"Ka" controversy

"Ka" controversy

Now, we are talking about her recent book "Ka". People are going crazy about the sexual contents, very few are talking about it's style and structure. As a reader, I am yet to be impressed by Ms. Narin's ability to write fictions or novels, but her columns always had some points, though (once again) she often lacks scholarship or quality argument to claim them. My earnest request to all, please do not create a media hype. Instead of worrying about it sexual contents (which should be perfectly fine if it meets the need of the artistic expression), try to judge the book from a literary point of view, and refrain from creating another useless, tasteless hotcake like Lojja.

Mr. Bari from Khulna blamed Ms Nasrin for seeking limelight. Well, it's the critiques who gave her the limelight, and its neither Ms Nasrin's fault nor is a credit attributable to her talent. It's our senseless sensitivity to anything sexual and unconventional that caused her to be famous.

I find Mr. Syed Shamshul Haq's article, " I speak of the freedom of the pen," published as editorial, is highly evasive, self-righteous, self-contradictory, and hypocritical by nature. For, in his article, to offer an apology of his action, what Mr. Haq wrote tantamount to cliché political slogan, without any intellectual or aesthetic substance. It evinces that carefully Mr. Haq has avoided logical interpretation to gave the readers a serious defence of his action. Besides, his arguments contain inherent contradictions that a careful analysis reveals: First, how Mr. Haq can argue that banning a book saves freedom of pen? This is the millennium old justification employed by self-appointed moral guardians. If Taslima had delineated fictitious account, as Mr. Haq alleges, all he could have claim, is removal of relevant pages or section of the book, instead, as he had requested the judge to ban the book per see, it deprives readers right to know as well as freedom of pen of which Mr. Haq champions! Should Mr. Haq believes in such a logic of banning the book, then half of his novels (?) could be banned, as time and again, serious critics such as Humayn Azad, have accused his novels bordering on pornography and plagiarism.

Second, when the majority of Bangladeshis felt disgust against Taslima Nasrin's repeated assault on religious personalities, including the prophet of Islam, to defend her, among others, Mr. Haq was most vocal. Bangladeshis remember how Mr. Haq had condemned Khaleda Zia's attempt to ban other books of Mrs. Nasrin earlier. It indicates that what Mr. Haq does, is apply a double standard, as his action suggests that slandering becomes all right with Mr. Haq, if the victim belongs to his opponent group, but in his case, is not acceptable.

Third, to refute Taslima Nasrin's claim, Syed Haq did not proceed to invalidate her arguments, supplemented with evidence. That is to say, Mr. Haq accepts the fact that what Taslima describes actually took place, as Nasrin tells her readers. In other words, in the name of saving freedom of expression, Syed Haq attempts to suppress the truth in which contrary to his lifelong support for Western mode of life, to make water muddy by exploiting cheap sentiment, invokes anti-Western diatribe suggesting that West likes to belittle the East!

In sum, it is pathetic to notice that how Mr. Haq fails to convince his readers about his action. Given his writing skill, he could have present a solid apologia pro scripta sua, and that the Syed Haq episode, in my opinion, in reality, is a classic example of poetic justice, as throughout her trajectory rise of fame through sensationalism, it was Mr. Haq, who staunchly had patronised her!

Curzon Chatterjee, Stanford University, Stanford, California