No place for independent thinking in creativity environment of Bangladesh

When thinking about the intellectual world and arts-literature of Bangladesh, many thoughts arise that I wish to write and express; but I cannot. Looking at the surrounding scenes, writing on this subject feels very difficult. It seems as if the very active people are moving through a kind of intense frenzy, almost everyone else is indifferent. No one wants to look toward anything exceptional. Is this environment conducive to creation? Where is the all-encompassing creation now in the world of thought and literature in Bangladesh?

Is Europe and North America creative now? Across the world, there now prevails an anti-creative environment. In the countries of the South, the tendency to blindly follow the North is now stronger than at any time in the past. The question is, is creation ever possible through blind imitation? In the name of creation, non-creation is taking place.

The Euro-American dominators are imposing various things upon the weaker nations with vile intentions. Europe and America have been submerged in a crisis of civilization since the time of the First World War. The populations of Bangladesh, caught under this pressure, have become completely disoriented. They have not overcome the crisis. Bangladesh is being labeled as a 'failed state.' In this regard, in the community of Bangladeshi writers—in poetry, stories, novels, plays, political thought, social thought, science, history, philosophy, or organised efforts—no particular concern, anxiety, or curiosity can be observed. What a terrible time this is! The era of Akshay Kumar–Vidyasagar–Madhusudan–Bankim, the era of Rabindranath–Sarat Chandra–Rokeya–Nazrul, the era of Buddhadeva–Jibanananda–Sudhindranath, the era of Bibhutibhushan–Tarashankar–Manik, the era of Humayun Azad–Taslima Nasrin–Humayun Ahmed—how different is this era of so-called civil society and NGO elites!

Rabindranath wrote in front of the modernists:
"To gain fame in literature without the value of truth is theft,
Not good, not good—that fake amateur labour."

Rabindranath did not find truth in the nihilism of the modernists. What would he have written if he had the chance to see today's condition? The mention of Rabindranath has come contextually; that is not the main point; what we feel and think today—that is the main thing.

When a writer identifies themselves as a modernist, postmodernist, surrealist, structuralist, post-structuralist, symbolist, existentialist, Marxist, Renaissance supporter, etc., they are expressing their mental state. Each follower of a particular ideology resides in a distinct mental condition. I do not see much initiation these days, yet writers easily fall into being followers of one ideology or another. One who follows an ideology—does he ever try to understand the true nature of his own mental state? Where is the self-inquiry? ‘Ātmanam viddhi’, ‘know thyself’—such words are no longer uttered, even mistakenly, in this Bangladesh. In following ideologies, everyone now follows a predetermined pattern. Many prefer to move through blind alleys rather than seeking the main road. Some do speak loudly about ‘freethinking’; but true independent thinking is rare among them—others are not even worth mentioning. One who lacks independent thinking—how can they create? Is creation possible within the mold of a thought structure formed by any ideology?

Life and the world, aham and idam, "the relation of human nature with external objects," the beautiful and the ugly, and matters of right-wrong and good-evil—each of the aforementioned ideologies has its own declared or undeclared attitude, viewpoint, and method of judgment toward these. Does each ideology lead its followers toward great creation?

In some respects, one ideology may have similarities with another. But that is not the main point—distinctiveness is the essence. That is why, even within the same country and era, they remain different. In reality, they are mutually antagonistic. When someone in the literary world joins a particular school or group and loses their distinctiveness by drowning in conventional thinking, prevailing emotions, blind actions and reactions, and the frenzy of victory and defeat, then—though they may become a subject of much discussion in the media and public discourse—they no longer remain notable as a writer. Over time, in the history of creation, at most they may hope for the courtesy of being mentioned by name, and that too not for their creation, but for keeping the creative environment heated. Many write in hopes of receiving awards and, for that purpose, form syndicates. By being part of these syndicates, they end up receiving awards.

I believe that no one can properly utilize their creative potential if they enter the competitive arena of winning or losing in the world of writing. To fully realize one’s creative capacity, what is primarily needed is an independent, truth-seeking, and receptive mindset, along with a genuine sense of beauty. In every era, in every language, there are many writers. It is natural that each one, without infringing on others' rights, expresses their own feelings, realizations, thoughts, and opinions through their work. The opportunity to express diverse opinions is desirable. In such a space, how appropriate is the mindset of defeating one another? Is the mere pursuit of victory and defeat even desirable? What is needed in the community of writers is peaceful coexistence and the pursuit of truth and beauty. In the quest for truth, both those who prove themselves right and those who make mistakes contribute. Progress toward truth does not occur through one person or one group alone. A dialectical process operates, knowingly or unknowingly, in everyone. If one is a seeker of truth, both parties can be creative and worthy of respect. Victory or defeat is trivial in this context. In a truth-driven creative effort, mutual discussion—supportive or opposing—is inevitable and essential. Just as struggle is needed, so is understanding. If one party seeks to eliminate the other in a work environment, the outcome is harmful.

Truth is something that inherently contains absolute justice, absolute welfare, and absolute beauty for all. Truth is a social construct. Within society, every individual holds a unique sense of justice, beauty, and universal welfare. Truth is the distilled essence of everyone's sense of justice, beauty, and welfare. Truth is a matter of realization. It is not an ultimate fixed state; it evolves. However, the evolution of truth happens at a very slow pace. Throughout human history, truth has remained elusive. Will it remain so for eternity? We don’t know. What we can say is this: to live a good life, one must adhere to truth—without adherence to truth and imagination of the future, life lacks meaning. Even if one subscribes to an ideology, one must uphold a commitment to truth. Any ideology that excludes truth must be discarded. Fact and Truth are not the same, but it is through facts that we arrive at truth, and it is by holding onto truth that we advance in creation. Facts cannot be excluded as the foundation of truth. However, facts alone do not constitute truth. A memorable quote by Rabindranath Tagore comes to mind: "Not everything that happens is true. Know this, that the poet’s Ram-born inner land is truer than the historical Ayodhya.” The age in which people believe that “truth shall prevail” is the age of truth.

Someone who understands truth in this way cannot be swept away by the blind reaction of victory and defeat in art and literature. Drawn by the pull of truth, notions of material gain or loss, success or failure, or victory and defeat will not take root in their mind. They may make mistakes, and they may correct them. They will look for what is worthwhile even in their opponents. To them, both giving and receiving are valuable. Generally, they will be respectful and empathetic toward others, not quick to see others as enemies.

They will remember that human nature is reformable. What we see in the world of writers today is a great desire to give, and a dire lack of receptivity. Live and let others live. Love and be loved. These will be the guiding principles of a true writer’s life. Alongside competition, there will also be cooperation. They will consider both unity and conflict, and conflict and unity, as important. Conflicts will be about the nature of truth and how to establish it. The ultimate aim will be absolute truth. While seeking flaws in others, they will also look for flaws in themselves. They will not consider themselves above error. Refinement and correction will be their goals. They may harbor a desire to defeat, but only those who are unrepentantly corrupt—not others. They won’t label just anyone as unrepentantly corrupt, nor will they be swept away by the heat of the moment. In this, they will engage in wide and deep inquiry. Unity–conflict–unity will be their main principle. Only in the case of unrepentant wrongdoers will it be conflict–division–victory/defeat. A genuinely positive, constructive outlook will be the inner driving force of a true artist or writer. Judging between good and evil, beauty and ugliness, and staying true to one’s conscience, they will take the side of what is good and beautiful.

In this age of advanced technology, books, booklets, and magazines are being published in ever greater numbers with dazzling appearances, yet without judgment of value or moral compass. Art is also being produced. The growing influence of electronic media is not diminishing the expansion of print media. Online activities are increasing, and through these, people are now able to gather and disseminate vast information on any subject in a very short time. To work on any subject, a vast archive of data can be built in just a few hours. In this situation, the sheer abundance of data often makes the work harder. In reality, such neatly arranged data does not enrich the best sides of human feeling and thought. In research and journalism, what is presented in the name of value-free and objective reporting often results in good and bad being lumped together, with bad taking precedence. Truth and falsehood, justice and injustice, right and wrong, good and bad, beauty and ugliness—these considerations are missing in research and reporting. In terms of thinking and moral judgment, people in general are now in decline.

Across much of the world, people’s state in terms of values is nearly identical. Meaningful inquiry and sound thought are being crushed before they can mature. In facing evil forces, good is being defeated, beaten, and failing. In a world of mechanical abundance moving at an incredible pace—unimaginable even a century ago—it's becoming increasingly difficult to stay informed about books, writers, literature, and evolving feelings and insights, or to form a modest but balanced moral judgment. If scientific perspective, moral values, and ethical awareness were integrated into knowledge, arts, and journalism, the problems wouldn't be so complex. Along with objectivity, truthfulness is essential.

The research system in universities—aimed at career advancement and promotions—is distorting and destroying the intellectual capacity of young teachers. It does not allow their curiosity and inquiry to develop naturally. It is destroying their talent. Under the pressure of poor conditions, they are forced into research that brings no joy. Researchers are granted little freedom of thought, judgment, or expression. Their theses and dissertations serve almost no purpose beyond their own career advancement and promotions. In both governmental and private institutions, research often boils down to tailored data collection. The intellectuals of the ruling class are almost entirely co-opted by so-called donor agencies and development partners; they do not think of national interests.

Writers come in many schools. Outside of a school, it is difficult for anyone to survive as a writer. In this society, anyone who tries to pursue good work independently is branded in ways that sabotage their progress. If you search for noble creation, you will see that every school has failed, become barren and unproductive. Perhaps no school has a noble goal at all. Attempts to form centers of creativity fail. It is a strange reality. There is envy and hostility, factionalism and tension—but no true collective or organization of writers in a meaningful sense. Some writers, swept away by traditional political fervor, divide people by casting backward-looking glances: one group speaks in terms of “forces supporting the Liberation War vs. forces against it,” while another says “forces supporting the two-nation theory and Bangladeshi nationalism vs. those against it.” Though the language of division differs, the fracture among the people is identical. Leaders from both camps have turned this division into a permanent fixture. Neither side shows enough welfare-oriented thinking. We must realize that national unity and progress are impossible while maintaining this division.

NGO leaders and intellectuals of so-called civil society work under foreign patronage, executing the plans of foreign masters. Both print and electronic media—domestic and foreign—are under their control. The discipline of criticism has not been developed. Socialism, democracy, religion—everything has been rendered meaningless.

In such a situation, many are writing whatever they please. For the past four decades, provocative writing on religion, women, and politics has become very popular. Drawn by popularity and commercial success, some writers have abandoned their sense of welfare and crossed the boundaries of taste and decency, endangering their own lives. Taslima Nasrin lives in exile; Humayun Azad lost his life; Jahanara Imam died fighting a legal battle; Ahmad Sharif spent years appearing in courts over 23 lawsuits; Shawkat Osman died writing Shekher Sambhara and Rahnama. The BBC was very active in supporting movements against fundamentalism, feminist movements, and for free, fair elections. Excluding behind-the-scenes actors, BBC radio was the primary promoter of these movements. Bangladesh’s so-called progressive writers were heavily invested in these BBC-led campaigns. They did not consider the consequences, outcomes, or imperialist intentions of the BBC. Local media followed the BBC blindly without scrutiny. While analytical and evaluative thought did exist outside of convention, the media gave them no importance. Neither of the established factions welcomed them. Both sought to eliminate new, progressive thought.

In this anti-creative reality, the terms modernity and postmodernity—borrowed from a decaying West—are loudly echoed in the realms of literature and art. Most active writers and artists are either modernists or postmodernists. But the proper terms should be modernism and postmodernism. Words like modern, modernity, modernization, and modernism have distinct meanings. Etymological or dictionary definitions won’t help; we must understand how the ideologues themselves use these terms. We must also assess their goals and outcomes. Modernists and postmodernists are hostile to the Renaissance. Their inquiry diverges radically from that of the Renaissance.

In the creative realm, there are ideologies and schools, but there is also independent thinking. In Bangladesh’s creative sphere, space for independent thought is being systematically denied. To foster creativity, we need both fresh inquiry and a true understanding of prevailing thought. To shape the future, we must also reconfigure our understanding of the past. Therefore, it is necessary now to understand the Renaissance, Modernism, and Postmodernism together and in full depth. Here, I will briefly share a few of my insights. My aim is to present a viewpoint. Through broad discussion and criticism, we can refine, renew, develop, and make our thoughts effective. Otherwise, inertia will replace progress.

Abul Kashem Fazlul Haque: Linguist and former professor, Department of Political Science, University of Dhaka