Abstract After a conscientious perusal of Kazi Nazrul’s writings, most of the readers come to the point that Kazi Nazrul Islam, even belonging to a Muslim family, treated the people of all religions equally. But it is a matter of great regret that some critics including William Radice have pointed out that Kazi Nazrul was unknown in the West for two reasons: partly because he was a Muslim; and partly for the fact that he identified himself with the rural poor rather than the elite of the pre-partitioned India. It is factual that philosophy, happiness and sorrows of a writer are actually reflected in his writings. In every piece of writing, we the readers study the reflection of what the writer thinks, how he thinks, how he looks at nature, how he looks at human beings etc. Nazrul came of an underprivileged but respectable family and suffered and struggled to be what he was, and this he delineated in his literary works. How could a poet-writer who used his pen only for humanism and whose aim was to create an atmosphere so that people of all religions can swig water from one quay be barred of being famous because of his religious philosophy and poverty? This paper aims at seeking an apology for the poet-writer for his becoming a Muslim and poor, shows him as a writer of humanity, classlessness, syncretism, tolerance, equality, etc., and questions the reader: is it prohibited for ‘poverty’ and ‘Islamism’ to be reflected in literature?
Mohammad Mozammel Haque, Jazan University, Saudi Arabia
Stream: Education for international exchange
This paper is part of the IICE2015 Conference Proceedings (View)
View / Download the full paper in a new tab/window