& 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

Reflections

Freedom of expression, human rights, writers
Professor Razia Khan (1936-2011) occupies a significant niche in our world of scholarly pursuits. As an academic, she taught English literature at Dhaka University. In the realm of English language fiction in pre-1971 Pakistan and post-1971 Bangladesh, she was a pioneer where the novel as a literary form was concerned. Her poetry and the sense of it were a broad hint of the vast horizon in which the Bengali intellectual class has historically formulated its thoughts on society and politics in our part of the world. We bring to our readers the text of a speech delivered by Professor Razia Khan ata PEN conference in Vienna in 2005. The mind, said Emily Dickinson once, is wider than the sky. Dr. Razia Khan demonstrates, through her observations, how that happens to be. — Literary Editor
Razia Khan
When we hear these words we often assume that we have them till some authoritarian body imposes unexpected taboos on what we say or write. When we see writers sent to prison and exile for expressing what they believe, we know that there is a serious negation of freedom and human rights. Dante lived in exile till death because of the political intolerance of powerful groups in Italy of the time. Poet Shelley was expelled from Oxford for writing his pamphlet on atheism. Julius Fucik was imprisoned on account of his leftist convictions. Munier Chowdhury, our brilliant playwright, suffered long imprisonment. Poet Nazrul the firebrand was jailed by the British for giving vent to his patriotic fervour. There are endless examples of the violation of the basic rights of writers all over the world.
Milton in his Areopagitica pleaded for the freedom of expressing one’s own convictions. His crusade against repression is still on. Religious fanaticism disallows an agnostic to express his doubts and reservations about organised religion. The writer is often a nonconformist, unwilling to go along with conventions and established patterns of behaviour. His rapport with his Creator, if he believes in one, has to be personal and individualistic. It need not follow dogma and doctrine. The writer must have the freedom to choose his beliefs, to express them in any manner he liked with impunity. He must not be expected to voice the views of religious groups or political parties. His freedom in these matters has to be absolute. Born in colonial
Bengal, our rebel poet defied religious convention when he wrote: "I will leave my footprints on the breast of God’. Though attracted by mysticism in his later in his youth Nazrul was a defiant secular poet who proved highly provocative to orthodox Muslims. But he was never persecuted on account of blasphemy, not officially, that is.
The present mode of fanatical repression does not allow the liberty of expression that existed in our country during British rule. Obsessed with their own narrow preconceptions, fanatics have transformed democratic countries into theocracies, which encourage bigoted followers of outdated dogma. Some of them dabble in slogans and drab platitudes in the name of creative writing. These dilettantes and charlatans would be described by poet Alexander Pope as ’Grub Street1 writers. They manage to usurp all the awards and honours of the literary arena with the blessings of the establishment pampering them. Their mediocrity and conformity seem to be more useful than genuine creative ability. Controversies, pamphleteering and propaganda, polemics and politics-mongering are not conductive to the efflorescence of the creative faculty. What the writer needs is freedom along with a certain seclusion from factions and cliques.
The aggression of extreme intolerance has led to the killing of Humayun Azad in Bangladesh. He was attacked with lethal weapons when he came out of our national book fair. Manik Shaha, Ivy Rahman, Kibria met violent deaths because of their outspoken
opposition to fanatical forces. I have deliberately avoided the world ’fundamentalism1 because it is a misleading and unfortunate coinage. While I do not wish to inflict semantic controversies on you, I cannot help asserting my respect for fundamental values and principles which form the foundation of human civilization. The modern deflation of the term, particularly applied to Muslims, conveys a connotation not originally associated with the word. While human rights and the writer’s freedom are being abused, language is also being corrupted through careless coinages.
The writer's freedom is often tarnished by so-
called commitments to state, society or people. In our country, these days there is an insistence from certain quarters on the depiction of rural life. An urban writer may want to concentrate on the portrayal of city life but those groups who are comfortable with village scenes try to impose their own choices on others. This is linked with what is currently known as antielitism. Now a major portion of world literature deals with the aristocracy. To label this whole group of creativity as elitist seems to me to be tendentious in the worst possible manner.
Modern stances and coinages are not always judicious or genuine.
No matter what class or group of people a writer depicts, it is his unique vision of the reality which matters. The writer's perception of people and places leads to the reader's enhanced response to life. Sharpening the reader's sensitivity is the author's greatest achievement. This requires innate power as well as conscious effort and application. His modus operand! in doing this is totally his own affair. Interference with the writer's freedom in the name of political or social commitment is a form of oppression that he must fight. In order to fall in line with others a writer may not choose themes and subject matters which are popular and in vogue. Absolute freedom in the practice of his art is a must for the writer and we are gathered here to promote, uphold and augment that freedom.
When Rousseau said 'man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains’, he implied the man-made manacles which have throttled freedom. The English poet Blake, in his fierce
defiance of all authority, religious political and social, echoes the description of a tragic human predicament. Man is seen as his own destroyer. He destroys all the healthy cells of his body by taking wrong drinks and food; he destroys the environment with his unmitigated consumerism. As a result, he breathes poison instead of air. He destroys his own freedom and joy by putting shackles around his own feet in the name of this institution and that. To the writer his freedom is his essential element; he has to combat this perverse instinct in his fellow-beings, of creating unreasonable barriers and taboos.
Red tape and dead regulations have already made free travel impossible. Unless the writer has access to free travel his horizon cannot widen. Coming to this conference from a third world country at my own expense and the innumerable rules that I had to obey have left a bad taste in my mouth. For an Asian to obtain a Schengen visa to enter Europe is a stupendous task which is often an affront to his or her dignity and self-respect, leave alone the gigantic expenses which are almost beyond one's means. One attendance in a PEN conference is likely to leave the writer penniless for the rest of the year. Be that as it may, being with you, dear friends, feels great. Because I miss the European perspective which I think is vital to the broadening of the mental horizon of a writer. An exchange of views and ideas between Asians and
EUROPEANS IS ESSENTIAL FOR A WRITER IF HE IS TO BE A CITIZEN OF THE WORLD.