Chilekothar Sepai
Urban Space and Puran Dhaka as Depicted by Akhtaruzzaman Elius
“ কিন্তু পাবলিক রাউডি হয়ে উঠলে-।
চশমাঅলাকে প্রায় ধমক দিয়ে আলাউদ্দিন বলে ওঠে, কি বাজে কথা কন ! দেখতাছেন না, আমাগো ব্যাকটিরে কেমুন কায়দা কইরা আটকাইয়া রাখলো । ইসটুডেনরা ছাড়বো ? গুলি কইরা মানুষ মারে, ইসটুডেনরা আইয়া পড়বো না ?
‘ক্যামনে আহে’? খিজিরের চড়া গলায় সবাই উসখুস করে, কিন্তু তার বাক্য অব্যহত থাকে, ক্যামনে আইবো? ঘরের মইদ্যে পুলিশ, রাস্তার উপরে পুলিশ! বিচরাইয়া দ্যাহেন, ছাদের উপর ভি পুলিশ। ইসটুডেনে আইলে এই হালাগো ইস্ক্রু টাইট করতে পারতো! ” — These are the lines of ‘The soldier in an attic’ (Chilekothar Sepai), a novel of the particular context; the mass upsurge of 1969 before the liberation of Bangladesh where Akhtaruzzaman Elius portrayed an unique narration using different characters of different age-group, places, events and socio-politico-economical discourses taken place in that particular time. The literary piece separates itself from any other literature or narration of that particular context because of its distinct production of knowledge as well as the way Akhtaruzzaman Elius pose the context. From political leaders, state apparatus like police to the marginal’s of the marginal’s of that time(1969) were being included by Akhtaruzzaman Elius among the characters of his novel in order to coin the unsung political objectives of the ordinary people. These things will be explained in a broader sphere in the following section. Furthermore, in my paper I will be discussing about the urban and rural spaces that was involved by Akhtaruzzaman Elius in order to contextualize different distinctive discourses of that particular time.
Picture: Michel Foucault
As an author, Akhtaruzzaman had the engagement with discursive formation as he was capable of understanding the different distinctive discursive formation of the mass uprising critically as well as the elements or characters related to that particular context. Foucault says in his article, ‘What is an author’; “I have discussed the author only in the limited sense of a person to whom the production of a text, a book, or a work can be legitimately attributed.” It is also apparent that within the area of discourse a person can be the author of much more than a book- the author becomes the producer of a theory (Foucault, 1977). Akhtaruzzaman was successful in creating a discourse of his own within the book “Chilekothar Sepai”. It is told that the author is assassinated when the reader reads a piece of an author’s work. It is then the ordinary reader feels the gap of the author. Throughout his novel the characters exerts the responsible author’s obligations and thus he has fulfilled the responsibilities of an author towards his reader.
If we look at the characters that are used in “Chilekothar Sepai” we will be able to see how the plots are being created by characters like land lord, middle class clerk, rickshaw puller, truck driver, insane, schizophrenic, farmer, barber, boatmen and politicians etc. These characters have built the narration of the mass upsurge in a unique way in “Chilekothar Sepai”. As I have mentioned some lines of a particular character earlier that is ‘Haddi Khijir’; a lumpen urban proletariat of the masses who was positioned with a distinct political objective within the particular text of Akhtaruzzaman Elius. Again the character schizophrenic ‘Osman’ who represents one part of the middle classes did see themselves in neither Awami League nor the leftist. They want to see themselves in a free state where the struggling class or the subaltern class could establish their own hegemony. Through the narration of “Chilekothar Sepai” we could also see how the struggling class failed to emerge because of the failure of the radical and progressive politics at that time. Akhtaruzzaman himself was a believer of Marxist ideology but he was critical about the traditional Marxist of that time. The narration of the mass upsurge in his book was not solely the narration of the leaders that was presented at that time yet who are seems to be very much glorified because of the conventional approach of any historian or author towards the mass upsurge. Rather, Akhtaruzzaman Elius did able to produce the narration of the ideological contestation of religion, socio-politico-economical denial as well as how the political objectives of the masses through the mass upsurge had been jeopardized. Moreover, the juxtaposition of realistic and surreal situations in the novel has enriched its aesthetical value as a literature of his time.
Now, let us see how Akhtaruzzaman Elius has use urban and rural spaces in order to contextualize different distinctive discourses of 1969. To do that let us know what an urban space is. Urban space is obviously a modern concept and due to globalization it has been defined in different ways in different country in modern times. Even modern day’s sociology tries to conceptualize this complex idea in different ways as the growth of urbanization is increasing day by day. Urban space can be explained by a sense of geography- a territory where the agglomeration of the inhabitants or the density of people could be found. Again, ‘Urban Space’ has the characteristics like having non-agricultural economic activities, administrative centers and engagement of the inhabitants in trade, business, manufacturing etc. These are the material features of an urban space but for the non material features the idea involves that urban space will be shrinking, always in a contestation in order to fill the gaps by private occupation and the characters that are associated with the urban space will have impersonal relation between them.
As a reader, I found that the material features of an urban space can be found within ‘Chilekothar Sepai’ in the narration of Puran Dhaka and its inhabitants. But the non material features of the ‘Urban Space’ were not that much visible or could be found within ‘Chilekothar Sepai’ as Dhaka was not a capitalist place like any other western cities. Capitalism had not flourished Dhaka at that time because the ‘bourgeois’ of that time could be identified as so called bourgeois. So, if we look at the mere presence of capitalism at Dhaka by reading ‘Chilekothar Sepai’ we will able to identify the distorted capitalism and the distorted urbanism that was present at that time. ‘Moholla/Kasba’ which is the mixture of urban and rural, replaces the western form of urbanity. The geographical sense that Akhtaruzzaman Elius gave us into the book ‘Chilekothar Sepai’ could be identified as similar. As, we see there are narrations of ‘Moholla’ where the plots of the story was built and the social integration of the inhabitants of that ‘Moholla’. The relationship of the characters of ‘Chilekothar Sepai’ was not impersonal rather it was very personal at times. For example: we see how schizophrenic ‘Osman’ was a burden to the people who knew ‘Osman’. This is not possible in any western cities as the relationships of the inhabitants are impersonal.
Reading ‘Chilekothar Sepai’, we could see how the writer has created his own discourse as I have discussed about it earlier. We could also see how the nationalistic discourse of that time submerged every other discourse that hindered to establish the ordinary peoples political objectives. Akhtaruzzaman Elius also showed how the petty bourgeois middle class jeopardize the political objectives of ‘Haddi Khijir’ as well as how the mass people of East Bengal failed to achieve a land free from oppressors. These were the portrayals of Akhtaruzzaman Elius within the distorted urban context of ‘Puran Dhaka’ at that particular time.
Bibliography
Foucault, M. (1977). What is an author.
