Greatness put through a twister?
A work on twenty individuals leaves Syed Badrul Ahsan disappointed
How do you define greatness? And exactly how many fields can a study of greatness cover? The answers to these questions will likely be as intricate as the queries themselves. But when media organisations such as the Bengali Service of the British Broadcasting Service undertake a programme to assess the contributions of Bengali men and women and so arrive at an understanding of what greatness is all about, the effort should be considered rather encouraging. On second thought, however, history is never a matter of individuals coming by popular acclaim. And greatness is not to be assessed through the opinions of radio listeners, for the chances are that a very large number of these listeners are too close to their times to be able to focus on events of the past. And so they are quite likely to miss out on some significant cogs in the wheels of moving time. Which brings us to this pretty interesting (for want of a better term) collection of essays on what is purportedly a galaxy of stars in Bengali history. The attempt is surely to be commended, seeing that it brings into focus twenty individuals who certainly have had a role to play in Bengali life. But were or are they all great? Included in the compendium is General Ziaur Rahman. Precisely what his contributions to history, those that raise men to the heights, are has not been explained in the essay on him. Outside the essay, of course, there is history as we have observed shaping up before us. Zia conveyed, on behalf of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the message of freedom on 27 March 1971. After that, especially in the post-August 1975 situation, his role quickly slid into the negative. His overturning of secular principles and the rampant executions of soldiers and officers, on charges of attempted coups, during his dictatorial rule, do not exactly place him on the Olympian heights of history. That said, there is the matter of Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy. There is hardly any question that his role in pre-partition Bengal and post-1947 Pakistan was pre-eminent or at least as crucial as that of some of his contemporaries in Muslim League politics. And that says a whole lot, for greatness was not a quality that could be ascribed to Jinnah or anyone else in the organisation. Suhrawardy's reputation, moreover, was marred by the catastrophe of 16 August 1946, when as prime minister of united Bengal he had little qualm about announcing a holiday to observe his party's Direct Action Day as part of the demand for Pakistan. The result was mayhem and murder. In four days of rioting, thousands of Muslims and Hindus lay dead on the streets of Calcutta, victims of the communal frenzy whipped up by the violence associated with Suhrawardy's move. And that is not the end of the story. In Pakistan, Suhrawardy turned out to be an arch defender of the cause of One Unit in West Pakistan, to the extent that he thought the 1956 constitution had actually granted 98 per cent of regional autonomy to East Pakistan. And then, of course, there is the truth of whether Suhrawardy ethnically qualifies to be a Bengali given his social and cultural background. Twenty Great Bengalis could have been a good reference were it not for the individuals not included in it. Deshbandhu C. R. Das was a pivotal figure in Indian as well as Bengali politics till his death, at the relatively young age of fifty one, in 1925. He does not figure in the work. On the Bengali literary scene, Buddhadev Bose remains a leading light. He does not make it here. Absolutely no word is there on Tajuddin Ahmed, one of the more brilliant politicians of his generation. And there are quite a few other anomalies. With some exceptions, in some of the essays, the standard of English leaves a whole lot to be desired. Bangabandhu, as one essay notes, 'shouted' the call for independence. Jagadish Chandra Bose's year of birth is noted as 1857 below his photograph and 1858 in the accompanying article. The flaws in the editing are obvious. The goal in producing such a comprehensive work was clearly to present an image of historical Bengal before the global community. That objective has unfortunately not been achieved. Studies of greatness acquire a substantive character when they project their subjects warts and all. That does not appear to have been the approach here. Gushing praise for the twenty men covered in the work is all, which is a pity. Note this: in the essay on Sher-e-Bangla A.K. Fazlul Huq, it is said that he passed his Entrance Examination in 1990, FA in 1992, BA in 1894 and MA in 1896! So much for proofreading. Syed Badrul Ahsan is Editor, Current Affairs, The Daily Star
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments