The New Nation - Internet Edition

No manuals on primary textbooks

ACCORDING to recent media reports, around 3.5 lakh primary schoolteachers across the country do not know what to teach their students as they could not be provided with manuals of the newly introduced textbooks in time. Under the new primary education curriculum, the government introduced new textbooks for the students from Class I to Class V between 2003 and 2006 academic years. The government was supposed to print and supply more than one crore copies of teachers' manuals much before they started teaching the lessons in new textbooks.

The primary schoolteachers were supposed to get 'such manuals with the textbooks before the start of classes' as per the new curriculum. The teachers are facing problems with new chapters, especially in Mathematics and English with the new type of communicative approach. Unless the teachers get manuals, it would be difficult for them to properly teach the students. The primary education adviser told the media that they have to depend on the supply of paper from the state-owned Karnaphuli Paper Mills to meet the shortage of paper that delayed the printing of teachers' manuals.

According to government statistics, more than 1.62 crore students enrolled at 80,401 primary schools and their equivalent institutions this year. There are more than 3.5 lakh teachers in these primary schools. The National Curriculum and Textbook Board has assured that it would start printing the manuals as soon as it received paper. Official sources could not say specifically when the manuals would reach the teachers though the year is almost running out. While drafts of manuals for classes III to V have reportedly been scrutinised but publication of those for Classes I and II are reported to be 'absolutely uncertain'.

Preventing kidney diseases

ACCORDING to experts, some forty thousand patients die of kidney failure in Bangladesh annually. About two crore people are suffering from kidney diseases. The number of patients is increasing at an alarming rate and has repeatedly doubled during the last ten years. The rate of chronic kidney disease has now risen to 18 percent. If the trend continues, the rate may rise to some 30 percent within another decade. One popular idea about the cause of the disease is less intake of water. But in many cases the disease is caused by viral attack. Diabetes and high blood pressure also damage kidneys. In addition to the above causes, some wrong practices of the people due to lack of awareness are also responsible for higher incidence of diseases.

Indiscriminate use of painkillers, antibiotics and other medicines without advice from qualified doctors is another key reason for kidney problems. Adulterated food containing harmful substances also induce the disease. Due to an inadequate number of specialists and high cost of treatment, in most of the cases, the disease cannot be detected at early stages. Treatment of kidney disease is too costly for the common people to afford. At least Taka two lakh is needed every year for a patient to undergo dialysis twice a week. Kidney transplantation is also very costly.

Awareness among the masses about the causes of the disease, ways of its prevention and treatment should be urgently increased for checking its spread. People must be discouraged from taking medicines by way of self-prescription. To help avoid this, medical services at cheap rates should be made available to the people. Physicians should also refrain from giving wholesale prescriptions. General practitioners appear to be liberal in respect of the prescription of pain killers even for simple headache, but graphologists find such drugs dangerous for kidneys.

Kazi Nazrul Islam : The poet of the world

M. Mizanur Rahman

Kazi Nazrul Islam [1899-1976] was one of the great exponents for the freedom of human spirit having the outstanding expressive quality of love for humanity in the realm of his poetical works. Though he is said to be the national poet of Bangladesh, his eminence has been far-reaching beyond the periphery of our narrow bound yet as one of the poets of the world. In his life time he spread his thought far and wide. He was violently rebellious against the ills of society in the then colonial unjust governance and illogical religious traditions and its hegemonistic parochialism. Consequentially his love for humanity is based on social, political and economic equality free from all sorts of want and slavery. But Nazrul was also affluent with sweet words of love in music and songs. Unlike William Shakespear's [1564-1616] famous lines as follows where Nazrul could be singled out-

'Not marble, nor the gilded monuments

of princes, shall outlive this powerful rime:

But you shall shine more bright in these contents

Than unswept stone, besmeared with sluttish time.'

Nazrul's genius beside Rabindranath Tagore [1861-1941] like a comet brought about a new era of revolution in Bengali literature swaying the British imperialistic colonial rule so vehemently that his predecessors could not but wonder. He fought the imperialists by his rebellious pen and won independence for the distressed masses of people. His poem "The Rebel" was unmatched and unparallel at that time along with other fiery poems of "Agni Vina", "Bisher Bansi" and songs "Bhanger Gaan" etc. He was not only a great poet but a great journalist of his age. He edited 'Dhumketu' [The Comet], through which he inspired the dormant people and awakened them. He could voice here the words of freedom very highly in a mode of declaration: 'We do not want autonomy. We want complete independence. Not a single inch of India will remain under the foreign domination. The responsibility of ruling India and safeguarding its freedom will lie in the hands of the Indians alone." Subsequently he edited the 'Langol (The Plough)' which became the mouthpiece of the Indian proletariat. He believed in socialism discarding capitalistic exploitation of the poor.

Each fiery and revolutionary poem of Nazrul Islam inspired and imbibed the revolutionaries unlike Jugantor created havoc for the imperialistic colonial rule in India. This reacted the then 'British Raj who proscribed works of Nazrul one after another. Even the poet was languished in jail for his rebellious writing but he was firm to advocate the voice of truth fearlessly and undauntedly.

Nazrul's anthology of poems 'Agnivina' was banned by the British government immediately after its publication in 1922. However Prof. Humayun Kabir being the member of the Bengal Council urged upon the government of India like another councillor Mouluvi Mohammad Faizullah to withdrow ban from 'Bisher Bansi' but they were not complied. Similarly 'Bhangar Gaan', and 'Chandrabindoo' were also proscribed. British government later banned 'Proloyshikha', another anti-British anthology of poems in 1931. The chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta Mr. T. Roxburg awarded him six month's R.I. "The Liberty of 31 March, 31, reported thus:

In this case the petitioner being one of the foremost poets in Bengal was convicted and' sentenced to 6 month's R.I. for being the author, printer, and publisher of a book of poems "Proloysikha" alleged to be seditious. The poet appealed to the High Court and under the provision of the Arwin Pact, as Achintya Kumar Sengupta says, he was acquitted of the sedition charge. Earlier the poet was jailed on sedition charge for the publication of 'Dhumketu' by the Chief Presidency Magistrate Mr. Swinhoe (who is said to be a poet himself). During the course of sentence for one year's rigorous imprisonment the poet started fasting unto death. Nobel laureate poet Rabindranath Tagore appreciated Nazrul and dedicated his play-let 'Basanto' with a piece of poem.

"Come, my comet,

Build a bridge of fire across the dark.

Let your banner fly in triumph

Over the fortress of gloom.

Be the night ever so full

Of dark portents,

Come, rouse those who lie half asleep,.

That they may wake up with a start."

Thus Tagore advised him to break the fast as saying, "Bengali literature claims you." This journalist-poet stirred the people of India and the world, at large translating the voice of Eugene Pottier and Walt Whitman with their song and poem in Bengali, "The International Song" and "Pioneer 0 Pioneer".

The sense of Internationalism surged the mental horizon of poet Kazi Nazrul Islam since proletariat revolution took place in Russia in 1917. His mind was also enthralled in the song of Eugene Pottier:

"No more tradition's chains shall bind us,

Arise, you slaves, no more inthrall

The earth shall rise on new foundations.

We have been naught, we shall be all."

Nazrul proclaimed freedom from the human slavery and chains professing equal rights of all mankind and synchronizing human race into a single entity. He opined in his poem "Cooli" [The Labourer]

"Let men of all ages and times

from every race and country

unite and set together

and hear the song of unity.

Today let us all be equal and free.

If anyone

of us is hurt

let us all feel the pain in equal degree.

Let the disgrace of one be considered

a shame to the whole of mankind."

(Tr. Sajed Kamal)

Nazrul felt that human values must be appreciated equally without any distinction. All evil desires of the crooked elements among the human beings must be nipped into the bud. So he said,

"No dirty, greedy and voluptuous ones should have any place on this sacred earth. This garbage must have to be burnt to ashes in the oven of the hell." (Tr. M. Mizanur Rahman)

Basically Nazrul never put himself on rest in any political ideology except the politics of social and economic equality for mankind. So he is frank and candid about the aim in life:

"I do not understand any 'ism' of any politics

What I know and believe is love of one Allah for all.

Those who preach distinctions between humankind

are the agents of the devil Satan that must fall.

Now their days are numbered."

[Tr. M. Mizanur Rahman]

As a matter of fact Nazrul could track the philosophy of the religion of Islam which always prefer social and economic equality between human beings irrespective of their creeds to diplomacy of politics: Now-a-days a phrase "Poverty alleviation" is on the run. It can never be achieved unless economic equality is restored fully in human society. which is the basic principle of Islam. That is why Maxwell in one of his articles on T.S. Eliot, "The humanist criticism on the poetry of T.S. Eliot." said, "While poetry is not religion, it is not unconnected with religion. With the advance of efficiency in applied science, and the resultant tantalising glimpses of a reconciliation between man and his surroundings, thinkers, by a kind of philosophical atavism, return to the position of the most primitive religions and expect from the god of science reward here on earth, with no thought now of any spiritual renewal. Denied, therefore, are those spiritual longings of mankind which can be answered by canalisation into purely material channels. This is a natural result of the remoteness achieved by love of humanity rather than of men."

It is obviously reasonable that man cannot live by bread alone but his thoughts must be construed to benefits of mankind also. Otherwise the devils of lust and avarice will eat out the vitals of humanity. Which is happening throughout the world where the true poet puts the standard of protest to awaken the distressed people in the truest sense of the terms. Man is fighting for his existence against death. But death caused by man against man is not at all desirable. Human qualities are supposed to be beneficial to human kind.

According to Carl Sandburg [1878-1967]

"The sea has fish for every man.

Every blade of grass has its share of dew.

The longest day must have its end.

Man's life? A candle in the wind, hour-frost

on stone.

Nothing more certain than death and nothing more uncertain

than the hour."

Our life is sustainable to economic liberty but our moral aspects of life are absolutely desirable to us. So what Sandburg philosophised life before us with acute perceptions:

"Money is power: So said one.

Money is cushion: So said another.

Money is the root of all evil: So said still another.

Money means freedom: So runs an old saying.

And money is all of these - and more.

Money pays whatever you want - if you have the money.

Money buys food, clothes, houses, land, guns, jewels,

men, women, time

to be lazy and listen to music.

Money buys everything except love, personality, freedom, immortality,

silence and peace."

Nazrul understood all these phenomena of money in life and he himself became trully a love-lorn poet dedicated to universal romance of poetry. He became the lyricist of a few thousand romantic love songs, be they liberal or devotional. Let me entertain my readers with some finest songs of Nazrul rendered by me in English.:

1.

What do you look for the endless sky?

That far-away God is with you at your home.

At times, she pats you at her lap as a Mother.

While as a Father he keeps you abreast

and becomes the dearest friend always giving himself up.

O blind mind, what makes you travel abroad as a pilgrim

and for which shrine?

Open your eyes and throw light around you.

You see Him smiling. It appears illusive.

He is an image of every shadow.

In different forms, in the guise of friend or foe,

He comes quitely, quitely to you.

In various names he calls you

And he calls you in various names.

2.

Your mind reflects in the mirror of the sky.

What an illusion for you O wayfarer Baul?

With the song of the lightening

the boat of my mind fares

by the tide of the river.

What does lightening apeak to the bewildered air

on the north-western end of the sky?

The madness of the water heaves abreast you

and takes away your every trifle.

Don't mind, keep everything away

and come with me on my way.

3.

After your name I became the Baul of the dusty way.

Lord Shyam in my one-string music

your song is attuned.

Now I put out the lamp of my room

for you are with me,

And wherever I go now my Brojodham is there

under the shady groves of the banian tree.

You took my worries away, the begging-can I bear.

Do you fill there your love I desire?

4.

Brother, I am a mad Baul. My temple is my body.

My Allah does not stay away from me.

He lies in the core of my soul.

In weal and woe He is with me.

My love and adoration stand for Him

I salute Him. He let me forget my shore,

He also forgets His own shore, forgets Brindabon-Gokul.

I join Him and become parted again.

He takes away my begging bag

And sings and dances with me.

On my play of one string musical instrument.

Some may understand me, some may not.

[Tr. M. Mizanur Rahman]

Nazrul's literary works have been translated in different languages of the world and his image as one of the world poets has been established.

The triumph of democracy

Mohsin Hamid

Given the bleak economic and security situation in Pakistan, it is easy to forget that 2008 has also been a year of positive events for the country.

February's elections proved that it is possible to hold free and fair polls in Pakistan, that in such circumstances undemocratic leaders such as Musharraf and his allies will be trounced, and (yet again) that the notion of broad public support for the parties of the religious right is a myth.

In the subsequent six months, the electorate has demonstrated another quality: patience. Despite sky-high inflation and crippling power shortages, Pakistan has not witnessed the sort of destabilising mass protests that history has shown Pakistanis to be capable of. Rather, frustrated though they are, people are prepared to wait. Seemingly by popular consensus, the democratic setup is being given time to find its feet.

Similarly, the resignation of President Musharraf is not only a sign of politicians implementing a core demand of their constituents but also a remarkable departure from the past. Consider how the country's first three dictators left power: Ayub Khan passed the baton to his successor as army chief; Yahya Khan departed after a catastrophic military defeat; Zia-ul-Haq died in a suspicious air crash. But Musharraf has given way to an elected government after being told firmly, yet with considerable restraint, that he must go or face the constitutional process of impeachment.

The volatility of Pakistan's history makes me cautious of claiming that something fundamental has changed, but I suspect it may have. Last year, images of Pakistani lawyers in suits clashing with staff-wielding police officers made the newspapers for good reason. It is significant that in a country where those in power (soldiers, tribal chiefs, bureaucrats, landlords, the wealthy) have traditionally mistreated the weak with impunity, the demand for the rule of law has gained mass support.

So popular has this cause become that even now, almost a year after Musharraf dismissed independent-minded members of the higher judiciary, politicians cannot wriggle free of expectations for their restoration. In my memory, this is perhaps Pakistan's first example of a secular, issue-based special interest group succeeding in setting the country's political agenda by winning over the electorate and creating a vote bank that politicians know they must take seriously. It is, in other words, a rousing example of democracy in action.

None of this would have been possible without the power of television. When I grew up, in the 1980s, public space in Pakistan was virtually nonexistent: political thugs controlled most university campuses; protest rallies were violently disrupted; being a journalist was a dangerous profession; theatre and dance were discouraged; and legal and informal rules erected hurdles to young women and men congregating together. The country's attention was kept fragmented - except for communication from the state, which exploited its monopoly on text books, radio, and television for purposes of propaganda. Musharraf (although he tried unsuccessfully to undo it in the end) opened up television to private ownership and allowed channels to operate freely. The impact on Pakistan cannot be overestimated. News programmes, talk shows, sitcoms, music videos, religious exegesis, cooking and fashion suddenly filled the nation's screens. A giant public space was created, and viewers flocked to it. Television has given Pakistan a truly open national forum for the first time in its history. Ideas are debated, leaders are assessed and criticised, and a nation of 170 million people is finally discovering, together, what it thinks.

Where this will lead is difficult to predict, especially as squabbling among the country's politicians or the action of outside powers could easily derail Pakistan's promising experiment with democracy. But if this does not happen, it is likely that Pakistan will continue to become more aware of, and more responsive to, the will of its own people.

This is no small development. The will of the people is not always a guide to what is morally right. But it is at least a guide to self-interest. And Pakistan has acted with remarkable frequency against its evident self-interest since its foundation. Failing to spend on education and health? Ignoring a chronic shortage of clean drinking water?

Accepting near-universal tax evasion by the rich? Opening the borders to heroin and weapons? Whatever one's politics, it is hard to believe that these are the policies most Pakistanis believe to be in their self-interest - but these are what, until now, they have accepted.

The world seems concerned with Pakistan primarily as an actor in global attempts to combat terrorism. As a democracy, Pakistan's role in this drama is likely to change because a great tension at the centre of the US-Pakistan alliance will increasingly be exposed.

That tension, in a nutshell, is this: most Pakistanis are anti-America. For a combination of reasons, and despite evident fondness for American products and individuals, my impression is that most Pakistanis have extremely negative views of the US as a geopolitical player. Building an alliance on such a foundation has been difficult. In the absence of highly unlikely reversals of US positions on a whole range of international issues, Pakistan's democracy and the power of the country's new national electronic forum will make maintaining the US-Pakistan alliance trickier still. Pakistani politicians may attempt to avoid the problem by hypocritically asserting one thing to America and another to the Pakistani people. But Musharraf has already discovered that Pakistanis are becoming aware of such double-speak and finding it repugnant.

The anti-America sentiment suggests that Pakistanis would like greater independence in their relationship with the US. But the moribund state of Pakistan's economy and the fraught nature of its security situation make the country utterly dependent on US aid and eager for hi-tech American weaponry. The challenge facing Pakistan's new leaders is to explain that Pakistanis cannot have both. If they are to satisfy their constituents, they will need to articulate a plan for increasingly putting Pakistan's interests first while gradually reducing the country's reliance on the US.

The US, for its part, will need to adjust to a Pakistan in which anti-America sentiment could seriously undermine US interests. The US can best do this by offering Pakistan not the appearance of an alliance but the equality and mutual respect that constitutes the substance of one. Pakistan's people have already demonstrated through the ballot that they reject the Taleban worldview, and the number of Pakistanis who died in terrorist attacks last year alone exceeds the number of Americans killed on 9/11. Pakistan should be allowed to determine how best to fight extremists on its soil. Pakistani solutions are likely to be slower and more cautious than US ones, but also, crucially, more sustained and popular, and therefore more effective in the long run.

It is by no means clear whether the US can be convinced to accept Pakistan's lead, especially as the implications for Afghanistan of doing so seem to clash with the muscular, foreign occupation-style approach being advocated by both US presidential candidates. Nor is it clear whether Pakistan's politicians can develop a strategy for delivering what voters want while addressing America's (and the powerful Pakistani military's) concerns. But democracy was never going to be easy. One can only hope that this time Pakistan's experiment with it will be allowed to succeed.