Handshakes, absolutely unavoidable?
This has reference to the exhaustive article by Mr. Badrul Ahsan on the subject stated above published on 10 September,2008. I agree with the views of Mr. Ahsan that there are occasions when one, with all the displeasure bubbling up within the guts, has to stretch one's palms for shaking , for no other reason but to avoid embarrassment to self and also to the host and particularly to avoid dislocation in the ceremony arranged under the auspices of the state machinery.
Thus Bangabandhu had to shake hands with the “Butcher of Bangladesh” when he was being given the state reception by the government of Pakistan at the Lahore Airport where the former had to fly to attend the conference of the Islamic states. However, this news of shaking hands was given adequate prominence by the BBC newscaster in its “Probaho” programme in the evening.
But there are instances otherwise, I would like to share with the readers. There was a news item flashed on the first page of the celebrated daily “The Times of India” of Bombay in the early forties of the last century which reads as “Mr. Jinnah refuses to shake hands with Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.” The Maulana was an important political figure in the Indian politics and perhaps was the president of the Congress Party of the undivided India at the time. The occasion was a joint meeting of the Congress and the Muslim League to decide the fate of the Indian subcontinent.
On an earlier occasion , by the word earlier I mean, the early twenties of the last century, in a dinner arranged by Lord Willingdon, the then Governor of Bombay, Mrs. Jinnah was dressed in a low-cut evening gown which prompted the hostess to ask her bearer to get some warm clothes for Mrs Jinnah. The couple took serious exception and immediately left the party and desisted themselves from joining any party in the Government House so long the particular Governor Lord Willingdon was there in Bombay.
Thus, Heaven would not have fallen had the aging politician, demanding trial of the war criminals, Zillur Rahman refused to shake hands with the Rajakar leader Nizami. The sermon aired by his associate Syed Ashraful Islam not to mix religion with politics is simply a puerile explanation and can very well be dismissed forthwith.
As for the observation of Mr. Ahsan on Tikka, I doubt if the butcher had the sharpness to study the sarcastic smile of Bangabandhu. I cannot check the temptation of quoting here the comments made by a Punjabi friend of mine when he heard about the military action perpetrated by the butcher on Dhaka University campus. “This is not unexpected .
A man who spent nine years of his service as a Sepoy in the army and whose academic qualification did not go beyond Class 1X is not likely to feel any qualms of conscience before launching the attack on the highest seat of learning.” This friend of mine who had deep regards for Bangabandhu had some queer idea about the concept of the“Father of the Nation” for Bangladesh.
He used to say that Sheikh Mujib was no doubt the father of Bengali nationalism but the creator of Bangladesh was Tikka Khan or if you like to divide the parentage you can safely divide the same amongst the three -- Tikka, the butcher, Yahya, the sharabi General, and Zulfi, the villain of the century.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments