Reflections on a few aspects of
Kazi Nazrul IslamDr. Mohammad Omar Farooq
January 10, 2000
I. "I belong to the world" II. Egalitarian, not Marxist (The MISSILE story) III. "KAFIR is this Kazi!" IV. The primary source of the Rebel's inspiration! V. Conclusion and an Invitation [The following write-up originally appeared as a multi-part posting on Shetubondhon, a distinctive Bangladeshi internet forum, in the context of a dialog on Kazi Nazrul Islam.]
I: "I belong to the world"
In one of my earlier postings on Shetubondhon forum, "Re: [TOTM] Reflections on thoughts of Abul Mansur Ahmad", I indicated that my response to Dr. Kaushik Sen's comments [http://www.egroups.com/message/Shetubondhon/225] about Nazrul will come in separate messages. Given the confusion and misunderstanding surrounding many personalities who, otherwise had and still, have deep impact on our culture, heritage and thoughts, I would like to take this opportunity to delve into a few aspects of Nazrul that are pertinent in the context of Dr. Sen's posting. But first, let me make a few additional prefatory remarks.a. I am personally grateful to Dr. Sen as he has clarified earlier in several postings that Rabindranath Tagore should not be labeled or deemed as Hindu - as simply he was not per se. The popular perceptions or impressions have powerful impact, and the discussions we had on Shetubondhon have helped, at least, me to modify my perception/impression in this regard.
b. Based on my several prior discussions about Nazrul, it is my observation that he is as much a victim of popular perception or impression as personalities such as Rabindranath. Specially noteworthy is the fact that some of these perceptions are based on reading more of poetry of the respective authors, where the poetry does not necessarily provide any definitive representation of the author's/poet's view/philosophy/opinion. The fact is that Rabindranath or Nazrul was more than just poet. In case of Rabindranath, beyond his poetry, lyrics and novels, and in case of Nazrul, beyond his poetry and lyrics, very few of us have read the prose and essays of either of them. But it is in these prose and essays where their thoughts are more definitively articulated on specific issues. And, to better and properly understand them, reading their prose and essays is indispensable.
c. Much have been said and written on or about Rabindranath and Nazrul. However, on any issue where they themselves have stated something carries a disproportionate weight, at least, in my view. Thus, my articulation here is primarily based on Nazrul IN HIS OWN WORDS.
d. Since, in his otherwise brief posting, Dr. Sen has touched quite a few pertinent areas of Nazrul that in my view deserve clarification, I would like to address those without one LONG posting. Instead, to keep these postings readable, i.e. not to tax the time and interest of the subscribers too much at one time, I have divided these messages in several parts.
e. It is my observation that discussions for the sake of learning and understanding - i.e. for mutual enlightenment - are helpful and beneficial. However, when discussion or argument turns into squabble, hardly anything positive comes out. Shetubondhon's spirit challenges us all to keep our exchange above any squabble, as we already HAVE so far. Thus, I would simply limit myself to bringing my observations, thoughts and the results of my study and research. I won't even attempt to "prove" anything. By the way, all emphases here are mine.
A. Dr. Sen wrote: "... It is singularly unfair to Nazrul that he is being pointed out as poet of Bengali Muslim and not poet of Bengalis in general."
Dr. Sen is quite correct here. Indeed, it is neither fair nor accurate to describe him exclusively as poet of Bengali Muslims. At the same time, pointing him out as poet of Bengalis in general does not COMPLETE his belonging. From my perspective and general orientation, about which I have not been the least ambiguous, our real aspiration and identity should not stop at our religion, much less on the basis of language and culture. Our insistence should be not merely at the level of Bangali, but also as human beings. That is why I am fully at ease with seeking the common ground we can find, nurture and strengthen within our connection of Bangla - linguistically and geographically. But based on my orientation, I have to reach out further. Would Nazrul have settled for anything less? Would Nazrul have stopped at or limited himself to his Bangali (Muslim or otherwise) identity? Let us say whatever we like, attributing OUR impressions and perceptions to Nazrul, but what did Nazrul have to say about this?
In no unequal terms, and rising above other differentiating categories, he stated: "Even though I was born in this country (Bengal), in this society, I belong to all nations, all people (i.e. the world)." The speech in which he made this statement, you can hear the full text in audio in the voice of his son Kazi Shabbyoshachi at the Nazrul site http://www.globalwebpost.com/nazrul/text_version/reception1.ram .
That is why the linkage of Nazrul to Bangali Muslim is an undeniable dimension, but not in exclusion of his broader Bangali dimension. Yet, he drew our attention to and invited us all as human beings to rise to a new height - the height of our humanity. When we recognize all these aspects in there proper places, he is WHOLEsome, and following that example, we might have a wholesome future. When we reduce him to certain labels based on our own preferences, it is WE who do so - against his avowed wish and convictions.
In one place Dr. Sen said, "His life and works are the greatest proof that he was always a believer of synthesis, a noble coexistence of the two great cultures." This is exactly the point: "a noble COEXISTENCE of TWO cultures." It is NOT one culture. Denial of this fact only obfuscates and complicates the reality. An effort to amalgamate the two is not natural, possible or necessary. Nazrul DID try to synthesize the two, much more than many others (maybe he even wanted to be a "guru-mara shishyo"). But his synthesis was exactly as Dr. Sen described: a mission of seeking noble COEXISTENCE.
This is where the link between culture and literature has a special relevance. There is a Bangali DHONG (pattern) of literature, just as there is Muslim (Bangali Muslim) DHONG as well as universal DHONG. There can be other DHONGs too within the domain of Bangla. In Nazrul's synthesis none of these were contradictory or conflicting. In all these DHONGs, he has poured his heart without pitting within himself one against the other. What Nazrul described as DHONG goes with the culture too. That is why if Bangladesh is to be a nation as it is now (unless we are suggesting the original undivided Bangla to become reunited), it is not that unreasonable to suggest that rejuvenation of a culture necessitates distinctiveness of its literature.
Chittagong, Sylhet, and other areas have (sub)cultures. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians not only can, but actually HAVE distinctive cultures. The Arabs and the Persians have identifiably distinguished culture. Egyptians and Moroccans have their cultural uniqueness. Baluch and Punjabis have theirs. Not every single LEVEL of these cultures justifies or calls for statehood. However, a nation-state (not that I believe in nation-statehood) does call for its distinctiveness. Abul Mansur Ahmad, as I understand it, was making that nation-state based point, but Nazrul would not have agreed to such pursuit of distinctiveness at the expense or exclusion of the overall Bangla or universal dimension.
There is a culture of Azan, Milad, Minar, Masjid and Gorosthan, and another culture of Shonghkho-dhoni, Mandir, and Shoshan. Nazrul's synthesis is not that let us give up the culture of Azan or the culture of Shonghkho-dhoni and come up with something common in lieu of both. Nazrul's synthesis IS a pursuit of mutually respectful COEXISTENCE where Azan AND Shongkho-dhoni are parts of the reality - the reality of two cultures. The tendency of denial of this fact of TWO cultures might be partly responsible for the extremity that has developed into exclusionary mentality as those who are akin to one culture might find their one threatened at such idea. That's why Nazrul's effort to synthesize is not a denial or rejection of TWO cultures, but (I could not have said it better than Dr. Sen) "a noble COEXISTENCE of TWO cultures." Being Bangali - irrespective of Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Atheist or Agnostic or Secular Humanist - is a common ground for "a noble coexistence".
One other thing. Nazrul sought a synthesis, but he had an anchor for himself. We will deal with that, referring to his own words, in subsequent parts.
I urge the subscribers to be patient with this series and hold off their comments until the last part is posted. I also urge them, especially those who would like to respond and participate in this discussion, to read the texts or listen to the audio files for which links are provided here, as I will assume that they have done their due diligence to make this dialog mutually enlightening and enriching.
II: Egalitarian, not Marxist (The MISSILE story)
In his posting, "Re: Reflections on thoughts of Abul Mansur Ahmad [2/15/2000], Dr. Kaushik made reference to some of the statements of Nazrul in his poem "Bidrohi". The analysis of his comment in the context of that masterpiece poem will follow in another message in this series of mine. All emphases in this and my other writings are mine, unless otherwise mentioned.
In reference to Nazrul's words "Khodar ashon arosh chediya", Dr. Kaushik wrote: "Clearly this is a concept of anti-institutionalism which includes God and religion. It is a poetry of denial of all authorities. The central idea is of course Marxism, like many other poetry of Samyabadi, Bisher banshi and Agnibeena...."
In this part I want to focus on one specific aspect of those comments: "The central idea is of course MARXISM". Yes, it is not uncommon to come across many Marxists or leftists who has an interesting ambivalence toward Nazrul. I have seen among many of my friends and classmates while I was studying at the University of Dhaka that ideologically they find Nazrul closer to their ethos. To many of them Rabindranath was an elite from among the Bourgeoisie. Yet, culturally speaking, they were akin to Rabindranath because of his superior and more refined literary and intellectual output, especially without any trace of any special religious overtone, which is so pronounced in the works of Nazrul.
But before I reflect on this Nazrul-Marxist connection, let me first share an anecdote. In the mid-80's one day while visiting an Iranian friend of mine, who used to be a student at the same university I was attending and the same apartment complex I was residing, I came across a copy of an Iranian weekly, Kayhan International. A particular story on Bangladesh drew my attention. [I am paraphrasing it from my memory.] It was narrating an incident of violent confrontation between police and Musallis (praying public) near the Baitul Mukarram Mosque. According to that report, at one stage of confrontation, Musallis took shelter in the mosque and started sending MISSILES toward the police force. It was the word MISSILES that drew my attention. Something was not right! Even Bangladesh military using missile would be a news, but apparently even ordinary people had access to, and used missiles, in an otherwise routine confrontation with police!
I sought help of my Iranian friend, but he had no explanation. A simple explanation would be printing mistake. After a few days, while conversing on the same issue with another Iranian friend, I asked him what is missile in Farsi? Soon, we were able to make some sense out of it. In Farsi, any object thrown has only one corresponding word, whether the object thrown was a pebble, brick or missile. Indeed, even though in modern times we use it in the sense of modern military weapons using rocket propulsion, the word missile generically means ANY object thrown. The reporter from Dhaka probably sent the report in Farsi containing that all-encompassing word for objects thrown. At Kayhan International, when it was translated into English, it was translated as "any object thrown": MISSILE. The writer probably did not think how the usage of a word has changed and how is it going to be understood by the readers. It was my folly that I read TOO MUCH into it.
What is the missile connection to Nazrul? Well, the sentence in which Dr. Sen mentioned "Marxist", another word, not unexpectedly, is present: "Samyabadi". It is generally known what is the counterpart of Shamyobadi in English: communist. Just to make sure that I am not saying something here based on mere "impression", I opened Bangla Academy's English-Bengali Dictionary and checked the word "communist". There it was, glaring at my face: Shamyobadi ! Add to that so many Shamyobadi Dals (party) on both sides of the border, and we have probably another MISSILE-type story.
Indeed, except the humanistic tone underlying the poem Shamyobadi, Marxists/communists/leftists, who believe in the famous dictum of Marx and an inalienable premise of Marxism - Religion is the "opium of people" - would probably nauseate or suffer from intellectual headache at the poem. I am not a poet, and my literary background, particularly in English is virtually nil, but for my own pleasure, I attempted to translate this poem in English. Let's take a look at some parts of the poem. (The full text of the translated poem is available at [http://www.globalwebpost.com/nazrul/nazrul_works/farooq_trans/t_naz_equality.htm].
The Egalitarian
I sing the song Of equality,
Where all status and class Become triviality.
The Rendezvous of Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or those of Christianity,
I sing the song Of equality!
...
Right in you resides
The essence of all books, of all time,
In every scripture you will find this,
My friend, if you just open your heart sublime.
...
Real mosque, temple, church -
are not distant from this heart,
Sitting here Jesus and Moses
found their awakening to the truth start.
In world's arena Bhagavad Gita,
Played eternal youth's tune,
In this same field the sheep-grazing prophets'
chord with God was hewn.
Meditating in this cave of the heart
Great Buddha the saint,
Gave up the kingdom
Hearing humanity's pangs go faint.
At this altar the desert's prince
Used to hear the divine call,
From this throne, he also sang
Quran's message of EQUALITY of all.
...
There is a pristine, egalitarian message in this poem. But, Marxism as the "central message" of this and other poems in Agnibina, Bisher Banshi? I am afraid that let alone myself as a reader, even Nazrul himself won't have been so agreeable to such a characterization. And, as I said, the Marxists - of whom Atheism is a basic pillar - might be terribly upset at such intellectually demeaning thought that Nazrul was one of them.
Several other aspects to notice. First, Nazrul's universalistic approach unfailingly acknowledges the heritage of all the prophets, divine messengers, and/or religions in this poem. But more specifically, in poem under the very title Shamyobadi, he associates the "message of EQUALITY" uniquely with the Qur'an and the Prophet. Whether one agrees with or likes such a statement of Nazrul or not, it is important to note that he DID make such statement.
Second, if the use of the word Sharbohara as title of his poem or even collection of poems makes someone draw any connection between Nazrul and Marxism, then it should also be noted that who is most specifically "Sharbohara" to Nazrul? Read the part Shorbohara in Moru Bhashkor (the poetic biography of the Prophet Muhammad). [Nazrul Rochonaboli, Vol. 3, p. 67] Please correct me if I am wrong, but in his entire collection, only Shorbohara, who is specifically identified, is the Prophet Muhammad. At least, he is one of the Shorbohara. But only Sharbohara? What about Shamyobadi? Once again, one needs to read the same Moru Bhashkor and the part Shamyobadi [Nazrul Rochonaboli, Vol. 3, p. 99], where Nazrul uniquely associates the word Shamyobadi with the Prophet Muhammad. I must repeat: Whether one agrees with or likes such a statement of Nazrul or not, it is important to note that he DID make such statement.
Third, is Marxism the "central message" of Agnibina or Bisher Banshi? Marxists themselves might be very displeased at such a statement. Agnibina also includes Rono-bheri, Shat-il-Arab, Kheya-parer-toroni (of which captains are Abu Bakar, Umar, Uthman and Ali), Korbani, and Muharram. How about Bisher Banshi? This one is also a mixed bag with Fatiha-i-dowaz-dahm, and Bodhon.
Thus, whether Shamyobadi as a peom or a collection, or Agnibina and Bisher Banshi, to suggest Marxism as the "CENTRAL message" is untenable. Remember my earlier statement in part I: "Nazrul sought a synthesis, but he had an anchor for himself."? Whether one agrees with or like it or not, without recognizing that anchor's connection to Nazrul, it is virtually impossible to develop a proper appreciation and understanding of Nazrul. My attempt here is not to "prove" or disprove anything, but it is my own effort to understand him as a human being and his contributions based on reading of Nazrul in a comprehensive sense. Of course, I am a human being, and thus fallible - and very much so.
III: "KAFIR is this Kazi!"
Many an unorthodox adherents of faith - any faith - have been treated as heretical. Orthodox establishment among Muslims is not an exception. When Iqbal wrote Shikwa (grievance/complaint), he was decorated with the title "kafir". Hafiz or Khayyam was not exception. When Jamaluddin Afghani rose to prominence with his pan-Islamic message, some of his rather imaginative opponents [allegedly] even raised questions whether he was circumscribed or not and demanded visual proof. Why should Nazrul be any different? Indeed, Nazrul - the Bohemian, Khaypa, the Rebel - was only worse as he crossed even the limits of his unorthodox predecessors and wrote Shayma sangeet, and more.Therefore, if people THINK that they find in him traces of "atheism" (nastikota) or "Kufr", it is hardly anything abnormal. However, such attribution should not be based on Nazrul's statements such as:
"Khodar ashon arosh chediya" [as in Bidrohi] or
"Murkhera shob shono
Manush eneche grantho- grantho aneni manush kono" [as in Manush].I intend to deal with the issue of the poem Bidrohi separately in my last part of this series. But I will deal with the statement from Manush in this part. Shortly. Also, my interest in Nazrul is not because he is the national poet of Bangladesh - which actually does not add any greatness to him - or prove/disprove anything - nor is because I think that he is only a Muslim poet, but rather as he has been one of the foremost icons for the harmony and bridge-building in Bangla, I want to understand him better. More importantly, I want to overcome my own misunderstanding, if any. If in the process, it contributes toward removing any misunderstanding of others, so much better.
Actually, if we are to find something in Nazrul's writings and statements that might support the views of the some among orthodox establishment that he can hardly be regarded as Muslims, then there are more fitting "evidence" in his own words. Others don't have to label him; he has already put the "crown" of such labels on his head himself.
Let's take a look at some of those.
"... Koroho shokti-shupto-mon
rudro bedone udbodhon,
hin rodon -
khinno-jon
dekhuk atmo-shobitar tej
bokhkhe bipula krondoshir!
bolo, NASTIK HOUK APON MOHIMA nehari shudhdho dhir!"
[Atmo-Shokti, Nazrul Rochonaboli, Vol. 1, p. 107]"Oppressors: we finish them.
Kings-kingdoms: we destroy and condemn. ...
We are DEVILS? That's fine.
Please don't join our line.
Our chariot is for the blood-hound.
Our path is hell-bound.
Leave us alone, the wise-old!
We are, without faith, KAFIR and bold."
[Dushshashoner Rokto-pan; this crude translation is mine; NR/v1/p153]It's no wonder that such person would receive lot of "recognition" and he actually did. In My Explanation (Amar Koifiot), he dealt with this beautifully and extensively.
"All the goody-searching priests or Mollahs wave their hands and pronounce:
This one invokes names of deities; this rogue one we must denounce!
Hear the Fatwa: KAFIR IS THIS KAZI; nothing else,
Even though, he wants martyrdom, or so he tells! ...The revolutionaries say: This one is non-violent,
My songs deal with spinning wheels: they resent.
Top Brahmins (gora-raam) find me ATHEIST, lesser ones regard me as one of the Confucians;
Independence lovers don't accept me; their oppoents prefers me to be with those Europeans! ...My friends, I can't say any more; my mind feels so much agony and pain,
I have gone mad; now, I utter whatever my mouth throws out in disdain.
My own blood won't make much difference,
With blood-ink I keep writing, hence,
My head can't forbear robust ideas or big thought any more; so agonized is this mortal,
All those who are in peace and happiness, it's your privilege to write epics immortal.I don't care any more, if I live or don't, when gone is this trendy sensation,
Rabi is shining above our head, and then there are you, the golden generation.
Those who usurp the morsel of three hundred thirty million people: let our prayer keep brewin',
In my blood-ink writing, may it be engraved and sealed their utter ruin."
[You can read the full translation of my poem at http://www.globalwebpost.com/nazrul/nazrul_works/farooq_trans/t_naz_excuse.htm]Therefore, he was very much aware that from at least some of the mollahs he would receive the Fatwa "KAFIR IS THIS KAZI" and "Gora-Raam bhabe ami nastik (ATHEIST)". Now one can decide for himself what the Rebel thought about himself listening to the "mollahs" or the "gora-raams". However, he had hopes that he might be treated better by the non-mollahs and non-gora-raams.
In regard to "Manush eneche grantho- grantho aneni manush kono" from the poem Manush, Dr. Sen wrote: 'All books are man made' is directly against the Islamic doctrine of the Holy Quoran being the revealed text descending directly from God to prophet Mohammad (s). It is easy to brand a poet 'Islamic' in order to use him for political goal but it is far from reality. Nazrul however didn't stay ATHEIST for long. He indeed became quite religious but it is not the pure Islam that he practiced."
Extrapolating from "Manush eneche grantho- grantho aneni manush kono" that "All books are man made" and then drawing the conclusion that it is "directly against the Islamic doctrine" and thus it might mean that at least for some period, Nazrul may have been ATHEIST is untenable. Not because it is MY impression or interpretation. But because "All books are man made" is untenable based on the very poem where Nazrul has said "Manush eneche grantho- grantho aneni manush kono". Again, the readers can draw their own conclusion. Let me refer to a few parts from the poem, Manush [NR/v1/234-235].
"KHODAR ghore ke kopat lagay, ke dey shekhane tala?
shob dar er khola robe, chala haturi-shabol chala! ...
Pujiche grontho bhonder dol! - murkhora shob shono
Manush eneche grontho; - grontho aneni manush kono."The last two sentences do not mean the atheistic belief that "All books are man made". Rather it means that we must not put books before people. Books are for people, not the other way around. How do we know that the above lines do not mean "All books are man made"? One must read the VERY NEXT two sentences where Nazrul affirms all those who have been recognized and revered by their respective adherents as prophets/messengers/religious leaders.
"Adam, Dawood, Isa, Musa, Ibrahim, Mohammod
Krishna, Budhdha, Nanak Kabir - BISHSHER SHOMPOD. ...
kahare koricho ghrina tumi bhai, kahare maricho lathi?
hoito uhari buke BHAGBAN jagichen dibarati! ...
JOTO NOBI CHHILO MESHER RAKHAL, TARAO DHORILO HAL,
TARAI ANILO AMOR BANI - JA ACHHE ROBE CHIROKAL...."I can understand some parts of these may not meet the approval of Muslim orthodoxy, but I find no trace of ATHEISM here; nor any basis for the view that "All books are man made". Also, a poet must not be judged in light of an ambiguous statement in one poem. Rather his views should be understood in the context of his overall life/works. Moreover, the overall poem makes the context of the statement "Manush eneche grontho; - grontho aneni manush kono" quite clear.
Does that mean Nazrul was the poet of "a religion" and "a specific religion"? NO. Dr. Kaushik's observation is absolutely right in this regard.
Does that mean that Nazrul's ideas or beliefs were "purely Islamic"? NO. Dr. Kaushik, once again, is right as "doctrinally" speaking many of Nazrul's thoughts might not pass the orthodoxy test. But that does not mean that those thoughts are not Islamic.
Does that mean that the ritual dimension of his life corresponded to the dictates of Islam? NO. Again, Dr. Kaushik is correct as he did imbibe from so many sources. He did imbibe from more than Islam.
There is also no reason to believe that some of his humanistic inspiration does not come from Marx and his powerful philosophy. I have already acknowledged some very fundamental points of tangency between Islam and Marxism in my "Toward a Muslims-Marxists Dialog", including statement of Nazrul himself in this regard. I myself in my younger life have been touched by "red" books. So was the case with many like Nazrul. But he still had an ANCHOR, and my assertion is based on his own words.
If one looks at the chronology of his writings and the contents of those writings, then it is not difficult to observe that Nazrul may have gone in some cases much further than the atheists or agnostics. But those are his natural excesses as a rebel. But he still had an anchor, which I will address in another part.
Therefore, let the Mollahs pronounce "KAFIR IS THIS KAZI" or let it only be that the "gora-raam bhabe ami NASTIK", but that is for the Mollahs and the gora-raams. Should it be for us too?
IV: The primary source of the Rebel's inspiration!
Even though I had some extended plan about this series, but due to a few other priorities, I would like to shorten THIS series, with this last substantive part and one more brief follow up.
I mentioned in the previous three parts that Nazrul had an anchor in his life from the beginning and throughout his active life he modulated around the anchor. Apparently, before he was in silence of long 32 years, he was at peace within himself. In a reception message in 1941 (a year before his voice became silent), he said:
"Now offering all my endeavor and struggle, wish and desire, life and death at His feet, I am free from the burden of carrying the load of my "self". .... I said all these because literary work was not a luxury for me. It was as if I have been searching for my power and existence from the moment of my birth. ... In the unending array of the white lotus on the canvas of the vast space, I saw a most beautiful face - the face which always seemed to have kept me away from ugliness (ashundor), constantly drawing me aloft. Today, I HAVE FOUND THAT FACE; ... I NOW LIVE - I HAVE FOUND MY ETERNAL LIFE.
....
In the path of that search the tears I shed, the songs I sang, the music I composed, the poetry I wrote, if it was poetry of any worth, then that merely emanated from the beautiful face - ALL PRAISES BELONG TO HIM . . . .
[for the Bangla excerpt as well as extended excerpt in English, go to
http://www.globalwebpost.com/nazrul/nazrul_works/articles/excerpts/modhurom.htm].
Nazrul was genuinely like a comet. He took by the world around him like a storm through his Bidrohi (rebel). If human, as human being, could rebel (in abhiman) any more, he may have taken it to a limit - indeed, "Khodar ashon arosh chhediay!" How about that! With his rebel voice like a swirling, unsheathed sword - in most valiant braggadocio, he proclaimed:
"Moha-Bidrohi ronoklanto,
ami shei din hobo shanto,
jedin utpiriter krondon rol akashe batashe dhonibe na,
ottyacharir khorog kripan bhim ronobhume ronibe na,
bidrohi ronoklanto,
ami shei din hobo shanto."
Ah! Who else has said it like that? It is so unfortunate that so many people have misunderstood this master-piece. It is almost unique that a poet/author of his stature and contribution became identified with a single poem so inseparably. To put it another way, again quite uniquely, rarely a single poem has brought a poet/author of Nazrul's stature to overnight and enduring place in literature.
So much has been written and said about this Rebel. Theses and dissertations, books and articles have been written on or about him and his works. So many creative minds have attempted to interpret and understand him, particularly in light of his Bidrohi. But not much did I find in those works as far as what Nazrul himself had to say about the root and source of inspiration of his poem Bidrohi. But to me, what Nazrul himself has said is more important than what the rest of world said about what Nazrul thought and believed.
A group of cynical Muslims have created their own version of Nazrul, where there is only Masjid, but no place for Mandir or anything else; hilal, but no shoshi; pani, no jol; adhan, no shogkhodhoni. But we know that the Bengal is not full of Masjid only, but also full of Mandirs. They cried or cry foul when only a Masjid is under attack. But let alone defending the right of the non-Muslims, rarely was an unequivocal voice of condemnation in unison against any case where a Mandir was under attack. The case of the Hindus is no different. They, along with many secularists today, also have a fragmented Nazrul of their own creation, even while they keep shedding crocodile tears that they want unfragmented, complete Nazrul. In reality, just like the mollahs and gora-raams, they don't like a complete Nazrul either. It's no wonder that based on what I have gathered (correct me if I am wrong), even Bishwa Shahitto Kendra of Bangladesh has very little room for Nazrul in their praxis. Thus, Dr. Kaushik's sensitivity toward fragmenting Nazrul (or other such personalities of shared heritage) is not only understandable, but also worth appreciating.
Let me briefly dwell on the subject of Bidrohi, where the Rebel has gone "Khodar ashon arosh chhediya" that has been misunderstood by so many of both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. A hallmark of Nazrul's ideology was against all forms of injustice and oppression - and a good part of it has happened, was happening, and still happens in the name of religion, justifying everything in the name of Khoda, Bhagwan, Jehovah and so on. He won't have any of it. IF KHODA has any part of it, then - call it human arrogance or whatever - but this Rebel has absolutely no hesitation to go "Khodar ashon arosh chhediya". If Bhagwan has any part in it, this Rebel has absolutely no qualm saying "Bhagwan buke eke diy podochinho". But anyone who read this and empathized with the pain behind this rhapsody ought to understand that this rebel's poetic rebellion is childish (abhimani), and thus after all the seats he wanted to go piercing through and all the chests on which he wanted to place his footmark, he returns to his REAL passion and proclamation: he can't bear the crying pang of the oppressed and in support of the oppressed he would keep struggling and fighting with head high - ever-high, ever-erect!
Once again, from where did he get this inspiration? Where is the root of his valiant proclamation? Let others say, believe, interpret, imagine, research whatever they like, but how about what did the Rebel himself have to say about the rebellion? Was what he have to say any different during his late years compared to his youthful days? Let's take a look.
In 1921 he took the literary world of Bangla by storm by writing Bidrohi. The same year he wrote a brief essay "Shottyobani" that was published in "Shadhona". Do you want to know what was the source of his inspiration about the rebel whose head is ever-erect? Read. Yes - don't skip, but READ (if you like) that essay at
http://www.globalwebpost.com/nazrul/nazrul_works/articles/excerpts/truth.htm .
Was his explanation any different when in December 1940 he spoke at a reception in Calcutta? Learn in Nazrul's own words: How his life has been REBUILT and who did it? About WHAT he did not have any more hesitation to say that he has finally found it? Did he overcome his restlessness, and find peace and tranquility - and in what? What still used to make him cry like a child? For whom was his worship, sacrifice, life and death? If full-length answer to these and other related questions in Nazrul's own word is worthwhile for you to find out, READ this
http://www.globalwebpost.com/nazrul/nazrul_works/articles/submission.htm .
I could have produced right here in this message what he wrote and said. But that would be too long and not everyone might be interested. For those who are interested in the ANCHOR I mentioned, do your little due diligence and follow those links I have given here. Then, let me know ON this forum, or OFF this forum, regarding any aspect of this discussion so that I can stand corrected and/or be more enlightened.
In conclusion to this part, Nazrul has imbibed from many sources and his messages and works are some in the context of Muslims, some Hindus, some Bengal, some India, and a good deal are purely universal, for all people seeking liberty, justice, harmony and truth. But he had an ANCHOR of his thoughts and works - not necessarily in keeping with orthodoxy. But the world did not need an orthodox Nazrul. Indeed, an orthodox Nazrul would be an oxymoron.
V: Conclusion and an Invitation
I very much appreciate your patience with this series. It was not meant to prove anything, but only to share my own endeavor in learning about and understanding a human being, who has probably gone the furthest length - more than probably the most - toward emboldening and liberating human spirit, inculcating an indomitable spirit of fearlessness and fairness, and most importantly, toward harmony among the people, especially in the context of Bengal. As I said, my interest in him is due to the fact that he stands as an exemplary voice of conscience and harmony - two very important attributes in the works of building-bridges.
I am not interested in a fragmented Nazrul. But many has said that too. When less than six months ago, I undertook the building of my Nazrul site, I made a commitment to myself that I want to learn about, understand and introduce Nazrul as he was - also, to the best I can, the way he would have liked to be presented. I seek your help in this regard about two things.
1. In the main, introductory page of the website, I have introduced Nazrul as following:Kazi Nazrul Islam said, "Even though I was born in this country (Bengal), in this society, I belong to the world."
He deserves to be known to the world as:
* an extraordinary and most versatile poet, lyricist, and writer (He holds a world record in terms of number of songs written and composed. Although his primary contributions are in the areas of poetry and music, including classical music, he also wrote a good number of novels as well as prose.);
* a mass-oriented, revolutionary literary figure;
* a voice against bigotry, injustice, oppression and inequality of all kind;
* a personality full of love - romantic and humanistic - who could also express his feelings in the most beautiful way;
* a fearless and undaunted activist always feared by the establishment;
* a passionate advocate of religious/ideological harmony as reflected particularly in his contribution toward better Hindu-Muslim relationship (even Rabindranath Tagore did not write a Hamd/Naat, but Nazrul wrote Shayma songs);
* an uncommon voice of Islam proclaiming universal values, peace, freedom, justice, harmony and cooperation, while repudiating any bigotry, extremism, fanaticism, narrow-mindedness, judgmentalism, exploitation in the name of any religion or ideology including Islam;
* a symbol of ever fresh youth, valor, creativity, freedom and indomitable human spirit;
* and, most importantly, as a wonderful, warm-hearted, loving human being.
Please read the above part and give feedback as to whether any part of this misrepresents Nazrul and whether anything else should be added that would make Nazrul's introduction more complete and WHOLEsome.
2. In light of my amateur study of Nazrul, I have written an article currently at my website "Toward Understanding Nazrul: The Rebel and More" [http://www.globalwebpost.com/nazrul/works_on_nazrul/articles/the_rebel.htm] . I would like to have candid - absolutely candid - feedback on this both for my own correction and enlightenment and for a better, more complete and truthful presentation of Nazrul.
Be specific; vague generalization, such as the following does not help: "I was so excited to find this page but as always, I only found a very incomplete picture of Nazrul. His is much larger than the picture painted here." Even my follow up contact with that person did not produce any specific information as to how my presentation was not complete and what would the person suggest to make it more complete.
HOME
Index of my writings
Have you visited my site on Kazi
Nazrul Islam?
Genocide
1971 Page?
Hadith
Humor Page?