& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Words and reality

I can mock my president as a buffoon; or icoff at the naive social views set forth by Jesus in the New Testament, or consider Moses a con man. The slightest hint of restriction of freedom of the press orfreedom of speech should be blocked at once.

Forrest Cookson
OVER and over again we are plunged into confusion by words. Words are used in contexts not only to provide information and truth but, probably most of the time, to stir up images and emotions also.
Too often, both speaker and listener convince themselves that the words are the reality! How many times have we heard presidents or ministers announce programs for which there was limited follow up, yet the announcer acts as though the words are the reality? How often does husband tell wife that something will be done and both believe the words? ft seems that people actually perceive the words as the reality.
However, the reality always wins -- the minister and the husband do not do as promised! Often, wt are surprised by the reality, having believed in the words.
Consider a few examples. One is the view of the United States government about its military progress during the Vietnam War. Believing that their own words were the reality, the war came to a conclusion that surprised most Americans who had been fed the wordsbut not the reality.
Much the same has been experienced in Iraq. Governments constantly intervene to "protect" the public from information that would cause difficulty for the authorities. Many central banks deny inflation is taking place, despite the reality in the markets where people face rising prices every day. In the 1930s the British government persisted in claiming that the Nazi government was not rearming and had no aggres -sive intentions; believing their own words they took no action to stave off a war that resulted in the deaths of perhaps 100 million persons.
The words expressed what the British politician wanted to believe, enabling them to ignore reality’, ft is one of our endearing traits that we can ■ substitute the wonts 1 for Ae reality and delude ourselves. Listen carefully to what we are promised!
There is something more. Even when there is no significant dispute as to what happened, there may be different words used to describe this agreed underlying reality. Different words are used to shape interpretations of what actually happened. This is a kind of propaganda, not an attempt at scientific description. But these emotional words can shape the perception of reality.
When I moved to South Carolina to start university, I came from a background of great innocence about history and attitudes about controversial past events. I was confronted with a new expression,
"the war between the states," to describe the conflict between the northern and southern states of the United States in the 1860s. In the North this conflict is always referred to as "the civil war," and perceived as part of the United States attempting to declare their independence from the federal Union.
But in the South the preferred phrase is "the war between the states." The southern states continued to prefer this description long after the main issue was settled, as it legitimised their actions. The reality of this conflict is quite independent of the names used to describe it.
Conflicts between groups that have been joined together are always emotional and remarkably violent To some in the southern states the expression "civil war” conveys something improper. Southerners preferred to think of the states as independent sovereign entities trying to escape from the domination of the north; while they lost the war their preferred expression conveyed validity to their uprising.
Remarkably, a similar dispute has arisen in Bangladesh over the terms "civil war" and "Liberation War.” The difference in viewpoint is similar to that in the United States. If one sees the joining of East and West Pakistan as illegitimate then "Liberation War" is a nice way to put this. If one sees that there was a legitimate state, Pakistan, then the term "civil w’ar* makes sense.
There seems to me no doubt that the foundation of Pakistan was an action in which the Bengalees gladly supported the emergence of a state whose legitimacy rested on the common commitment to Islam. Equally, the governance of Pakistan dominated by the elites and generals from the western wing was highly discriminatory towards the citizens of the eastern wing.
Separation to form a separate sovereign state emerged as an objective long after partition, and is legitimately described as "liberation" from oppression. The underlying reality of the way that East Pakistan was ruled is not changed by which phrase is used to describe the war of 1971.
Words sway us and raise emotional responses. Words are dangerous in the hands of the propagandist, as they are used to obscure the truth. While words may be used to cover or manipulate emotions, the reality always breaks through and controls the situation.
The reality of West Pakistan's repression of the East broke through and drove the Bengalees to fight for their independence. In the same way.
the secession of the southern states of the United States in 1860 reflected their belief that they could no longer accept the threat to their social and economic system; they believed the northern states exploited the foreign exchange earning power of the south and through high duties caused high prices for things purchased by south -ern states.
Of course, in the "war between the states" the southern states lost; the northern term "civil war" is generally used to describe that war, but in the south the former phrase continues to be used. In Bangladesh, the eastern wing obtained their independence and call the struggle the "liberation war" rejecting the term "civil war," which they feel grants legitimacy to Pakistan. So, to the winner comes the implicit right to establish the words to be used. But these are only words, and whatever they may be they do not change the reality.
Is it illegal to use one phrase or the other? Certainly not' Words and their free use are the basis of any democratic system. But this freedom to use words is a two way street. Just as one should be free use to the phrase "Liberation War" or "civil war" to describe the events of the founding of Bangladesh so should one be free to argue the atheist views or to quesr tion some of the tenets of Hinduism or Islam.
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, and there are no real limits to this freedom apart from slander or libel. Article 39 of the Bangladesh Constitution is clear on this (of course morality and decency are dynamic terms whose definitions are changing).
1 can mock my president as a buffoon; or scoff at the naive social views set forth by Jesus in the New Testament, or consider Moses a con man. The slightest hint of restriction of freedom of the press or freedom of speech should bd blocked at. once. Democracy can only prosper when citizens can say what they want to say, and not fear recrimination from the government, the religious institutions, or the general public.
The core of the secular argument against any kind of fundamentalism is precisely that everyone should be heard! It is deeply disturbing that some secular groups in Bangladesh seem to deny this core belief and. in effect, join the extremists. Tolerance of others' view’s is central to a democratic system. Forrest Cookson s an economist.