& 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

When politics perverted poetry

Mohammad Badrul Ahsan
A similar tendency divided our poetic community during the nine years of autocratic regime. One group took sides with the dictator, pampered by the privileges of power. Another group stood in opposition, siding with people and their freedom.***
A popular saying has it in Nicaragua that everyone is a poet until proven otherwise. What about the rest of the world? Poets spring from their soils, and every soil isn't equally fertile to bear a bounteous crop. Khaled Hosseini writes in A Thousand Splendid Suns that amongst all the provinces of Afghanistan, one couldn't stretch a leg in Herat "without poking a poet."
The density of poets is a measure of people's passionate intensity for poetic predilections. In the '70s that intensity was high in thiS country, and my publisher friends vouch that it was the Golden Age of poetry with the highest number of poetry books published in any one decade. Then poetic interest started to fizzle. In the '80s, poetry entered a dry spell as the number of people writing poetry gradually declined.
From which it never recovered. Is it mere coincidence that the '80s was also the time in this country when poetry and people were subjected to the burlesque of a dictator? That was the first and only time in our history when a ruling hand usurped both poetry and politics, so much so that an exasperated poet vented his frustration in one harsh sentence. Roughly translated into English, he wrote that every rascal wanted to become a poet.
Mapping the terrain of history, it was also the time when poetry and people began to degenerate. That was when the power of imagination was undermined by the imagination of power. Michael Hamburger argues in his essay "Absolute Poetry and Absolute Politics" that poets who connect with the Romantic-Symbolist tradition suffer from a high degree of isola-
tion and alienation from society. These poets are attracted to absolute political creeds, mistaking their monomania for a dedication akin to their own.
That explains why American expatriate poet Ezra Pound came to admire Mussolini. South African poet Roy Campbell supported Spanish dictator Francisco Franco during the Spanish Civil War. German poet Gottfried Benn was a Nazi loyalist. Roman poet Horace deeply and sincerely admired Augustus.
A similar tendency divided our poetic community during the nine years of autocratic regimp. One group took sides with | the dictator, pampered by the privileges of x power. Another group stood in opposition, 2 siding with people and their freedom. 2
But poetry and politics don't have to be J mutually exclusive. From Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and Milton of ancient days to Robert Lowell and Seamus Heaney of modern times, poets have used poetry to brush with oppressive rulers. There are also instances when rulers courted poetry. Henry VIII was fond of writing poems even though he was a cruel husband to his wives. Chairman Mao of China, Leopold Senghor, former president of Senegal, and Jose Sarney, former president of Brazil, were also poets.
John E Kennedy, the former US president, was an avid reader of Robert Frost. "When power narrows the areas of man's concern," said Kennedy, "poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses." To summarise, the best in poetry guards against the worst in politics.
In the '80s, something terrible happened in our country. Those two extremes were compromised. A dictator actually seduced poetry to strengthen his politics, and suc-
cessfully lined up a following of poets. In spite of resistance from renegade poets, poetry was inveigled into his political ambition. Power narrowed poetry, and poetry narrowed the areas of our concern.
No wonder that dictator was able to rule longer than legitimate rulers. He destroyed the innocence in poetry and people, which snapped the defiant spirit in both. Poetry is a special type of communication, and so is politics. Both target the people with an identical goal.
How? The poets start the conversation, and they expect readers to have the last words. Ideally, it should be similar in politics. The politicians should start the conversation, and expect the voters to have the last words.
Not true for dictators. They don't believe in conversation. They like to have both first and last words, which is why poetry poses a threat to them. Which is why our clever
dictator exploited poetry to deflect the resistance against him. He impostered poetic identity not so much out of love for poetry, but to use poetry as a ploy to consolidate his brand of politics.
In the process, he diminished both poetry and people. The great chaos that ensued brought down a paroxysm of perfidy. Corruption, complacency, complicity and compromise raged, and they still do, through outlives with culture-like ferocity.
This dictator wasn’t known for his poetry before he rose to power. He isn't writing poetry ever since he as been ousted from power. Meanwhile, the damage has been done. Politics interloped into poetry, and ruined that profound something in each one of us. Rhyme and reason are gone from our life.
Mohammad Badnjl Ahsan is a columnist for The 0aity Star.
E-mai: badhill 51 @yahoo corn