakistani days. I wish he had harmonised his sympathy by reflecting in any of his previous articles an urge to re-establish Babri Mosque in Uttar Pradesh. Or does he think the destroyers of that mosque were dead right? He says Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was wrong for displaying “no great enthusiasm” for bringing the Kali Mandir back after Bangladesh achieved independence. He described it as “reasons that remain shrouded in mist, remain inexplicable as it were.” Perhaps Badrul Ahsan does not realise that such comments amount to questioning Bangabandhu's sagacity, foresight and statesmanship. Anyway, let's not digress. He says, “We could go on and on and on… For now, we will ask that Suhrawardy Udyan stay as it has so far, that it remain in possession of the citizen.” That's exactly what everyone, including the Dhaka Club, wants. Let it stay as it is, in possession of the citizen with an Independence Monument, a walkway for the strollers and a tiny 9-hole golf course inside, all in tact. So, where is the hitch? He says, “If Dhaka Club is driven by an urge to add to the beauty of the place, let it do so through other means and in different ways”. He does not explain what he means by “the other means”. And then he comments: “A golf course is not emblematic of beauty or aesthetics, in a country where millions of people wonder where their next meal is going to come from.” A golf course is not emblematic of beauty? Where did he get this theory? The reality is that a golf course and the beauty of a city are so much coterminous. This is a universal truth that he may care to check with any reputed environmentalist, not the ones who are making noise here with shilly-shally knowledge of planning a city and its surroundings. One has to go and see if their own backyards are conducive to the environment. Look at Bangalore, in southern India , which has five golf courses almost in the heart of Karnataka, its capital. John Dubon, a British environmentalist, said in one of his articles, “One of the reasons why Bangalore continues to be the most beautiful city in India is its golf courses. The greenery they provide is the treasure of loveliness and splendour”. Three new golf courses are emerging in New Delhi , in addition to the three the Indian capital currently possesses. Kolkata has three golf courses, and two brand new ones are coming up. It will be unkind of Syed Badrul Ahsan to think that the CPM government there is less concerned about “the people who wonder where their next meal is going to come from” than building golf courses that is not “emblematic of beauty”.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments