Literature requires an atmosphere of imaginative freedom even when the limits of that freedom are not tested by a given work: Zia Haider Rahman

"Literary art requires certain positive conditions to flourish. The conditions of a healthy literary culture are precisely the conditions of a healthy political culture."

This statement by Zia Haider Rahman, the distinguished British novelist and broadcaster, formed the crux of his keynote address during the seminar titled 'The Politics of Literature', organised by the Bangla Academy on 11 November 2025. 

At the event, titled The Politics of Literature, Rahman delivered a wide-ranging address on the interconnectedness of politics, press freedom and creative life in Bangladesh.

"No literary culture can flourish without a flourishing and sophisticated culture of literary criticism… mediocrity thrives wherever accountability is absent."

Zia Haider Rahman, British novelist and broadcaster

The seminar opened with a welcome address by Professor Mohammad Azam, director general of Bangla Academy, who observed that literature is inherently political. He explained that the session was organised to understand how the "powerful novelist" viewed Bangladesh's politics and literature.

The illusion of strife-born art

Rahman began by revisiting a familiar premise regarding the relationship between suffering and artistic brilliance. He recalled the famous line from The Third Man, which suggests that conflict and chaos (as in Renaissance Italy) produce genius, while peace and stability (as in Switzerland) yield little more than "the cuckoo clock".

"But I was wrong," Rahman admitted, arguing that literature flourishes not under oppression but in conditions of freedom and confidence. "The political conditions of literature are the political conditions of a free society," he said, emphasising that imagination needs liberty to breathe.

He observed that the unrestricted expression sought in literature often collapses into cycles of silence, rooted not merely in censorship but in social and institutional constraints. The "new dawn" expected after the fall of the previous regime, he remarked, has reminded many that the shadows of fear and conformity still linger.

Photo: TBS

Beyond state repression

Rahman reflected on the post-July 2024 situation, contending that the limitations on free expression in Bangladesh extend far beyond state repression. 

He suggested that the interim government has struggled to establish new norms of accountability, leaving many of the old silences intact. In his opinion, Dr Yunus and the interim government could have set the bar higher for his successors by opening himself up more to the press.

He was also not a fan of the interviews Dr Yunus has given to foreign media, especially VOA and Mehedi Hasan. He chided the chief adviser's press wing for not preparing Dr Yunus better.

He argued that a leader, especially one who doesn't fear "a Molotov cocktail being thrown through the window of his home or office in the way that a journalist might," should assume the moral high ground. Making himself accountable would have established the right norm for the country.

Rahman recounted that during conversations with journalists and writers, there remained a sense that people still could not speak freely. He questioned why public debate often avoided honest critique of prominent figures, observing that freedom requires a culture willing to engage in good-faith disagreement.

The question of accountability

Rahman's central argument concerned the importance of accountability — both political and cultural. He noted that, in the absence of a functioning parliament, the government's primary avenue for accountability should have been the press. 

Yet, he said, this opportunity remained underused, with too few briefings and limited direct engagement with the media. Rahman recalled authoring a full-page op-ed in the Daily Star urging the government to make itself available to the press. 

He remarked that the leadership could have set a stronger example by holding regular press conferences and answering questions openly. Such engagement, he said, would not only build trust but also reinforce democratic norms and public confidence.

The culture of criticism

Rahman insisted that "it is accountability that delivers freedom". A culture of open, responsible criticism, he argued, benefits not just politics but literature itself. "No literary culture can flourish without a flourishing and sophisticated culture of literary criticism," he said, adding that "mediocrity thrives wherever accountability is absent."

He drew parallels between the decline of serious criticism in Western literary circles and the falling readership of literary fiction, noting that long-form reflection has often been replaced by quick, superficial reviews.

Discussion and dialogue

The keynote was followed by remarks from Professor Ferdous Azim, who chaired the session. She commended Rahman's "bold yet thoughtful" observations, recalling his earlier lectures in Dhaka as similarly incisive blends of politics, philosophy, and wit.

Although the seminar was titled The Politics of Literature, the discussion leaned heavily towards the politics of free expression and the role of the press, touching only lightly on literature itself.

There was, however, an incident that somewhat dulled the lustre of the event.  

During the Q&A session, one attendee remarked that Dr Muhammad Yunus appeared to have handled his recent interview with journalist Mehdi Hasan quite well. Rahman seemed taken aback by the comment and responded with sarcasm rather than logic, a reaction that drew murmurs from the audience. He later apologised for his tone, clarifying that his intention had been to provoke reflection, not offence.

Rahman concluded by reiterating that freedom cannot be legislated into existence — it must be cultivated through reciprocal accountability. 

"Freedom to speak means freedom for others to criticise what you say. Unless both flourish, neither does," he said, drawing the discussion to a reflective close.