ePaper_2nd Edition_October 19, 2016

More documents

Recommendations

Info

22 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2016 DT Opinion The truth behind the puja pictures Religious harmony is a two-way street • Samira Sadeque Since the Durga Puja celebrations began a few days ago, two photographs have been making rounds on my social media: One shows a girl in a hijab, presumably standing on her toes, excitedly trying to ring the bell at a temple. The other one shows a little boy in his Islamic attire (tupi and panjabi), standing in front of a temple, absorbed in the puja celebrations. I’ve seen a lot of friends share these photos, excited at the sense of religious harmony that these photos apparently represent -- Muslim boy in Hindu temple, Hijabi girl ringing the bell during a puja. How much better could it possibly get, especially at a time when the nation is fumbling to reestablish its secular identity in the face of rising religious extremism? But there’s a problematic truth that is ignored when we brand these photos as a representation of “communal harmony” -- and ignoring how it further perpetuates our loosening grip over the secular values the country was founded on. Every time I came across these photos, a question kept coming back to me: Would it be equally easy for people from other religions to be present inside a mosque during Eid celebrations? Doesn’t religious harmony mean an equal access of non- Muslims into mosques as Muslims have to other religious spaces -- in this case, a Hindu temple? Don’t get me wrong, I believe in religious and communal harmony as any other secular Bangladeshi does. I have nothing against either of these people being in the temples during puja. I myself celebrate puja with as much excitement as I celebrate Eid -- it is, after all, one of the most festive times of the year. Neither am I suggesting that the Hindu families don’t celebrate Eid with their Muslim friends and neighbours. But it wasn’t until I saw these photos being shared in spirit of “communal harmony” that I realised how one-sided the lens with which we view this “harmony” is. These photographs show, at best, the granted access Muslims, the mainstream population in the country, have to the holy place and home of the minority religions. But since we’re talking about religious harmony, how often Is this enough to bring religions together? do we welcome a woman with a sindoor or a purohit into a mosque? How often have you seen a non- Muslim being welcomed as openheartedly into a mosque during Eid? The only thing these photos prove, other than the undeniable hospitality of our Hindu brothers, is the entitled access Muslims enjoy in the holy spaces of other religions that are, at the same time, denied access into the holy space of Muslims in Bangladesh. That is the exact opposite of religious harmony. So, before we go on celebrating “religious harmony,” we need to Before we go on celebrating ‘religious harmony,’ we need to change the lens with which we view the issue in our country. Because these photos don’t represent religious harmony -- they represent a mere privilege one religious community enjoys by virtue of being the majority in the country change the lens with which we view the issue in our country. Because these photos don’t represent religious harmony -- they represent a mere privilege one religious community enjoys by virtue of being the majority in the country. • Samira Sadeque is a writer and journalist. You can follow her on Twitter @Samideque. COURTESY
Opinion 23 The politburo of literature? The Nobel committee does not singularly rule over the world republic of letters DT WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2016 Time for a new prize • Mahmud Rahman Another October, another Nobel for Literature, another round of controversy over the awardee. Some years, we hardly know the person, so we scramble to find out something about them, looking for bits of their writing online. Other years, like 2016, it goes to a more prominent person. Some are elated, others find the choice intriguing, while still others express disappointment that it didn’t go to someone else they consider more deserving. But it is only one prize given to a single person, and truth be told, every year there are dozens of valid contenders from around the world. I believe that the weakest critique of the Nobel is the one that criticises it for not recognising someone outside the European mainstream. From there, a question naturally arises: Why do we -- whether supporting the Nobel choice or opposing it -- behave as if the Nobel Committee is the anointed arbiter of world literature? Why do we act as if it’s the Politburo of the World Republic of Letters? In reality, the Swedish Nobel Committee is merely a handful of jurors from a small country of less than 10 million, speaking a language that is one of the smaller ones in the world. The current committee has five full members and two associates. They are all writers, some of them also professors, but I don’t know a thing about them or their writing. They are probably all white, and, for sure, all European and Swedish. It looks like three of the seven are women. Nominations come from writers and academics around the world, and the committee probably has staff that helps them select and read nominees. But, at the end of the day, given who they are, given where they are based, they will no doubt have a certain predilection for European/ REUTERS European-origin writers, and, over the long haul, will privilege European languages. Sometimes, they break the pattern of what’s expected of them, and those are always the interesting choices. I understand that the Nobel Committee set up the Literature Prize to be the first global literary prize. That was certainly gutsy of them. It helped that this was virgin territory, and perhaps because there were no other contenders, the Nobel Literature Prize would become known as the world’s premier award for literary work. Of course, it helped that the prize was based in a small, more or less neutral, European country, outside of the big-power divisions of world politics. But did people immediately accept it as the premier award for letters? Or was it seen as an interesting new fad, with people reserving judgment until it curated a list of awardees? I doubt people all rose to applaud when the first prize was announced in 1901 for the French poet René François Armand (Sully) Prudhomme. Yes, who? Though it broke new ground here and there -- awarding the prize to Tagore in 1913, for example -- and, to some truly deserving writers, for most of its first half-century, the Nobel Prize was known more for its misses rather than for its hits. It was more notable for who it left out. What did it mean when it awarded Pasternak, who’d been published outside Soviet censorship? Or then about Pablo Neruda, who’d sympathised with Soviet communism? It is probably after the Cold War sparks dimmed, and the Nobel broke ground reaching out to writers outside the mainstream, that many of us came to expect it as the arbiter of people of letters, only a small number were recognised. That’s vital to remember: Even in the Western tradition, more significant writers The weakest critique of the Nobel is the one that criticises it for not recognising someone outside the European mainstream. From there, a question naturally arises: Why do we -- whether supporting the Nobel choice or opposing it -- behave as if the Nobel Committee is the anointed arbiter of world literature? have been left out by the Nobel than recognised. And if we are to mention under-represented literatures, the Swedes must be among the unhappiest lot: Their Academy has only rewarded seven over the life of the prize. Still, despite outliers -- two Japanese, two Chinese, a few from Africa and the Caribbean -- the Nobel mainly privileges Western European writers and languages. When it reaches beyond, those of us from the world beyond Europe and North America applaud. But when it doesn’t, we are unhappy. How long has it been since the decolonisation of most of the colonised world? How long has it been that Japan has emerged as a major economic power from its WWII defeat? Or a number of Asian countries to emerge as developed economies? Or some African nations to rise as powerful countries? Why is it that no one outside the West, no one in the South or East, has come up with a literary prize that might be more open to recognising talent from other corners of the planet? Look at the alternatives to the Nobel. There are few. The Neustadt Prize is really the only other international award, and that’s run out of the University of Oklahoma. Both its jurors and its nominees are often quite interesting, but we don’t line up like clockwork every two years to await the Neustadt Prize like we do the Nobel. There are a few other prizes -- the Man Booker International Prize, the International Dublin -- but those tend to privilege the language English or translations into English. There are some prizes specific to other languages, such as French or Spanish, and there are also some regional prizes. In Asia, until 2008, there used to be a Magsaysay Prize in the Philippines for “journalism, literature, and creative communication arts.” There are plenty of billionaires and millionaires from the South and East today. No doubt, a few among them might even be partial to literature. Maybe. But why is it that no one has come forward to fund another international award that might be smarter than the Nobel? In the end, I think we are all complicit in handing over the role of “world arbiter of literature” to the Nobel Committee. Let’s admit it -- deep down, we all look towards Europe’s approval to decide what’s best in the world republic of letters. Our disappointment in the Nobel is a marker of our own insecurities, our lack of confidence. No doubt this will change one day. Perhaps someone in a country of the South and East, not tied up in international power politics, someone with passion and integrity, will bring forth a more inclusive international prize. Not just a copy of the Nobel, but a smarter prize. Until that day, we will perk up our ears every October and either celebrate or gnash our teeth at the latest decision from Stockholm. And after a new prize arrives, we will switch our glee or ire to that new prize. • Mahmud Rahman is a freelance contributor.
Page 1 and 2: SECOND EDITION WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1
Page 3 and 4: News 3 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2016
Page 9 and 10: World FBI records: Effort to reduce
Page 11 and 12: Advertisement 11 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER
Page 13 and 14: Business 13 DT WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1
Page 15 and 16: Business 15 World markets climb on
Page 17 and 18: Feature 17 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2
Page 19 and 20: Biz Info 19 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19,
Page 21: Opinion 21 Thailand as we knew it i
Page 25 and 26: England cricketers, led by Test cap
Page 27 and 28: Sport 27 ‘Summer to make or break
Page 29 and 30: Downtime 29 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19,
Page 31 and 32: CheckMate: Showtime No one has to f

ePaper_2nd Edition_October 19, 2016

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?