September 23, 2021


Latest online bangla news | bd, world, Sports, photo, video live | Norobotsverification

A healthy culture of argument, satire and dissent

The first example of newspaper publishing was probably in China, in the sixteenth century. Since then, several magazines have been published in various European countries, especially in England, in the seventeenth century. The French king, the Tsar of Russia, did not want any newspaper to be published in their country. Even in the midst of this thunderbolt, professional journalism developed in France, during the French Revolution. Many newspapers were published at the initiative of the people for and against the revolution, 189 and beyond, so that writers and journalists used to criticize and ridicule each other. Caricatures were also printed in these newspapers with sarcastic allusions to kings, queens, ministers, bureaucrats and revolutionaries. So cartoons and magazines are almost the same age. Although Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) painted some caricatures, caricatures began to be widely painted in the eighteenth century, the century of the French Revolution.

People just make mistakes. If someone is a ‘public figure’ or a public figure, if he makes a mistake, he must endure satire as part of his profession. This culture of ridicule ensures true democracy. No government in the world is 100% successful. So there must be anger among the people. This anger is expressed in irony and satire. First of all, you can stop the printed satire, but how do you stop the sarcasm that happens in people’s chats, speech? Second, those who are being ridiculed are all public servants, that is, servants of the people, from the highest to the lowest position. In order to ensure 100% democracy and to run the state properly, there must be a possibility of ‘humiliation’ of the people in office, because positions are not the ancestral property of anyone and the real owner of every position is the people.

There are a few separate magazines in the French country to make fun of. A magazine called ‘Le Kanar Anshene’. The name of the magazine means: ‘Shackled duck’. Gentle body tied to his shackles, but the punk punk of satirical protest he will do. This eight-page weekly has been published every Wednesday since 1915. Another magazine: Shirley Abdo. A few years ago, militants killed Khan Tero, a journalist in the magazine, over a caricature. There are also magazines in Britain, such as ‘Private Eye’. French satirical magazines have published cartoons of presidents, prime ministers, ministers, bureaucrats, religious leaders and even great men like Jesus and Buddha, making sarcastic remarks about them. Why do we forget that great men are just public figures, not private property.

On several TV channels in France, people in power are compared to different animals, judging by their behavior and appearance: some tigers, some geckos, some swans, some snakes, some crocodiles, some rhinos. Every evening at a fifteen minute event they are given all the dialogues in their respective animal-like voices that they have recently said or can say. Imagine how popular such a program would have been in the environment of Bangladesh, which would have had a positive effect on the thinking of the masses. But unfortunately for the Bengali nation, can such a healthy and fruitful culture of ridicule be imagined in the next hundred years, in this so-called ‘independent’ delta, a breeding ground for successive dictatorships?

India has been accused this week of using Israeli apps like Pegasus for eavesdropping. There are, of course, attempts to control public opinion, there is concern, but it is also true that a lot of caricatures are published in India, no less than criticism of the government. In Pakistan, shots are fired in response, but Hamid Mirera also criticizes the government or the opposition at the risk of his life. How many years has Shishir Bhattacharya not been drawing cartoons in Bangladesh? What else are you drawing, can you draw? Is it safe to draw caricatures or make sarcastic criticisms in an ‘independent’ Bangladesh, whether from the government side or from the public side? In 1996-2000, I read in an interview with Shishir Bhattacharya that the then Prime Minister used to find it amusing to see his own caricatures. Since then, a lot of dirty water has flowed into the Buriganga.

As much fault, Sarkar Ghosh. ‘As much as Babu says, the council says a hundred times as much’. Just like Babu has a responsibility, the councilors also have a responsibility, the people also have a responsibility. The ghosts of the British, the jinn of Pakistan have not yet been removed from the heads of those who run the government in our country. Bureaucrats still receive British-type training. Bangabandhu advised the bureaucrats to be friends of the people. Firstly, the story of religion without listening to the thief, secondly, why listen to the advice of the rude, patriarchal nation father! So the bureaucrats treat the people like a king, as the Pakis used to say: ‘Say something, mother, crush the head!’ Bahadur Bahadur is helpless, pretending not to see. Bangabandhu used to criticize public servants or public servants. In our time, unreasonable praise for saving lives or keeping the servants happy can be heard more in the face of the poor owners.

The biggest loss to Bangladesh as a result of such a long rule is that the people in power have become accustomed to dictatorship and the powerless people have become accustomed to excessive self-control or self-censorship. Opposition parties do everything but oppose in Bangladesh. Should not be able to protest, but in the lure of seizing power can just kill innocent people by throwing petrol bombs on buses. Whatever happens, whatever you say, what is mine! No one protests, everyone survives. The situation is not good, I understand, but was the situation better during the Pakistan period? Was Bangabandhu’s life easier than ours? He also protested

He knew how to do it, he could do it. I do not know why we can not protest? Putting all the blame on the neck of the situation certainly can not be found.

With or without power, most of the intellectuals in Bangladesh are single Victorian Puritan PodiPCs. Nothing comes to their mind except ‘chichi’. He doesn’t know how to protest on his own, he can’t, even if others protest, he gives a fatwa saying it is ‘ugly’, ‘bad’. Whatever is playable, tato will play, drum will play, pumpkin will play ‘dhab-dhabab’. Chibote Chibote Nuts of Power Chibote Bangladeshi intellectuals usually love to sit in the gallery and play. Excited, he occasionally says that when he hits a kick, the kick goes to the head of the poor spectator in the front seat.

If you throw stones, you have to eat the jute. When someone kills a rock, why doesn’t anyone dare to say anything? Again, why are so many critics of Patkelera killed in protest? If criticism is to be made, then both Dhillon and Patkel have to do it. When Dhaka University was called inferior to madrasas, no one protested rationally. Not protesting means accepting a lot. Dhaka University is not my ‘alma mater’, yet I have posted on Facebook in protest of that slander, I have written an article in a newspaper, not to say that I have eaten the salt of Dhaka University – firstly, because I wanted to disprove that slander of individuals and quarters and secondly, Dhaka University and public university- He said that it was the national duty to protest against the special political agenda of one or more opposition parties.

Intellectuals can make mistakes. They will criticize each other by making mistakes. If necessary, they will also make fun and satire – this is the desirable situation. In the early twentieth century, many journalists and writers satirized Rabindranath’s writings, including Dwijendralal Roy. The relationship between the two reached a stage of bitterness. Who did not criticize Sajanikanta in Saturday’s letter? Didn’t he mock a non-violent poet like Jibanananda as a ‘rhinoceros’? However, at that time, let’s say in the Kallol era, the yield of Bengali literature was higher and better than it is today. This bitterness, sarcasm, sarcasm may be disliked by anyone, but it is a sign of a healthy culture. If you are a public figure, you must be the object of ridicule, not everyone will agree with you and your every word will be discussed and criticized in the society.

The apogee part of the amp-public of Bangladesh considers the protest of two or more intellectuals or groups of intellectuals as ‘mud-throwing’. Because even though they themselves quarrel a lot, they hope that the intellectuals will all and easily agree. Just as children suffer from parental quarrels, think about it – why would adults quarrel, much less childish thinking. Doxal behavior of the common man to agree. We call them ‘intellectuals’ because intellectuals can be paradoxal. If they can’t be that, they can easily agree with each other, then where is the difference between ‘Burmaisya’ mango (public)?

My teacher Rajendra Singh used to say: Each intellectual must use his own toothbrush! The general public can brush their teeth with the same toothpaste, but intellectuals can never do that, they each have their own brush. Intellectuals who are more familiar than the general public, because they study ‘terribly’ all day without eating, have the ability to judge a subject from different points of view. So it is normal to have disagreements between the intestines and there is a lot that can be learned from this ‘intestines’.

It should not be forgotten that this disagreement, irony, irony goes on at the professional level, certainly not at the individual level. When it comes to the impact of professional disagreements on personal relationships, it is important to understand that highly educated intellectuals or half-educated Sangats infected with Tasya are not following the rules of argument, behaving childishly due to temperament or disease. Neither Nurul Amin nor Monaim Khan of the Muslim League has tortured Bangabandhu for life, imprisoned him for political reasons, but Bangabandhu’s personal relationship with them has never been ruined.

It is detrimental to society for intellectuals to agree so easily that the ‘argument’ will be stopped and the path of real learning based on the practice of diverse perspectives will be permanently blocked for the general public as a result of irrationality. Amartya Sen called Indians and Bengalis ‘rationalists’ and ‘argumentative’. One of my teachers on international relations in Paris, Masih Joeyo, used to say: Chinese people are homogenous and pragmatic, Indian people are diverse and juridical.

If the words of the Namasya Gurus are true, if the Bengalis are in fact a diverse and controversial nation, then the culture of dissent and ridicule must continue. It is to be noted that the above term ‘Juridical’ is related to law and justice and ‘justice’ means ‘rice’ of dissent, ‘curry’ of argument as well as a bit of ‘ritual’ of irony. When it comes to judging, it must be ridiculed, at least to get the taste of the tongue back. Nowadays there seems to be less taste in discussion and criticism because there is no such practice.

Those who knew how to mix satire with justice, and who were ready to put a pun in the reader’s mouth after a discussion, such as Shibram Chakraborty or Mujtaba Ali, have a limited supply of writers and intellectuals in Bengali society these days because of the low demand for their equivalents. Family, institutional and social education is also needed to know how to appreciate such writers and intellectuals. Lacking a similarly favorable environment is much better than others Humorous, educated, and understanding readers are becoming more and more rare. This is a sad observation for now. As a result of such a situation, the traditionally healthy culture of argument, ridicule and dissent is also eroding day by day, which cannot be good news in any judgment.