The transcendental voice

Bengali playwrights from the 1970s have dwelt on the socio-political reality of Bangladesh.  Plays were written and staged to capture the time.  Syed Shamsul Haq's Nuroldin has linked Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman with the rebel Bengali consciousness of the past.  There is a fine line between subordination and domination.  When subornation is vindicated, we would expect domination.  This universality of human behaviour divides the two positions, and to some degree it is responsible for continuation of subjugation and subordination.  The conflict of rebel peasant turning Nabab as an internal conflict of Nuroldin is externalised in the internal level of Scene xiii of the play.  Abbas represents this notion, for Nuroldin's passage to the oppressive class. Nuroldin's vehement opposition to such accusation is suggested violently when "he presses strongly the lips of Abbas".  This is not true and it is suggested in the internal level by informing that the peasants are not fully prepared for any rising for a revolution.

For the dramatic structure of the text the rebel consciousness is built strongly by a long speech of Nuroldin:

Nuroldin:  I am waiting to see,
     In every mind, the fire of mine is burning.
     I am waiting to see,
     Everyone's fire burning all the thorns
     I am waiting to see,
     Again rivers flowing full with water.
     I am waiting to see,
     Again the Bengal's chest is filled with alluvial soil.
     I am waiting to see,
     Again the peasant ploughing the fields and sowing   
seeds.
     I am waiting to see,
     Smell of new rices filling the country.
     I am waiting to see,
     My cow is giving milk endlessly.
     I am waiting to see,
     People are building houses without fear.
     I am waiting to see,
     People have sweet soft dreams at night.
     I am waiting to see,
Hundreds of red shimul flowers blooming.
     I am waiting to see,
     In my son's hand there is future.
     I am waiting to see,
     My daughter has good dreams. (xiii.135)

The divide between subordination and domination revalues the concept of throne by foregrounding Nabab and throne, which are to be avoided, as these will bring chain again.  When breaking of chain means breaking the cycle of subordination or subalternity, then it marks an end to the human economic life cycle - a cycle that exploits the subaltern as an economic factor.  By stereotyping as economic labour it extracts all that is life enhancing.  Clearly subalternity is a fruit of economic explanation of life.  Though colonisation starts with the territorial invasion - but it needs to be manifested in exploitation of the population and subalternity is a trait or marker for the act of exploitation.  Nuroldin wants to see the end of repressive domination from all types of thrones.  He wants to see a future in which the basics of peasants' existence are realised.  By articulating his dream, Nuroldin contradicts the fear of his becoming a Nabab.  A Nabab stands for renaming the peasant oppression, and this speech powerfully denies this accusation.  This puzzling aspect of peasant rebellion is used to suggest to the audience by invoking the danger that lies side by side in 1980s actuality of elite political life that the proper articulation of democracy works when the elite socio-cultural scenario is prepared to practice democracy otherwise it will lead to the violence of autocracy.  Thus this scene represents the dramatist's power to impose meaning on Nuroldin's conflict.

Nuroldin:  Abbas, come near,
     Touch my forehead,
     Touch here and see,
     Sharp horn growing, growing.
     See my knee gets powerful muscles,
     See the wave of strength jumps in my body,
     Goes away, goes now,
     Voice shout,
     Not in animal's voice, but human tongue-
     'Hey everyone, rise, where you everyone.'  (xiii.137)

Nuroldin attains a transcendental voice that calls to rise with vigorous strength to face the brute force of domination.  But Haq insists upon the point. Despite his use of codes from the peasant world, yet the speech reveals a voice.  It also gives the audience a voice with which they could identify the voice of Bangabandhu.  At this point of climax Nuroldin signifies a voice of rising against all the antagonistic forces to Bengali Nationalism and democracy.

The endangered time

To understand the textual dynamics of Nuroldin, we need to analyse the time when the play was staged in Bangladesh - the late 1970s and 1980s.  First comes the liberation war of 1971 and its aftermath have become the predominant concerns for the intellectual elite of Bangladesh.  To indicate the importance of the war, Feldman says:

A second feature around which the interests of Bangladesh emerge is the rape and mutilation of women and their kin, as well as the systematic murder of the country's intellectual elite during the liberation struggle.     . . . Moreover, the proximity of the liberation war experience, its horror and the belief that Partition and the language movement were natural precursors to independence is supported by the finding that most social and political histories of Bangladesh offer only scant mention of the anti-colonial struggle and Partition in the 1940s (173).

There was an overwhelming quest to discover the resisting Bengali self in art, literature and history.  There was an attempt to revive and re-flow the consciousness of resistance of freedom-loving Bengalis of East Bengal and now Bangladesh.  The efforts are manifested in placement of the spirit of resistance in contemporary Bangladesh.  The progressive elite intellectuals have rediscovered in Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, "the best of all Bengalis" (Ghosh B 304, my translation), the symbol of Bengali Nationalism.

The euphoria of freedom was short-lived.  The killing of Bangabandhu and four other front-ranking Awami league leaders by a few junior non-regular Military officers put the Bangladeshi political scenario back to the days of Pakistani type Martial law.  In the post-1975 Bangladesh, the military generals, Ziaur Rahman and Ershad reintroduced the politics of religions practiced in Pakistan of 1947 to 1971.  The state principles of Secularism, Socialism, Democracy, and Nationalism introduced by Bangabandhu were reversed to the Military-religious formula of running corrupt reactionary governments with the socio-economic policies conducive to the rise of a business group who exploited the freedom guaranteed by the regimes.  Feldman writes about the process of resistance to the Military and politics of religion:

Concurrent with the rise of communal violence in India in the early 1980s has been the struggle against the military regimes of Zia Rahman and General Ershad in Bangladesh, including challenges to the passage of the 8th Amendment in 1988 which redefined Bangladesh as an Islamic state.  This Amendment, passed under General Ershad, was the culmination of an alliance formed between the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, of Zia Rahman and the Islamist Party, Jamaat-e-Islam.  Constructing political legitimacy under Zia included moving away from Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's commitment to a secular state and lifting the sanctions on extremist religious parties with the passage of the 1977 constitutional amendment that substituted this commitment with the words, 'absolute trust in Allah'.  Under both military regimes there was an increasing representation of religious political parties with a recognised voice in political decision making under Ershad.  (173-4)

Along with political rationalisation of Military autocracy by revival of politics with religion, these regimes gave licence to communalisation of Bengali national culture.  The communalisation permits import of oposankskrithi or bad culture from the Western consumer world in place of local cultural artifacts.  For example, the regime of General Ziaur Rahman started to telecast the American television shows, which were vulgar and obscene from the Bengali cultural standpoint.  There was a media projection of distortion of the history of liberation war of Bangladesh.  There was superimposed history, which wanted to deny the liberation of Bangladesh as a culmination of self-determination of Bengalis from 1947.  The struggle that manifested in 1952s Language movement was the indication of Bengali discontentment and to separate East Bengal from a fictitious religion based nationalism.  Bangabandhu and his Awami League became the two inseparable names in the realisation of Bangladesh.  The media under Zia's regime wanted to distort this history.  In the analysis of Nuroldin, the description of "the endangered time" helps us to understand the discursive strategies of Haq.

The prologue opens with the monologue of Sutradar.  This device is drawn from the ancient Indian dramatic tradition of Sanskrit.  Sutradar is an instance of the playwright's intervention in the performance by outlining the moral or teaching of fable in performance of a text.  If seen from this point of view, the following speech of Sutradar relates all the movements from 1783 peasant insurgency to contemporary elite-led movements for democracy as one platform, and conflates two different struggles: one for democracy at the state level, and one for the survival of the peasant: 

Sutradar: . . . Nuroldin's home was in Rangpur [a district in Bangladesh]
Nuroldin called the people in Rangpur
In 1189 [1783 in Christian calendar]
Again the Bengal seems to remember Nuroldin
Seems to remember Nuroldin
When vultures come down to the golden Bengal
Nuroldin comes to memory
When my dreams are stolen 
Nuroldin comes to memory
When in my own country blood flows down to earth from  
my body
In history's every page. (Prologue. 60-1)

While the peasant rebellion of 1783 under the leadership of Nuroldin is invoked by "Nuroldin called the people in Rangpur"; the playwright emphasises its different function for the audience.  Focusing on the power of the consciousness to rebel and on the collective feeling of necessity to protest the unjust, the playwright connects the consciousness to the social function of the theatre, and this theatrical function makes Nuroldin's presence a signifier of rising every time the nation is face to face with crisis.  Such crisis may take the form of establishing democratic rights of people at the state level.  The movements against the anti-force of political despotism is not an easy one, rather it becomes often bloody.  Whatever the crisis may be the playwright needs the performative presence of Nuroldin to arouse the collectivity of the protest. 

Sutradar:  The tale of Nuroldin as if in the whole country
     Like the hilly rivulet flooding away everything
     The wretched rises with the hope 
     That again Nuroldin will come back to Bengal
     Again Nuroldin one day in black full moon
     Will call, "Rise, everyone, where you everyone?'(Prologue 61)

Sutradar does appeal imitating Nuroldin's call, "Rise, everyone, where you everyone?" (Prologue).  It is an appeal not to rise up against any oppressor of the peasants, but to voice their protest for the immediate purpose of restoring democracy at the state level.  The audience is appealed to fight the collaborative forces, a part of the elite that has opposed the liberation movement, and to protest against the then Government of the late 1970s and 1980s which tried to rehabilitate the collaborators.  Here it is pertinent to illuminate about the collaborative section of the elite of Bangladesh.  This section surfaced prominently in Bangladesh from the 1971 war of liberation against West Pakistan.  The traces of this section are easily be discerned from the British India.  It is the faction that utilised the religious belief of the people as means to divide the Indian subcontinent.  With partition of the subcontinent this section was the main beneficiary of the new religion-based state of Pakistan.  The war of liberation is to come out of this religious state frame where religion is used to exploit.  This faction directly opposed the war of liberation in it's own interest.  When in 1975, Bangbandhu, the first Prime Minister in the liberated Bangladesh was killed; this faction was rehabilitated in the state machinery and other walks of life by the Military regimes of Ziaur Rahman and Ershad.  Since the elite needs the consciousness to rise to face the crises, Nuroldin's theatrical presence enables the playwright to arouse the audience to reset the democratic principles and abolish the collaborative faction.

The name 'Nuroldin' functions as a dense signifier for the audience.  It is supposed to create a sense of urgency to protest against the despotic-dictatorial rule that the country is undergoing.  It attacks the political process that rehabilitates the anti-people and anti-liberation faction of the country of 1970s, and 1980s.  Again, the peasant insurgency that Nuroldin stands for is a metalepsis being used to appeal to the audience.  

The metaleptic reading of Nuroldinas allegory bringing in the past is repeatedly suggested by the supra-structure of the play.   The mise-en-scène changes, the sound of the bullhorn bugle takes the stage to the world of Nuroldin's insurgency of 1783 [1191 in Bengali year] in Scene i as Sutradar exits.  In the performance note to the scene, we are introduced to a constant sound of bullhorn bugle and we are introduced to two members of the Red Chorus, who are under the influence of a dream.  In this dreamlike space they hear the voice of Nuroldin from the past, "Rise, everyone - hey where are you everyone?" (i.63)

Additionally, the parable of the contemporary democratically elected leader turning into a Nabab-like autocrat is given a performative articulation, which is circumscribed with the images of a dancer. Descriptions of the process that makes a Nabab suggests that the allegory in the play also functions to surface the danger that lies at the edge of elite parliamentary democracy.  The play makes such use of the figure of a dancer - its possibilities of dancing of its own, and dancing by the direction from others - the act of dance suggests that it is the elite who elect, and make a leader also possesses the dangerous power to push an elected leader into becoming a "Nabab."  The "Nabab" as a link to the peasant rebellion of 1783 illustrates a deadly chain that is going to take the democratic freedom. 

Abbas:  Whose fault?  One who dances, or who directs the dancer?
     Dance, brothers, dance, dance lifting him on your head,
     Dance the umalydhumaly dance ,
     Hold an umbrella over his head 
     Why just control yourself calling him a leader?
     Why don't you call him a Nabab?
     Make him a Nabab on throne
     I don't like that, nothing makes me happy. (iv.76)
    
The sarcastic rhetoric of Abbas suggests that there is a fine line between democracy and autocracy, the process that makes democratically elected popular leader can by the over-allegiance to that leader makes a despot.  The audience is reminded of this danger.  The audience should accept the solution:

Abbas:  With patience - with patience make ulghullan [movement]
Let it take, brothers, one two, or three generations.  (xiv.140)

It is with the concern to avoid Nababmaking process that Abbas suggests to continue the democratic movements for generations.  Since the democratic process moves on a fine line, the thoughtful and tireless movement for democratic norms proved to be a reasonable way to work with.

The play overtly refers to the killing of the head of state of Bangladesh, Bangabandhu in 1975, for, as his killing suggests the anti-force of collaborators and autocracy to be established in power.    He was an immensely popular leader who gave himself to the cause of Bangladesh, and led the country in its struggle to come out of the state frame of Pakistan.  It was realised through a bloody war of liberation against the then despotic forces of the western wing of Pakistan.  Bangabandhu in the liberated Bangladesh became an icon of Bengali nationalism.  He is the first voice of freedom from the inception of British Raj in Bengal in 1757 which was made possible by overthrowing the last free ruler of Bengal, NababSirajuddaulah, by the local collaborators of the East India Company, so his killing is a threat to freedom.  In Nuroldin, the entry of the first free voice is heralded by the inclusion of the slogan of Bangabandhu:

The gold of the golden Bengal remains in Bangladesh.
The gold of the golden Bengal remains in Bangladesh.
The gold of the golden Bengal remains in Bangladesh. (xiii.136) 

The slogans exemplify the threat the nation faces is equivalent to reinstallation of the colonising forces.  In particular, it reflects the exploitation of the country's resources by foreign powers.  It reminds the audience about the fundamental danger of colonisation that does not allow the right of ownership on own wealth.    

The contemporary relevance of the supra-structure of the play is also exemplified by the theme of the voice of freedom that gives birth to a hundred thousand voices of freedom.  If thousands of voices originate from one single voice of freedom then the killing of Bangabandhu, the founder leader of Bangladesh cannot bring an end to the struggle for freedom:  

Nuroldin:  . . . What should I think about, Abbas?  
     If I die, I don't have repentance for that.
     If I die, the life-force will not die.
     If one Nuroldin departs,
     Thousands of Nuroldins will come to Bengal.  (xvi.139)

Again a democratically elected voice of freedom cannot turn into an autocrat, as he is one of the people.  The message of the text suggests that Bengali nationalism is the uniting force to face the counter-liberation forces.  If the future generations are raised with the ideals of Bengali nationalism then there will not be birth of the collaborators who signify transfer of wealth to their foreign masters.

Dr. Khairul Chowdhury studied English literature at Dhaka University and is currently an academic in Australia