Ekushey: Symbol in distress

Shahid alam

Ekushey is an abstraction symbolically represented in the Central Shaheed Minar. If that sounds too basic in explaining Ekushey and the semiotics associated with it, then it apparently is, but it is also not off the mark. Symbol, as a scholar explains, is an “element of communication intended to represent or stand for a person, group, process, or idea…. Symbols are devices by which ideas are transmitted between people sharing a common culture. Every society has evolved a symbol system that reflects a specific cultural logic; and every symbolism functions to communicate information between members of the culture in much the same way as, but more subtly than, conventional language.”

Ekushey is very much a symbol, a mindset that illustrates the love for their language by the Bengalis. It is the symbol around which a series of political movements came to pass, which culminated in the emergence of sovereign, independent Bangladesh. That is no mean power of semiotics. That abstraction exemplifying an ethos has been given a concrete symbolic representation in the Shaheed Minar. One cannot be divorced from the other, not without hurting one of the very fundamental characteristics that make a Bengali a Bengali. It follows, then, that the abstract and concrete symbols should remain indivisible. However, to our collective horror, except for those who have shamefully debased this group sentiment, such a condition has been brought about. This needs more than a cursory look.

Simply, we have been reduced to witnessing the degrading spectacle of vulgarising an integral national symbol. If the national flag, the national anthem, and the Constitution are the most potent and tangible representations of the nation-state of Bangladesh, then surely Ekushey follows immediately as an equally potent, if more abstract, symbol of the nation. Oh, there is, of course, the Central Shaheed Minar as a solid and visible representation of the symbolism, but, really, it turns into a centre for paying homage to the language martyrs, as well as the Bengali language itself, from midnight that ushers in Ekushey February each year, year after year. And, for several years now, that symbol, one that emerged as the incipient mental and physical symbol of nationhood culminating in the nation-state of Bangladesh, has been in a continuous process of degenerating into an obscene grab by the political parties as a symbol of their personal fiefdom.

Something like land grabbing, but far, far, far worse than that. That is because the show of strength to be the first to lay floral wreaths at the Shaheed Minar is akin to hijacking the spirit of an entire nation. And that is criminal. The unseemly spectacle of jostling to be the “first”, of the party in power using its position to bulldoze everyone aside to enjoy the “privilege” and satisfaction of garnering the media's attention of recording and broadcasting the “first”, can only be perceived as vulgarising the very symbol itself. That, in effect, translates into the demeaning of the entire nation.

And one cannot overemphasise that Ekushey is a matter of semiotics for the entire nation of Bangladesh. The international dimension, that it has been recognised as International Mother Language Day, is something to be proud of, but the brutal truth is that possibly, nay, probably, a large number of heads of government/state are not even aware of it, let alone the general citizenry of their respective countries. But that is their matter; Ekushey and its symbolism belongs to us, the people of Bangladesh. Without meaning to sound too parochial, it, first and foremost, belongs to us, and the onus falls on us for preserving its dignity and gravity as a symbol. We have to restore it to the lofty pedestal that it rightfully belongs to, which is to be left in splendid isolation from political mud racking, from being turned into a momentary platform for political one-upmanship/gamesmanship, and, instead, be a unifying symbol for the entire nation. For this one day, politics be damned.

Amirul Rajiv

In his much talked-about book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996), Samuel P. Huntington offers this wonderful piece of thought: “Political leaders can make history but they cannot escape history.” They can do that all right --- they can make history from a positive, negative or indifferent standpoint. While a positive contribution will earn them accolades from chroniclers long after they have departed from the land of the living, those having a feeble impact run the risk of meriting an essentially by-the-way notice. That leaves those leaving a negative imprint. History is replete with villainous characters who have convulsed societies in various degrees of adversity. They have gained a perverse place of prominence in history, but that is inevitable. Verily, that does not make them figures to be lionised or emulated. They have not been able to escape history as they are usually reviled by those who read about their misdeeds.

History becomes progressively dispassionate in its judgment of characters and events the further it is removed in time from them. And, unless the naked politicisation of Ekushey is consigned to collective amnesia, history will no doubt harshly judge the perpetrators. But we cannot wait for history to pronounce its condemnation. Their acts need to be disparaged now, and be made history without fail. One of the more pronounced manifestations of dysfunctional politics in this country, ironically over the unbroken stretch of parliamentary democracy, has been virulent partisanship leading to unsavory events like symbol grabbing. Therefore, we have witnessed such shenanigans as even naming the smallest of bridges after a party stalwart, however shady a character that person might be. And, of course, we have cases galore of the more prominent institutions and structures being named after the more conspicuous, if not always the most honorable or deserving, party personages. This is preposterous. As if seeing a name prominently displayed as the nomenclature of a prominent structure would evoke a lasting sense of gratitude in all and sundry for the political party that carried out the anointment! Do the party leaders pause to think that many people might not even give a hoot to their acts of “benediction”, and might even look askance at their deeds, especially if they mull over deserving names who, to their great misfortune, do/did not have the stamp of a major political party distinguishing him/her?

Nonetheless, structures and institutions not infrequently wither away, taking their names with them. But potent symbols, like Ekushey and the Shaheed Minar, endure. They do so because they are in the hearts and minds of the people. They cannot wither away even after the physical demise of an individual, because they will be in the hearts and minds of each succeeding generation. Playing dirty politics with them is tantamount to insulting the people of the country. Some things must be left alone. Like the Shaheed Minar from political parties and politicians from muscling in to lay the first wreath over there. It is dishonored by that act. Decorum does not cost much, if anything. Not too long ago, the Shaheed Minar was dignified with solemn men, women, boys, and girls silently, or with the magical Ekushey song on their lips, paying their tribute to a symbol. As things have gone on over the last several years, those drooping tops of the Shaheed Minar structures might be mourning more than the loss of the language martyrs.

................................................................................................
Shahid Alam is Head, Media and Communication Department, Independent University, Bangladesh.