A man can speak the truth, but he can never establish the truth alone. Conversely, a lie can be imposed, but it can never be established.
On August 5, 2024, the Awami League government unfortunately resigned following widespread protests. The Awami League, a political party deeply rooted in the people’s support, had historically achieved landslide victories, from the monumental elections of the 1950s to the 1970s, and in post-independence Bangladesh. It brought about transformative changes in Bangladesh, ranging from infrastructural development to advancements in other critical sectors.
However, in recent years, the party failed to implement essential reforms within its ranks and the country, including addressing the entrenched power structure. Additionally, it struggled to tackle systemic cronyism and corruption. For these reasons, among others, the party faced significant challenges that ultimately led to its resignation.
But the focus here is not the resignation itself; it is Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the charismatic leader of Bengal and Bangladesh. Following the formation of a new interim government, the country has experienced large-scale violence, primarily political vendettas targeting those who embody the Liberation War spirit and adhere to Mujibism. Such actions, many of which are seemingly endorsed by the interim government, could have been avoided. This violence has severely undermined the integrity and legacy of Bangabandhu in numerous ways. Many people, driven by their limited knowledge and hatred towards the modern Awami League and its cronyism, absurdly blame Bangabandhu or even label him a national traitor. Such claims are both ridiculous and immoral.
Bangladesh fought for its independence, united under the leadership of Bangabandhu, from the earlier stage in ’52, ’66, ’69, ’70, and culminating in 1971. In 1971, the Pakistanis destroyed everything from north to south, including bridges, roads, food mills, houses, hospitals, and factories. They killed 3 million people, including children and women, and raped countless others. During the nine-month bloody war, those Pakistanis left nothing intact in this country. We emerged from these dire circumstances, whereas India and Pakistan did not endure such devastation during their independence, only we did.
Consequently, famine seemed inevitable after independence. Surprisingly, famine did not occur in late 1971. A moral yet unfortunate question may arise: why didn’t a famine occur during that time, as it was the worst period of our entire struggle? After Bangabandhu assumed leadership, he and his cabinet managed the country efficiently.
Bangladesh was aware of the potential threat posed by India. When Bangabandhu returned from India after independence, he immediately noticed Indian troops stationed in Bangladesh. Without hesitation, he called Indira Gandhi and directly inquired about their departure. This bold and necessary move underscored his leadership.
A comparison can be drawn with Iraq, where American forces entered in 2003 and left in 2021, prioritizing their own policies and interests. Similarly, India sought to maintain influence over Bangladesh, aspiring to turn it into a satellite state. However, Bangabandhu never allowed this.
While it is true that India played a crucial role in Bangladesh’s Liberation War, training freedom fighters, offering diplomatic support, and assisting on the battlefield, it is unfair or absurd to claim that Bangladesh sold itself to India under Bangabandhu’s leadership. India had some influence in the early years of independence, but Bangabandhu ensured that Bangladesh remained independent in decision-making.
He successfully secured vital aid from both international agencies and foreign countries, playing a crucial role in sustaining the nation during a period of immense struggle for famine. Despite these efforts, he managed to delay the impending famine until 1974, when an unexpected disaster struck, a catastrophic flood, comparable in scale to the infamous Bhola cyclone. This devastating event exacerbated the dire circumstances the country was already grappling with.
Meanwhile, the global political landscape was fraught with tension. The United States imposed severe economic sanctions on Bangladesh, citing its trade relations with Cuba and its moral stance against recognizing Israel as a state. The situation was further compounded by the indifference of many Arab nations, which chose to align themselves with Pakistan, citing their perceived so-called Islamic solidarity, even though Bangladesh was a Muslim-majority nation.
In response to these external pressures and challenges, Bangabandhu realized the necessity of focusing on socialism as a core governance strategy. He firmly believed that socialism had the potential to dismantle the deep-rooted systemic corruption plaguing the country, creating a fairer and more just society. He said, “I envision socialism as a means to establish a non-exploitative social system, not through bloodshed, but through democratic methods and parliamentary procedures.”
Furthermore, he saw socialism as a means of aligning Bangladesh with powerful, supportive nations such as the Soviet Union, which, despite its own geopolitical motives, recognized the strategic importance of aiding Bangladesh’s reconstruction efforts. Through these measures, Bangabandhu sought to secure a stable future for his people, despite the myriad obstacles faced on the international front.
Meanwhile, cronyism was another significant issue. On June 22, 1972, an incident occurred when a helicopter carrying Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman made an emergency landing at Narottampur, 9 km north of Maizdi, due to mechanical failure. Many people rushed to his aid. The helicopter, contracted from Russia, had Russian pilots.
Later, at a public meeting at Shaheed Bhulu Stadium in Maizdi, he addressed corruption and poverty, declaring, “This time the struggle is against corruption” (“এবারের সংগ্রাম দুর্নীতির বিরুদ্ধে সংগ্রাম।”).
Image: Local newspaper.
Bangabandhu emphasized that despite gaining independence, corruption and misery were rampant across the country. He noted that the government had begun taking action against major businessmen and asserted that if necessary, severe measures like shooting would be taken against corrupt individuals. He expressed disappointment that democracy had led to the proliferation of brokers, who would ultimately have to face the consequences of their actions.
As a result, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, enacted on January 25, 1975,, Bangabandhu launched the Second Revolution, during which he introduced socialism in Bangladesh to combat cronyism and protect the people’s interests. This initiative aimed to address the rampant corruption among officials during that time. His goal was to uphold the rights of the people through socialist values, such as promoting cooperative initiatives to support poor farmers. These efforts included granting farmers the right to cultivate land, even if they were not the legal owners under previous laws.
Bangabandhu believed in democracy and fought for it. He fought for the freedom of the people for 23 years. There is no reason to suggest that he would become the so-called autocrat, especially considering that he spent at least 6 to 7 years in prison during his 23 years of political life under Pakistani repression, all for the betterment of his people. This is why, while implementing socialism, he deliberately emphasized “democratic methods and parliamentary procedures.” The issue was with the name or branding, ”BAKSAL” or Awami Krishak Sramik League, which led to misunderstandings. In reality, it was meant to be a national government. Had it been branded differently, with a focus on a national government, it is likely that those who rejected it in 1975 would have supported it. Eventually, this system had a typical parliamentary structure within the party, and notably, Ziaur Rahman was also part of it, a fact that many are unaware of.
Tragically, before he could fully implement his vision, he was assassinated in August 1975. His new and unique system was never activated, even for a single day. Therefore, any arguments about the failures of BAKSAL are unfounded, as it was never put into action due to Bangabandhu’s death and the subsequent political changes. Had it been implemented, Bangladesh could have flourished under his guidance, potentially following the successful paths of China or Vietnam.
However, today, due to the failures or wrongdoings of Sheikh Hasina’s government, some people are questioning Bangabandhu’s ideology and integrity. While Sheikh Hasina may be guilty (a matter still open to debate), what wrongs have been committed by the Father of the Nation or, subsequently, the father of Sheikh Hasina?
In the early hours of March 26, 1971, Bangabandhu declared our independence, and the war began. Later, he was arrested and was on the verge of being executed by the Pakistanis until the international community, particularly the United Nations, intervened and saved him. However, some individuals claim that this is false history, suggesting instead that Ziaur Rahman declared independence. This claim is both ridiculous and nonsensical. Why would Bangabandhu refrain from declaring independence during such a crucial moment?
On March 27, Ziaur Rahman stated, “I, Major Ziaur Rahman, on behalf of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (because Bangabandhu was in jail or about to be transferred to West Pakistan for anti-state activities), hereby declare that the independent People’s Republic of Bangladesh has been established. I call upon all Bengalis to rise against the attack by the West Pakistani Army.” This does not mean Ziaur Rahman was the one who proclaimed independence. It is absurd to suggest that he was. Ziaur Rahman was simply another devoted follower of Bangabandhu, and a fighter for freedom and a part of the proclamation.
Additionally, some claim Bangabandhu did not want to create Bangladesh. This is nonsensical. On March 7, Bangabandhu gave a semi-declaration of independence, as was noted by students at the time. However, as Bir Pratik Shahnaj Kabir wrote in his book “Operation Jackpot,” Bangabandhu was about to make the declaration but refrained due to the intensive military presence near the Racecourse Maidan, now Suhrawardy Udyan. The Pakistani military had orders to launch a massacre if he declared independence!
The Awami League and other parties have used Bangabandhu’s image to gain voters, often misleadingly utilising his ideology. However, this does not mean he is bad, nor does it justify burning his residence or tearing down his portraits. Such actions are offensive and immoral, and we feel ashamed that we have been unable to educate people against such ignorance.
Conversely, a new wave of people has emerged, claiming that the history taught in schools is false and that only Major Dalim’s books, the person who killed Bangabandhu, are truthful. This is misleading. Why do we have to be so politically ill-minded as to question our history from over 50 years ago? We have to rebuild the country, the structures of power, the system, and everything. However, we cannot do it alone. We must recognize everyone’s contributions equally and rightfully. This curse of historical denial should end in all dimensions, and people should be aware of it. In the US, no one criticises Alvan E. Bovay for the failures of the Republican Party, nor Abraham Lincoln for the failures of the modern US state, because people in the US are much more sensible than us. The Awami League has its faults. They should have emphasized these points and taught the younger generation the importance of history, rather than avoiding it. Ignoring these issues results in a clear defeat in argument, which is inappropriate, as there is nothing wrong and nothing to hide. Now, we must unquestionably engage in more discussions. Academic debates should be encouraged, and false narrativesand propaganda should inevitably be stopped.
References:
Although there is no mention of sources of information in this article, if anyone wonders about a specific source of an assertion, they should contact the author.
Author:
Tasin Mahdi, a devoted knowledge seeker based in Dhaka, Bangladesh, exhibits a profound commitment to the betterment of his home nation and a keen interest in international affairs and quietly coaxes discussions on global and local issues.
