Untold Facts

Bengali Romantics of Today Questioned about the Two Nation Theory of the 1940s

There is nothing much wrong to be romantics at personal level, particularly, at one’s youth having little maturity in knowledge and wisdom. There are romantics in every society; Bengalis are known to be little more than average elsewhere or even around.

Dhaka, however, can be proud of free media not free though of some romantic free lancers making bandwagon for issues, I am afraid, not fully comprehended. One such is about the Two Nation Theory of the 1940s spearheaded then by the All India Muslim League and its leaders including the top leader of the organization Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948) into its full fruition. Though the fruit obtained in 1947 was the truncated and moth-eaten territorial geographical map of the sovereign state of Pakistan, and despite the fact that the united territorial lone country map isolated from one another since the very beginning further distanced themselves into two separate and sovereign countries in 1971, the geographical nomenclatures and sizes remained the same, that some else rightly termed as three nation-states in the former British subcontinent.

Since 1971 some in Bangladesh just in full tune with the Delhi rulers began to argue that the 1971 war had sounded death knell to the Two Nation Theory and are being repeated by some others since then, but many others both India and Bangladesh do not subscribe to the death knell theory.

Indians have their own outlook for and against the proposition. Bangladeshis, except few romantic Bengalis, maintain different outlook about the matter for reasons very strong and not anything weak.

First, had the Two Nation Theory died in post 16th December 1971 Bangladesh, there could have been no valid ground for Bangladesh territory sustained as an independent country. The claim for rescinding theory by the romantics would have been realized had the truncated and moth-eaten geographical boundary of Bangladesh would end on the 16th December 1971, albeit, in full satisfaction of Brahminist India that would mean only one thing and that would have been full absorption of the Bangladesh territory with the ‘Mother India’. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority people of Bangladesh refused to relish the same pill. That the people and all the organs of the Bangladesh government have so long for the last four decades resisted the merger with the ‘Mother India’ is a clear proof that the Two Nation Theory have not died down here both in the structure of the State and in the minds of the overwhelming majority people. The presence of some romantics though could not be ruled out.

The romantics, I think, have another point to ponder about. Could there be chiefs of crucial national organizations of Bangladesh like Army, NSI, DGFI, etc be any non-Muslim not only right at this moment but even also in far distant period ahead? On the contrary, could there be in India of such appointments? Could the Indian central intelligence agency, R &AW, be headed by any Muslim in centuries ahead to come?
Some Muslim leaders of Jammu and Kashmir since over six decades now have been proponents against the Two Nation theory, but the majority people had the opposite stand; the net result is that Indian anti-two nation theory stalwarts had to keep nearly half a million Indian troops not only posted there but also continual killing of many innocent people though for the last two decades now but unfortunately not any gain they could secure in favor for their ‘one nation’ idea!

If one would recall back correctly with an inquisitive open mind one must discover that the proponent of the theory did so for strategic reason to secure minimum rights of the minority Muslims in the British Indian subcontinent that he could ensure through political movement having the theory in front of the common people. One may further discover correctly that the person had been a worker and leader of the All India Congress Party for nearly three decades before he joined the League and its leadership. He was further made ‘Quid E Azam’ or the Great Leader by Gandhi himself and Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity by another Congress leader Sarojini Naidu.

In Bangladesh, there had been some romanticism to obliterate the two nation theory at the beginning, but the end of the romantics had been unfortunate that replaced Bengali national identity (very much partial though) into Bangladeshi nation not only for the majority Muslims whose forefathers had curved out the geographical identity in 1947 but also in post 1975 period for all other smaller national identities, as well.

Neither in Pakistan nor in Bangladesh the pre 1947 vicious syndrome exist in post 1971 period but short of the continuation of the identity charted out then in 1947 in the division of the Himalayan subcontinent, neither country, much less the people could think of honorable survival in the clutches of the neo-imperialist Brahminist neighbor that had long ago swallowed and eaten up Junagargh, Manvador, Hyderabad and Sikim. Jammu and Kashmir had already been tried to be eaten but unfortunately not swallowed as yet. The main reason, the romantics may ponder about, being the living existence as of yet of the two nation theory of the 1940s.

The kind of romanticism in Bangladesh of the few mentioned above, in particular, may only bring disaster for the sovereign existence of Bangladesh.

Dr. M.T. Hussain

Election Manifestos: BNP pragmatic, Awami League strategic

In a democratic system, political parties that aspire to be in power publicly pledge what they want to achieve for the people and the country as they hit the campaign trail. In Bangladesh during the fifteen years of uninterrupted democratic rule the two major parties – BNP and Awami League promises every five years a host of promises to the voters – some are substantive and others are symbolic and emotive in nature. Yet with every election the party that came to power, little seemed to change in the political culture and promises remained unfulfilled. In fact, before the scheduled elections of 2007, the major parties in their bickering for power did not get time to bring out their elections manifestos. There seems to be a marked departure this time as the major parties and alliances have already declared their elections manifestos for the 2008 elections. This is indeed a welcome change in the practices of political parties in Bangladesh.

At first glance, both BNP and Awami League seem to be highly competitive in their list of promises and intend to deliver as much as they can to win the voters. Awami League published its manifesto in both Bangla and English whereas BNP brought out its manifesto in Bangla, the later showing more sensitivity to national perspective. Both the manifestos carry the photographs of top leaders and party symbols on the cover page vindicating loyalty and traditional bond. The introductory part of the two manifestos briefly outlined the history of the parties, their evolution and achievements clearly from two different ‘interpretations of Bangladesh history’, and highly critical of one another’s past role and record. This shows that the inter-party relations have not improved over the past years and one intends to survive and prosper at the expense of the other.

Bangladesh Awami League framed a background of their election manifesto on the allegations of misrule and corruption of the BNP-Jamaat alliance. BNP, on the other hand, highlighted their past successes and promises to build on those in the future years. Awami League tried to be more intellectual in their approach in listing of priorities; BNP is more straightforward and practical. Awami League takes a broad and strategic view in identifying the issues, BNP is more specific and targeted that may come from their past record and experience. Awami League has taken a more eclectic approach. BNP seems to have taken a more governance approach. But both have covered all the issues that can come under political governance and economic management framework. But no party has outlined even cursorily the way they could be materialized or how to mobilize resources to implement all these promises of good governance and economic recovery within their tenure.

Awami League still seems to be entrenched in the past despite providing a “Vision -2021” that wants to transform a Bangladesh to ‘a liberal, progressive and democratic welfare state’ with the prospect of middle income country. This vision is however not matched by outlining the strategy of change that is promised to be done in the future. BNP, on the other hand listed almost every thing that is needed for ‘a constitutional, democratic state system based on the rule of law and will of the people’ as well as a happy and prosperous state. In order to achieve this goal, BNP promises to: reduce prices of commodities for the common people; restore public order and deter terrorism; combat corruption; develop economy, trade and commerce; improve electricity distribution system and ensure food through developing agriculture and expand education and health facilities.

In fact, both BNP and Awami League have included almost all areas of socio-economic development and political governance. But none has specific focus on streamlining the administration and public management system and improve their efficiencies for delivery of services to the people. There should be more emphasis on the education sector, particularly the universities and colleges that need to provide a quality and appropriate education for the large number of new entrants. Notwithstanding, it is a step forward for the major political parties in Bangladesh to outline Election manifestoes so comprehensively. Let us hope these will not be mere words printed in booklets, these need to be conveyed to the people who should be able to judge accordingly and vote. And the political parties whoever come to power should honour their commitment and keep promises as members of the parliament and ministers.

In their final call in the manifesto, Awami League resorted to rhetoric of good governance and development, and appealed to the participation of younger generation in politics and national reconstruction. This is an important addition to Awami League’s publicity and policy – a marked departure from its previous preoccupation with the old leadership, myths and abstract ideals. BNP, who has already progressed more in terms of incorporating new leadership, has added a new dimension to its agenda by seeking inputs from experts and think-tanks as consultants in their goal of improving policy making process and implementation. This is indeed a praiseworthy step by BNP that needs to be realized for the development of the party to cope with the complex demands and needs of Bangladesh people and state.

- Professor Dr. Ataur Rahman
Source: Probe Magazine

War Crimes and Missing Links for Indictment

The issue of war crimes of 1971 in Bangladesh is a long talked about issue, now orchestrated and fanned in the wake of the long overdue 2008 December 29 election for the 9th Parliament of the country.

37 Years Silence

It is not any secret that the issue has been there for the last 37 years or so, and the party who is now seen spearheading the matter are none but those who not only reigned Bangladesh for two terms, once in 1972-75 and 1996-2001, but also swallowed themselves the pill of immunity, if not for anything else but for political expediency and holding on to the power of the State at huge cost of miscarriage of justice and abuse of rule of law. How could they on any moral ground now in December 2008 re emerge as the champion of the issue for trial of the war crimes of 1971?

Abuse of Issues

Some of the enthusiasts have been citing examples of trial of the Second World War crime perpetrators as of now being put on trial, still some other citing the trial of the 1994 genocide of Ruanda. There are other examples of trial for war crimes like Kosovo etc. and is, no doubt, being put on trial. Mind that all these are being done under the UN auspices and not by the country concerned. The concerned country’s part in such trials is not of adjudication but merely for lodging complaint with sufficient evidence against individuals and nothing summarily against any group or party. The simple reason is that any human rights violation is a person to person matter, and in case of army involved the onus pass on also to the commander or who would order any violation including killing. Based on such reason, in case of war, the army in operation is indicted. That is what was done in 1972 by the then government in listing 195 of the Pakistan Army who remained in operation in Bangladesh/East Pakistan in 1971. The collaborators Act of 1972 was however a different one, not for trial of armed forces men violating human rights, but for civilians committing crimes against Bangladesh movement that for its internal inherent weakness obviously and ultimately turned to be against basic human rights and conflicted with fundamental rights of the Constitution enforced in December 1972. The so-called collaborators act being thus void, the government in mid 1973 made an act ‘Special Tribunal’ to bring to justice some specific criminal offenders of 1971.

195 ‘Forgiven’

Unfortunately, the then Bangladesh Government despite making many high sounding rhetoric let all of the listed 195 war criminals release without any indictment in about one year and a half in mid 1973.Why? One can not take the rhetoric ‘we know how to forgive’ shouted in public by the then top leader but bound by many other issues of greater concern then boggling the head and heart of the top leader and the Bangladesh Government.

The Number One for Indictment

First, the government despite having had recognition by many countries as independent country following the 1971 war outside the federal framework of Pakistan, non-recognition of Pakistan, China, Saudi Arab etc. obviously made many problems unbearable for the new country. In addition, the top leader himself was being the votary of the united Pakistan fresh then in his memory as he had refused to be the secessionist being the majority group representing the then people of East Pakistan. He had in addition for his being a ‘true Pakistani’ despite being a Bengali kept many instances on record, if not the previous set up of united federal Pakistan but a confederation (See, Stanley Wolpert, Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan, OUP, 1993, p.175, Impact International, London, 25th September, 1987, p.19, etc.). Having these personal weaknesses and bites of his own conscience in post 1971 period the top leader had been very much anxious to mend relations not only with Pakistan (remnant) but also with China and Saudi Arabia that forced him to compromise on many issues including the trial of the 195 listed ones.

China’s Non-Recognition of Bangladesh until 1975 Mid August

China did not accept post 1971 government of Bangladesh anything more than a simple puppet and a colony of India always dancing in tune with the Indian ruling group, and so she did not recognize Bangladesh as an independent country until the fall of the government in August 1975. They had their own reason not only for friendly relations with Pakistan but also the way things were being run at the dictation of Delhi.

Saudi Arabia’s Non-Recognition until Mid August 1975 and Problems for Dhaka

Saudi Arabia had also her own logic for not recognizing of Bangladesh until the revolutionary change and fall of the first government in Mid August 1975. The Saudi issue had been very critical for the Bangladesh government not only for not according recognition but also for the fact that the majority Muslim people of Bangladesh for religious reason started to distance away from their own government for failing to bring in recognition. Several top level Bangladesh delegations lobbied with Riadh but had no result. Even a political party chief of Saudi liking and closeness miserably failed to initiate any little amount of thaw as I knew that he was trying to plea for goodness of the top leader to the Saudi King Khaled in late December 1974 (if my memory does not fail me) by literally got slamming of the door on the mediator’s face. During 1972 to 1975, that is, as long as Saudi Arabia did not accord formal recognition to Bangladesh, the Hajj pilgrims of Bangladesh had to take visas from Saudi Embassy in India or through some other country’s embassy in Dhaka, not as Bangladeshis but as East Pakistanis. This was ludicrous not for the pilgrims alone but also for the government, as well. Average people of Muslim majority Bangladesh took the issue everyday growing with anger against the government.

People’s Life and Living became Unbearable

Other issues of every day life and living constraints that mounted each day in and out against the back drop of loud promises made to the common people of ‘milk and honey’ should the Pakistanis go away came up very harshly to the people as only hollow rhetoric of the self-seeker politicians of the time, and in total frustration having memories of better days prior to 1971. The government then had to forget many issues of 1971 and tried to concentrate on other life threatening matters. The famine of 1974 had by then took lives of thousands, according to government figures, if not lakhs. Help from China, Saudi Arabia and even from Pakistan were much sought for. Pakistan came forward soon after the real war criminals had been forgiven and let go free in mid 1973 to Pakistan (West) that also made Pakistan accord recognition to Bangladesh as an independent country in February 1974.

The So-Called Collaborators Act and its Fall Outs

Those were some of the compulsions that the Bangladesh faced and encountered the way soon after the 1971 war. In the difficulties, the government had to abandon in practical terms the so-called Collaborators Act of 1972 for which they had to declare ‘general amnesty’ for the thousands of imprisoned so-called collaborators of Pakistan held without trial. In the parlance of political ideology, the so-called collaborators had been the prisoners of conscience for they refused to yield to the machinations of dismemberment of their own country their forefathers had acquired in 1946-47 through popular will of the people.

Collaborator Khawja Khairuddin became Emissary of Dhaka to Islamabad

One such collaborator Khawja Khairuddin, top leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (Council) told me an interesting story about his trial under the collaborators act. When the trial began in mid 1973 he made his own submission to the court stating that he came from the very Dhaka Nawab family that established the Muslim League in 1906; the same League established Pakistan through a long drawn struggle of the Muslims of British India in 1947; it was as such his legal and moral duty to preserve the integrity of Pakistan, particularly in the period of civil commotion of 1971. He did as such nothing wrong in opposing the secessionist movement that had no clear mandate of the people of East Pakistan. He told me further in 1982 in London in a private meeting with few others that the presiding judge, interrupted him in about the mid of the statement and then adjourned the court not for the day only but also for good in his case. He was then freed; but soon re-arrested, again freed and the top leader or the Prime Minister of the Government in a haste returned his citizenship forfeited in early 1972. The matter did not end there; he was then given a Bangladeshi passport under special order of the government and sent him to Pakistan as a special emissary to make rapport for Bangladesh with the Prime Minister Zufiquer Ali Bhutto to mend relation with Pakistan. One may as such have one’s own conclusion of the Bangladeshi leader in regard to the collaborators’ case.

The Number One Collaborator not Indicted

It may be amazing to recall here that any trial under the collaborators act should have been applied first for the top leader of former East Pakistan who had publicly refused to be a secessionist arguing that the majority (East Pakistanis) could not be secessionists. That the top leader escaped the trial for refusing to be secessionist and yet for unknown reason for trying those under the collaborators act who opposed secession in 1971, and further that he let off the real criminals go free, should not escape prosecution for the same offence in some honorable court of justice to examine in depth and settle if there was any link of collaboration of the top leader for which the non-secessionists were being tried.

Fiasco of the Special Tribunal

That the Government and the top leader holding then absolute power did not do anything, not even a single case, in follow up of the act after enacting that in July 1973 as the ‘Special Tribunal’ for bringing in to justice the specific human rights violators, should be held accountable for all such omissions. Is not it?

Civilians not Indictable in the International Court

One must further wonder if there is any provision to try any civilian in the International Court for any crime of 1971 in the back drop of the real criminals went free with all immunity.

Violations Perpetrated from Both Sides of the Divide

The international scholars like Harvard (USA) based Sisson and Rose, New York based Small and Singer, Indian scholar Sharmila Bose, to name some known to me, had had their figures of 1971 violation human rights in Bangladesh wherein they found figures not in full agreement but all had one conclusion in common that there had been violations more or less by both sides of the divide, pro-Bangladeshis and anti-secessionists of 1971 fell on each other at their own opportune moments. That was really the facts of 1971.

1971 War was India’s War for Avenging the Defeat of 1000 Years

Those who wish to make an analogy of other war crimes and trial thereof like the Second World War forget to identify and clearly sort out that the Bangladesh 1971 episode had in no way been a war of the World War kind for years involving the divided world powers but a war of revenge of Indian Brahminism against Muslim power in the Himalayan subcontinent that had a history of defeats for the Brahminists for one thousand years in the past except the historic 1971 one  just as the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had also spontaneously remarked on the 16th December victory day evening of 1971 as  ‘HAZAR SALOKE BADFLA LE LIYA’, that is, ‘We have taken the revenge of the defeats of the last one thousand years’. It was an internal fight between the Federalist and the secessionists in which the opportunist Indians took the best advantage of in 1971 to dismember Pakistan, teaching a good lesson to their ‘enemy number one’, notwithstanding the fact that many patriotic freedom fighters of Bangladesh fought heroically in the war for freedom and independence.

Crying Wolf

I would have thought that unless and until the above collaboration matter of the top leader is rightly settled in independent court, there is no point in crying wolf for the trial of the ‘war crimes’ now in Bangladesh just to make a hype of the dead issue of 1971 just before the 29 December general election to secure some votes one way or the other. How can any sensible person be oblivious of the missing links and phenomena? How could the UN and the International Court of Justice do anything in the matter unless and until the core and the prior issues are rightly sorted out first of everything and anything?

Witch-Hunting Once Again

However, if some one wishes to make witch hunting as the 1972-75 government did but largely stopped soon after the then living politician and octogenarian Maolana Bhashani had warned them of the gross injustice being done through all forms of miscarriage of justice perpetrated under the so called collaborators act of 1972. His verbatim in the matter of miscarriage of justice was, ‘CHIKON ALIR FANSI HOLO EKHON MOTA ALIR KI HOBE’ or in English version, the poor man Chikon Ali Razakar got hanged, what would be the fate of the big shot collaborators and Razakars’? Chikon Ali happened to be the only one hanged to death in 1973 for being an active anti-secessionist fighter in Kustia, about 300 kms. North- west of Dhaka.

No Moral Ground to Try Alone the Vanquished

Viewed in the total context could any one, at least in moral ground, demand trial in Bangladesh of war crimes for 1971 violations of human rights giving all immunity to the victorious and condemning only the vanquished?

Dr. M.T. Hussain

Terrorists: Amit, Monmohon and Pranab

Indian Foreign Affairs Minister Pranab Mukerjee has declared on the 16th December (08) that India would not continue dialogue further in the wake of the 26th November Mambai incident that they started some time back with Pakistan. Pranab, however, indicated that they may not immediately make armed attack on Pakistan. These two points made by him was nothing unusual to make but just appear routinely diplomatic gesture against their ‘enemy number one’. What is, however, curious or amazing that India would discuss the lone issue of ‘terrorism’ with Pakistan but nothing about the Kashmir issue along with terrorism that easily can be taken as a plea for stopping dialogue with Pakistan.

On terrorism, BBC Radio Service had an interview heard in Dhaka at 6:30 a.m. on the 17th December with an Indian Professor of Political Science of the Jadabpur University, Amit Bhattachjary, who did not directly refer to the Jammu and Kashmir issue vis a vis terrorism, but was very much clear in his assertion that terrorism and terrorists have to be clearly defined. He was critical about the issue that the rulers by terrorists mean only to protect their interests, and so in referring to the Indian Prime Minister Monmohon Singh’s rhetoric, for example, termed only the Maoists as ‘terrorists’.

If we think about and analyze the question of Jammu and Kashmir, held forcibly against the will of the majority people by Indian government since October 1947, what else the desperate people of the region, one generation after another, could have option for their national liberation?

In liberation war, Guerilla tactics for humbling occupation forces is a well known modus operandi. That India has kept the region of Jammu and Kashmir for over half a century now under forcible occupation is clearly proved by the fact that nearly 500, 000 Indian armed forces have been stationed there in perpetuity for decades. Once they would withdraw the occupation forces, there would have been no Indian control there. The fact is not only known to the Indian government but also to the so called free world who masquerade as the champion of human rights and freedom.

The Kashmir issue has remained pending for about six decades now in the nose of the free people in the world body of the United Nations (UN). That remained as a ray of hope for the freedom loving people of Kashmir. But how long must they wait for freedom and at what cost? How much blood shed? Did the colonial British in two hundred years took so much of blood of the people of the Indian subcontinent just as much the free Indian soldiers took of the people of Kashmir for freedom in six decades?

Professor Amith Bhattacharya had in the interview also referred that the ruling class hardly intend to address the real issues in regard to terrorism and the terrorists. It is easily appreciable to any person of average common sense that freedom and independence is a national issue but at practical personal or even group levels the issues are unemployment, deprivation, poverty and lack of opportunities for dignified living. Terrorists and terrorism have close affinity with these life sustaining issues. For the youths of Kashmir being nearly 90 % Muslims have little opportunities for sustenance. In education, as well, they have few opportunities for learning and advancement just as other minority communities like the Dalits, Other Backward Class (OBC), tribals, Gorkhas, Mundas, etc. Of late the ETV Bangla (Kolkata) has been serializing about poverty, backwardness and lack of educational opportunities for the Muslims of West Bengal (Paschim Banga) that I had occasions to watch a few (14, 15 and 16 December evening). They constitute 25% of the total population but not more than 1.5% in higher education and professional employments. They maintain somehow their existence in education by running their Madarasa system of education, petty jobs and businesses. In the serial, some of the petty businessmen had been complaining that they did not get any banking credit support for none would provide them security guarantee, because they were poor Muslims. Immediately after the partition of 1947 and establishment of Pakistan with two wings, many of those poor Muslims would come either to the eastern or go to the western region. That scope is now gone, particularly because, Bangladesh is one of the most overpopulated (150 million compressed in a small area of 144,000 square kilometers) country in the world; opportunities are scarce for the locals and no such for any outsider. Millions of poor Bangladeshis have been eager more than ever before to look for employment and jobs outside its own territory.

It is not that all poor and unemployed people go for enlisting their names in the terrorist camps. Some may. But most determined ones have some higher ideal. Liberation of one’s own motherland, Kashmir for example, who did not accept India as their motherland, can not be termed as ordinary terrorists having no higher ideal but for Halua Ruti alone. Examples are many in and around. How about the Tamils? Assamese, Gurkhas, Bodos?  How about Khudiram? To the colonial British he was a terrorist but now he is recognized as a patriot. French young woman Joan of Arc (19) was adjudged a Witch and executed in 1431 A.D., but after 489 years she was canonized to be a Saint in 1920! For the freedom fighters of the young blood who took to any method, not condonable in law of the land, if guided and motivated by self esteem for higher ideal of freedom, can hardly be summarily blamed for.

India is not immune from home grown extremist organizations like R.S.S., Bajrang Dal etc. representing and deeply committed to implementation of the Hindu ideology in otherwise secular India thus clearly violating the Constitution. Curiously neither the R.S.S nor the Bajrang Dal has got ban as yet despite many pressures. On the contrary, the much lesser extremist Muslim students’ organization SIMI fighting for rights of self preservation as minority has already been banned, nothing but a double standard.
I would as such feel that the more mature ones in any level should go to the deep of the injury of all the minorities for its cure and must not end in scratching the surface. Should the UN hold the vote for self determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, things are certain there to take a cooler and peaceful turn. Otherwise, India, even if would have added troops and arms there, terrorism would only multiply. Pakistan is, no doubt, a good escape goat, possibly, for electoral gains of one or the other party, but containment of terrorism with sufficient effectiveness would remain a dream for the Indian rulers.

Dr. M.T. Hussain

Akbar’s misplaced perception of ‘hatred’

This has a reference to the Indian journalist Mr. M J Akbar’s item published in a Dhaka English daily on the 12th December, 2008, wherein he has blamed the Muslim League leader Jinnah for his Two Nation Theory that, according to him, gave birth to ‘hatred’ and the partition of the British India in 1947. How much he was right?

The historical truth is that during the colonial British rule in India for two centuries (1757-1947), misfortunes fell no doubt on the whole population, but the Muslims as a religious group felt more badly than any other religious group en bloc. The Muslims’ feeling so perceived might not have been reasonable as some of the Congress leaders did maintain, but the Muslims in general had that feeling generated not in a day or two but for many valid reasons over the period of the British rule.

The alienation of the Muslims from the British and their native good boys had many good valid reasons. First, the Muslims en bloc turned almost pauper in matter of decades beginning enforcement of the Permanent land settlement in 1793 A.D. by forfeiture of almost all of their landed property that remained theirs for centuries. The final blow was the application of the so-called Sun Set Law in 1841 that took away the remnant few of some other Muslims landed property. In addition, the Muslim learned society was also labeled in reality as uneducated almost overnight through introduction of the English education system abandoning formally in 1835 the century old but developed Muslim education system and then in two years replacement of the official Persian language until then for centuries in India had been the Muslims media for higher education by English. Thus poverty in terms of economic fortune and ignorance so far as higher level of learning was concerned became the obvious fate of the Muslims who earlier had been fortunate on both accounts. Such changes of socio-economic status had the impact not only in backwardness but also instilling a sort of inferiority complex and alienation from both the British rulers and the newly emerging native elite who happened to be all non-Muslims. Another stark reality was that as the English historian and highly learned and experienced bureaucrat William Wilson Hunter had in 1871 stated very clearly how the well off Muslims in about one hundred years of the British rule in India became poor and destitute.

There were, no doubt, other poor Muslims even during the Muslim rule, but their richer co-religionists would maintain and care for them in needs. Unfortunately, when the richer and educated ones turned poor and disadvantaged except very few, the whole Muslim mass had nothing but complete darkness all around.

The other crucial fact was that the Muslims of Bengal, of East Bengal, in particular, had the worst exploitation suffered not only for the British rule but also more so for their henchmen but native lackeys who perpetrated  torture and inflicted exploitation of the most cruel nature. Poet Rabi Thakur’s  epic poem ‘Dui Bigha Zami’ is a replica of the cruelty of the landlords during the British rule whose overwhelming large numbers in East Bengal happened to be the Hindus but their tenants at will Muslims- subsistence farmers, day laborers, artisans etc. who had short of bare necessities to sustain life and living.

Such subjective conditions prevailing in society made the Muslim League gradually popular as the people through growing awareness and so shied away not only from the better organized Congress but also from the Krisak Sramik Proja Party led by the early nineteen thirties charismatic leader of Bengal, a Muslim, A.K. Fazlul Haq.
Whatever might have been others appreciation about the psyche for the shying away, the Muslims felt akin with the Muslim League and they made it themselves popular organization by 1940s, particularly when Muhammad Ali Jinnah took up its leadership at the second go in mid 1930s.

Jinnah was an astute politician, if not a statesman. He developed his own strategy for the disadvantaged Muslims of the subcontinent, to win over both the British and the Congress. The Two Nation Theory happened to be his effective strategy to establish a Muslim majority nation out of the Himalayan sub-continent along with the departure of the British granting self rule and independence. As soon as that was achieved due to his strong iron will thus defeating all adversaries and Pakistan got to its start on the 14th August 1947, he took not long time to redefine the nature of the country as a modern democratic and welfare nation guarantying equal rights and protections to all citizens of the country irrespective of religion, race, caste, ethnicity etc.

As is known to all Jinnah was never a communal Muslim who bread hatred as no Muslim can be. He had been a Congress worker and leader for decades and afterwards getting tired of the Hindu Congress leaders, not in personality score but for perceptional difference in problem solving, he parted with the Congress for good and joined the Muslim League providing full dedication and commitment. The Muslims, as well, deeply appreciated his commitment and took him as their Great Leader or the Quaid E Azam. Incidentally, the term Great Leader, was first conferred to him in address not by the Muslims but by the India’s great leader M.K. Gandhi.

He was so broad minded and liberal in thinking that even after the Muslim mass and the other League leaders had been fully committed to secure independent Pakistan, he went on trying compromising formula to keep India united as per the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946. He went further on and nodded go ahead to Huseyn Shaheed Sohrawardy and Sarat Bose to make greater Bengal independent,  not only keeping that outside the proposed Pakistan but also of independent India, if the other party or the Congress would accede to any such proposition. Unfortunately, the greater Bengal plan failed just as the Cabinet Mission Plan not for Jinnah’s ‘hatred’ of anybody but for the clear hatred of the Congress leaders like Nehru, Patel etc. Is this not the truth of history?

– Dr. M.T. Hussain

Awami League Manifesto 2008: Unearthing a Poisonous Cobra

The Awami League has made public its election manifesto for December 29 election. The party chief Sheikh Hasina did it on the 12th December in Dhaka in a selected gathering.

There are many lofty promises therein as many knew from the list of 23 issues, just 2 more than the historic 21 point of the then Jukto Front of which the AL had been a component in early 1950s as the election pledge for early 1954 polls, as this time the first priority being reduction of prices of essential items like rice, pulses, oil etc. to the level of purchasing power of the common poor people not specifying though to what exact price tag.

There would certainly be some praises and some condemnation of the 23 promises they made. In this brief item I intend to deal with only one problem in the question of trial of the so-called ‘war criminals’. The issue was picked up by them about the subject that occurred in 1971, thirty eight years ago in the highest pitch of confusion and controversy. The time elapsed is tipped here not for anything else but for difficulty involved in reality to do right of any wrong.

The first point, one must appreciate and take cognizance of, is that war crime is recognized as such in matters of actual engagement between opponent armies in actual war. The Bangladesh 1971 war happened in fact to be the specified war between combatant armed forces of India and Pakistan during the 14 days engagements of the 3rd December to the16th. So far as the 14 days war was concerned, the first three days war until 6th December was aggression of India against the sovereignty of Pakistan for the very simple reason that India did not recognize Bangladesh as an independent country until that day. Appreciating these facts of historical truth, one can stand for trial of war criminal at best during these two weeks period, if in case the combatants of the either side violated human rights of any civilian, not of any combatant force engaged in actual fight during engagements.

Civilians were known to have violated human rights in some cases that can not be termed as war crime, and such violations were there but not on one side but from both sides of the political divide of 1971, one group for independence of Bangladesh and the other for preserving the unity and sovereignty of Pakistan. That is why after the so-called collaborators act had run into fiasco, the 195 listed armed forces war criminals had been let free by the Government, they formed a tribunal to try the civilian human rights violators during the anarchic period of 1971. But the other reality came up that such violations had been perpetrated from both sides and the evil acts went on not only from one side of the ideological divide. Though the victors tried to take all in misusing and witch hunting by the brute force of the so called collaborators act of 1972 during 1972 and early 1973, the same advantage was soon lost, and the pro-federalist elements were freed, and in many cases rehabilitated with honor.

As the promise now made for trial of ‘war criminals’ afresh, one can not but be reasonably skeptical if the situation is similar to 1973 when operation of the tribunal was abandoned for enormous difficulties or if it is more favorable to put the violators, if any traceable and alive, to justice.

The issue of continuing relation between Pakistan and Bangladesh is not a mean one. Can Bangladesh risk the fraternal relations with that country developed during the last three decades? Can Bangladesh take the risk of being cornered at the forum of the OIC?

As are known to the knowledgeable circles, Bangladesh had to wait long three and a half years to start to mend relation not only with China but also with Saudi Arabia and its close Muslim allies that had the main stake of relation with Pakistan and Islamic ideology. Should Bangladesh go for pressing the issue, could that be at all palatable with all these countries?  Could not the nearly two million of Bangladeshis now employed in Saudi Arab and around in Muslim countries alone face difficulties  in their life and living there and sustenance of their families at home, in case relation with Saudi Arab is dented for picking up the issue here afresh.

There is no doubt that some determined sons of the soil fought for and brought independence of Bangladesh in 1971. That reality, however, did not mean that the supreme leader Sheikh Mujib either did declare the independence war or led his own army to fight to victory in 1971. On the contrary, the real truth of the matter is that he declined to secede from united Pakistan even at the height of the tension in early 1971 and chose instead to surrender to the Federal army to preserve united Pakistan (See, Impact International, London, 25th September, 1987; S. Wolpert’s Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan, 1993, p.175; Sarder M. Choudhury’s The Ultimate Crime, 1999, P.98, etc.).

During his surrender on the 25th March night in 1971 he left no message for the people but only in utter confusion to decide their own destiny in anarchic situation and fighting between themselves, one group identifying right then as the Bangladeshis and the other as the Pakistanis as before. He however, left a feeble and confusing message through one of his lieutenant Tajuddin to keep on ‘struggling’ and enforcing the ‘shut down on the 27th March’. The other instruction he had for use and misuse of stick or Lathi that unfortunately some foolish ones did only to get crushed  in shelling of the armies with modern weapons  that engaged themselves to restore order and discipline in the streets of Dhaka on he 25th March night of 1971. Could the leader Sheikh shark off burden for abetting such foolish acts of the simple minded folks who all unfortunately believed the leader as the demi-god? One must wonder thus at the sagacity of the framers of the election manifesto of AL 2008, particularly in this matter for including therein the so-called trial of the ‘war criminals’, really a missed opportunity, wherein the great late Sheikh could hardly be immune from.

One may thus wonder if the issue has been picked up and put to the list of promises of the manifesto only to dig out a poisonous cobra for nothing but to risk a poisonous bite of it. The other crucial matter is that in the scenario of ‘forget and forgive’ announced in 1973 by the great Sheikh for the 195 listed war criminal, putting now afresh some civilians of the vanquished alone, none of the victors, who stood for their own belief and conscience to save the integrity of their own beloved country, even the UN could pursue for anything in the matter.

Dr. M.T. Hussain

Mumbai’s 26/11 Terrorists’ Attack and the Jammu & Kashmir Issue

It is alleged that the terrorists who made the serious attack on the 26th November in Mumbai having had amazingly overpowered the securities of Indian Government and of the installations (Hotel Taj, Oberoi etc.) were Pakistani citizens and connected to Lashkar E Tayyeba (LET). The lone young man arrested (nine said to be killed) alive stated to speaking fluent English unusual for any Pakistani of that young age that should indicate that such English speaker were not based in Pakistan but elsewhere. Further is known that some hold British Passports. Thus one can not be certain that they were all Pakistanis by birth but could be Muslims of the near about locality.

It is, however, true that the LET is rather a new organization compared to many other established not long ago but much more determined than any of the old ones for liberation of Jammu and Kashmir from Indian occupation. Since the LET was banned in Pakistan mainly due to pressure of India and for Pakistan to improve and maintain normal relation with India, it is only likely that they can not operate openly and so work underground, not necessarily in the soil of Pakistan. It is also likely that there might have many young men from the land of Jammu and Kashmir having close relations and links with Pakistan territory as the two areas are contiguous so far as who work in the organization underground for freedom from Indian rule or Azadi as they call it.

The movement and struggle for Azadi of the people of Jammu and Kashmir is clearly a stand, in India’s view, for ‘secession; of the state from Indian Union that she can not yield to for preservation of the entity. That is what stand India has been trying to preserve for the last 61 years.

There is, however, a lacuna. The post 1947 independent India that took her independent entity following the departure of the colonial power, the British, had been based on the Indian Independence Act of 1947 or to be exact, the 3rd June Plan of 1947. The Plan though materialized in the partition of the British Indian territory into two separate sovereign states, Pakistan and India, the position of Jammu and Kashmir like more than other 100 or so native feudal states, had clear offer in the official document to join either of the two new countries or to remain independent just as Pakistan and India had earned. Keeping with the provision of the 3rd June Plan, Jammu and Kashmir under the leadership of the populist leader Sheikh Abdullah opted to remain independent. But the feudal Hindu ruler Dogra Raja Hari Singh in defiance of the popular will of the people in about ten weeks after mid August 1947 made a secret deal with the Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and joined India through a fraudulent document against the popular wishes of the overwhelming majority people who happened to be Muslims keeping Abdullah not only out of the deal but also his imprisonment by the Indian Government Prime Minister Pandit Nehru. However, as the fraudulence was unmasked by Pakistan and the world knew about and condemned the evil design of Nehru, he made open promises one after another that the final fate of the people of Jammu and Kashmir would be referred to and be decided by the express will or through referendum or self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the UN supervision.

Unfortunately after a few years, Nehru went back on his promise on flimsy ground that Pakistan had joined alliance with some big power, and started to rule the people arbitrarily at whims without holding the promised referendum or allowing the process of self-determination that was essentially needed for respect of the wishes of the people. The popular leader Abdullah had to face long imprisonment, because, at that stage he refused to agree to annex the State into the Indian Union. But after Nehru’s death and Pakistan dismembered by India in 1971 through open armed aggression thus giving birth to independent Bangladesh in the soil and territory of East Pakistan, Nehru’s daughter and Prime Minster Indira bargained hard with Abdullah in 1975, freed him from long imprisonment and was persuaded to accede to India that he did at the fag end of his life. However, he made a bargain in that the Indian Constitution in Article 370 provided a special position that no other province India had. Thus Jammu and Kashmir became the only Muslim majority province of the Indian Union that according to the provision and partition plan of 1947 had to become a part or province of Pakistan by virtue of being Muslim majority area.

As was the Indian situation in reality, Muslims and lower castes in millions continued to face disadvantage and inequality, the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir though being majority in the state, felt betrayed with all other Muslims on all India basis. Such realization gave birth to freedom movement in new vigor. Many organizations sprang up to fight for independence or Azadi. Laskar E Tayyeba happened to be the latest one of the many led by different leaders. One such young leader Maqbool Bhat (b.1938) of the Jammu Kashmir National Liberation Front (JKNLF) fighting for Azadi in early 1980s was captured, tried in camera and hanged to death on the 11 February, 1984. Bhat’s death as is natural with any freedom movement leaders did not cool the movement but added fuel to the fire.

Soon after execution of Maqbul Bhat at his prime at 42, Jagmohon took up as the Governor of Indian held Jammu and Kashmir. He hold to the post for nearly six years and on retirement in 1991, wrote a voluminous book of 794 pages in 1994, titled rightly ‘My Frozen Turbulence in Kashmir’ that contains his day to day experience there both as an insider of the government and about the determined activities of the freedom fighters against Indian rule. He had therein an observation, ‘What is happening now is the inevitable consequence of not facing the truth…such people (in administration) are not only digging their own graves but also of united India’ (1994 Edn, P.652). He meant so not only about the security forces and administration but also about the ‘quisling’ politicians. The Oxford University Professor Emeritus Dr Tapan Roy Chowdhury on the 1st December (08) morning (Dhaka Time) used a similar term with the BBC Radio (London) for the Indian politicians following the Bombay incident of 26/11 as ‘DURBRITTO’ in Bengali language or in English meaning rogue.

Thus the alleged terrorists and all their activities including the Mumbai 26/11 one have to be seen and measured in the greater perspective of their intents and goals for Azadi. Their mode of action programs may not be condoned but one can not overlook their deep frustration that has built up over the period of decades that the Indian Government and politicians had continually had played roles of rogues divorced of any ethical and moral values.

Dr. Angana Chatterji, a Bengali of Kolkata ( India) and Associate Professor of Cultural and Anthropological Studies at the California Institute of Integral Studies, while on a fact finding study tour in Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir in June this year, just like another humanist writer Arundhati Roy continuing her sympathy for the cause of Azadi of the of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, has made public what she found there in her latest article, ‘Mass Graves in Kashmir’, all of Muslims labeled as ‘terrorists’, published in the October- December issue of the London based Lisa journal. Although all those killed over the two decades by the ever present 500,000 Indian army and security forces summarily labeled them as ‘terrorists’, but they identified themselves as the patriotic proud freedom fighters and so also their near ones deeply respect them as such. Dr. Angana stated some account of the ill fate of the so-called ‘terrorists’ as follows:
‘Nearly two decades of genocidal violence record 70,000+ dead, 8,000+ disappeared, 60,000+ tortured, 50,000+ orphaned, incalculable sexualized gendered violence….Kashmir’s only hospital with services for mental health received 68,000 patients…. Repressions of struggles for self-determination and international politics/policies have yielded severe consequences, creating a juncture at which the failure of governance intersects with a culture of grief’ (P. 46).

India boasts of her ‘democracy’ and many others equally euphemistically call India the ‘largest democracy’. How about just response of the Indian government to the democratic wishes of the people that in the form of the self–determination issue of the people of Jammu and Kashmir has been pending in the UN agenda for over five decades now? M J Akbar, the renowned journalist, the Congress Party follower and a secularist had long 23 years ago reminded the Indian rulers in his book, ‘India Siege Within’ (Penguin, 1985), for the crucial need of sticking to the faith in democracy and respect for others inalienable right for self-determination including those in Jammu and Kashmir for India’s own survival. Another great writer of India Khushwant Singh in his thought-provoking book ‘The End of India’ (Penguin, 2003), as I understood, appealed for the same liberal democracy and to shun the psyche of uprooting the ‘common enemy according to them is the ‘foreigner’, namely the Muslims and Christians who must be forced into a subordinate status or hounded out or even decimated’ (P.128). Maolana Abul Kalam Azad, the staunchest of the Congress leaders and a ‘comrade’ of Nehru but a Muslim scholar advised in mid 1950s soon before his death that ‘It is to the interest of India and Pakistan that they should develop friendly relations and act in cooperation with one another. Any other course of action can lead to only to greater trouble’ (India Wins Freedom, Orient Longman, 1988 Edn., P.249). Would they learn and see through the root causes of the terrorism, particularly among the people of Jammu and Kashmir for realization of their inalienable birth right and dear cause for self determination before jumping summarily on to witch hunting not only for the alleged terrorists but also against the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir. Taking excuse of the Mumbai issue, any adventure to teach any military lesson to Pakistan may not help India but only exacerbate sufferings of her millions of poor people just as that may be for the Pakistanis as well.
Terror attacks in India are not exclusive to her but such attacks are almost a regular matter in Pakistan as well. The devastating recent bomb attack in the five star Islamabad Marriot Hotel is still fresh in memory almost of all. Both the Hindu communalists and terrorists of the RSS variety etc. are not uncommon in India as one may recall the Indian Guzrat massacre perpetrated years ago by them against nearly a thousand of Muslim men women and children in a single go and unbelievably at the behest of the seating government Chief Minister!

India would be well advised if she would sooner than later honor the promise earlier given to the people of Jammu and Kashmir for the right of self determination that would certainly stop not only terrorism but also establish durable peace in the region.

Author: Dr. M.T. Hussain
Dhaka-1206

August 15 Revolution: A Perspective

The political changeover on August 15, 1975 in which the Baksali autocratic regime of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in Bangladesh was removed, had been widely hailed by the nation and highly acclaimed abroad. For reference, one may open the newspapers and other media materials of the time, both local and international. The international community, including India, the Soviet Union and the US, immediately recognized the new administration under President Khandakar Mushtaque Ahmed. Saudi Arabia and China accorded their recognition to Bangladesh for the first time.

Unfortunately, Sheikh Mujib and a few members of his family and relatives died in the short military action in the early hours on August 15, 1975. Those could be termed as circumstantial deaths, and certainly not ‘killing’, as some people might like to coin the event.

All deaths, whichever manner they occur, are sad and regrettable. Bangladesh has always been a fertile ground for unnatural deaths. Political violence, political elimination, death under custody and death in various operations by law enforcement agencies are common. Bangladeshis are also quite familiar with road and riverine accidents, natural disasters which claim lives in thousands every year. Please read annual Amnesty International reports and country papers on Bangladesh by various foreign countries to ascertain the facts. Amidst such a scenario, as remarked by a foreign judge, death of 22 persons in a historic political change is not significant.

Some pro-Awami/Baksalis argue it was not the death of any ordinary man; it was the death of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. While others complained, agreed Sheikh was a dictator and perhaps deserved punishment but what about the rest that included pregnant women and 10-year old Russel? Yes, one definitely feels sympathetic to such views. As said earlier, all deaths are regrettable irrespective of the person/s involved! At the same time, it may be noted that Sheikh Mujib’s blood is no thicker than that of Siraj Sikdar or thousand others who were victims under his heavy hands.

One local commentator once put it differently: If those few deaths did not take place on August 15, there would have been additional deaths/murders in thousands in the hands of Baksalite agents subsequently. Dare to count the toll to date, had there not been August 15?

After Sheikh Hasina Wazed, daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, became prime minister in 1996, she orchestrated a kind of kangaroo trial for the ‘killers’ of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and arranged a verdict of firing squads for the ‘killers’. The case is in the final stage of review by the Appellate Division. According to the scenario projected during the trial, a band of disgruntled army officers raided the house of Sheikh Mujib and others on August 15, 1975 and indiscriminately killed anybody they found on their way, without rime or reason. What a story!!!

Before the 1991 elections, Sheikh Hasina was sure that Awami League would sweep and she would become the next president/prime minister. According to a senior military intelligence officer, Hasina was already behaving like the next chief executive. She said to the officer that she had only two objectives to accomplish when she would be in power: i) rehabilitate her father’s image and ii) avenge her father’s death. To her utter disappointment, voters did not choose her party; they chose BNP instead in the 1991 elections. However, when she finally managed to manipulate a power-grab 5 years later, she tried to accomplish only those two things.

Questions to the Nation

First of all, why would the army officers go and make presidential residence a killing field? If killing was their passion, why they had to make Sheikh Mujib’s place the choice? Was Sheikh their rival in any equation? Was there anything personal between Sheikh Mujib and the army officers?

Was power-grab the objective of August 15? Then why didn’t they take over the statecraft after the coup? They were not seen in any leadership position in the post-Mujib administration. Why?

Some people would like to suggest that it was the pro-Pakistani defeated force of 1971 that ‘killed’ Sheikh Mujib with a view to crushing the spirit of independence. For those who harbor that view, it may be mentioned that most of the officers that participated in the August 15 revolution were highly decorated freedom fighters, and almost all of them passed through a perilous journey from the western part of Pakistan to join the liberation war in Bangladesh in1971, leaving their lucrative military positions in the Pakistan Army. Unlike their freedom fighter colleagues who were based in then East Pakistan and were somewhat forced to defect and take up arms against Pakistanis, these officers were truly imbued with the liberation spirit and were determined to take all risks to join the war efforts. No wonder when the newly born Bangladesh was being plundered and ruined by Awamis and Baksalites, these were the officers who felt the pinch the most and responded to the national desire for its salvation.

It is undeniable that Sheikh Mujib had great contributions towards generation of the spirit of independence amongst the people of then East Pakistan. Unfortunately, however, his ability to translate his vision, whatever that was, into reality seemed to have been lost in independent Bangladesh. Surrounded by sycophants, he and his cronies started thinking the new country as their personal property and could do anything with it. As such, the war devastated nation was plunging deeper and deeper into a chaotic abyss. Hardly anything was working under his administration. Observers reached a reality conclusion: Sheikh was perhaps successful, albeit circumstantially, as a stage politician but a miserable failure as a statesman and administrator.

Few leaders in history received so much love as did Sheikh Mujib when he returned to independent Bangladesh in January 1972. But, within a span of 3 years, he turned out to be the most hated character in the country. The reasons are not far to seek.

Rakkhi Bahini

First of all, Mujib sidelined the contribution of the military in the Liberation War. He credited the independence to his Awami leadership and India. The big neighbor did support and extend material help for the Mukti Bahini but not without self interest. Sheikh Mujib never felt at ease with Ziaur Rahman who had the ‘audacity’ to declare independence on March 26/27, 1971 at Chittagong radio station, thus stealing the show. As a punishment, Zia was superseded and his junior K M Safiullah, a docile yes-man, was made the army chief. Many in the military believed that General M A G Osmany, a superseded and retired Colonel of Pakistan army, may have played a role in this arrangement. Osmany was the wartime C-in-C of Mukti Bahini and never had much love lost for Zia, the war hero.

Again, to minimize the importance and influence of army, Mujib created the all-powerful Rakkhi Bahini under his personal command. It was a parallel army, equipped and trained by India, used mainly to eliminate political opponents of any kind. Stories of terror tactics and atrocities committed by this quasi-military force still haunt the public. Thousands lost their lives in its heavy hands. Additionally, there were Lal Bahini, Sabuj Bahini, Mujib Bahini, Awami Sechha Sebak Bahini with similar missions in the industries, academics and social sectors. A S M Abdur Rab said that 40 thousand of his Jatiya Samajtanric Dal cadres were killed by these forces. The late Eanyetullah Khan of Holiday put the total political deaths at 35 thousand under the Sheikh’s rule. Wives were not sure if their husbands would return after the day’s work, parents were worried everyday till their children returned home from schools/colleges. That was the safety and security situation during the ‘Golden Period’ of Mujib!!

Man-Made Famine

Adults of the time can recall the horrific scenes of the 1974/75 flood, and the man-made famine that followed. There was no shortage of relief material, yet hardly anything reached the needy. These were hoarded in the personal go-downs of the Awami leaders and selectively used for political purpose while much of those were sold in the black markets in and outside the border. Dhaka City Awami League chief Ghazi Ghulam Mustafa had the largest such go-down on record and went by the nick name ‘Kombol Chor’ (blanket thief). Almost half a million people lost their lives for want of food, clothing and shelter. Roads and waterways were littered with dead bodies. Burials, whenever possible, were mostly done without the minimal religious rites. Men and animals fighting for eatables in the garbage were common sights. One may revisit the Dhaka and other city streets of those days to recall the situation.

Those facts were no fictional inventions. Those who did not have the fortune or misfortune to witness the situation may review any local or international news material of the time to ascertain the facts. Bhasani’s Haq Katha, Holiday, Jankantha etc managed to depict the dismal pictures around the time, of course, in a limited scale due to strict government censorship. The New York Times of December 11, 1974, Washington Post of November 8, 1974 had articles on print.

Emergency

Emergency was clamped in December 1974. All political activities banned. All but 4 government controlled newspapers were closed. Fundamental rights were suspended. Anyone not towing the Awami line was either jailed or eliminated. No criticism of Sheikh or his administration was tolerated. Siraj Sikdar’s case was a point in evidence. In an apparent admission to the killing, Sheikh Mujib bragged on the parliament’s floor, “Kothay akhon Siraj Sikdar (Where is Siraj Sikdar now)………?”

The death nail on the nascent Bangladeshi democracy came when Sheikh Mujib scrapped the parliamentary system and appointed himself the all powerful president, ousting poor Mohammad Ullah, without any debate. He also designated himself the ‘father of the nation’. Thus, Sheikh Mujib became the powerful dictator, concentrating all state powers in his hands. See New York Times of January 26, 1975. That was democracy and freedom under Sheikh Mujib!!

One Party State

Sheikh Mujib created one-party state in a Russian style by forming BAKSAL– Bangladesh Krisak Sramik Awami League– virtually an extension of Awami exclusivity, to ensure none to claim the national authority and resources. He politicized the bureaucracy and military by forcing them to join Baksal. Country was divided into 61 districts with Baksali governors and politicians chosen to administer them according to Baksali style, to start on September 1, 1975.

It was also rumored that Sheikh Mujib was to be declared ‘President for Life’, an initiative to which was to start at the Chatra League convention at the Dhaka university scheduled on August 15, 1975. It was only a matter of formalization subsequently.

Country’s economic and social fabric totally collapsed. People were groaning under a suffocating situation. They wanted a regime change immediately. Patriotic elements of the defense forces were the only hope.

Here is an analogy to Sheikh’s dictatorship. Japan always harbored a desire to be an imperial power like the British, French, Dutch etc. With the outbreak of WWII, it saw an opportunity to fulfill its dream and joined then axis forces of Hitler’s Germany. Within four years, it occupied most of Southeast Asia, including eastern part of China, Mongolia and Korea. Since it lacked experience as a colonial administrator, Japan turned out to be one of the worst foreign rulers in occupied lands. People in China, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Myanmar (Burma) still shudder to think of the Japanese atrocities committed in those 4 years. By all accounts, Mujib lacked the intelligence and competence to be a successful dictator. So he turned out to be the worst!!
Reportedly, Sheikh became so apprehensive of the public disapproval towards his popularity and administration that he feared political upheavals, even a military coup, anytime. To counter such possible situation, he had a secret understanding with Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to call for Indian military intervention. Such request could be made by only three persons: Sheikh himself, his nephew Sheikh Moni and his brother-in-law Abdur Rab Serniabat. A leader that the Sheikh was!!

Alternatives for Political Change

Was there an alternative to change the government? The answer was a simple no. Constitutional ways to change the government were elections or by parliamentary vote of no confidence. Those who lived in Bangladesh in those days and understood the situation properly would vouch that these methods were virtually sealed and unthinkable under the autocracy of Sheikh Mujib.

The Parliament was a mere rubber stamp, it had no authority. Saving two souls (General MAG Osmany and Barrister Moinul Hossain), none dared to oppose when Sheikh Mujib made the 4th Amendment in the constitution in ten minutes in January 1975, changing to presidential form and appointing him the president and father of the nation.

Post August 15

Those who lived in Dhaka and Bangladesh on the day must have a vivid idea of the scenario following the news that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had been ousted. The joy of the people was comparable to the Victory Day on December 16, 1971. People heaved a sigh of relief, they were saved, they were rescued out of a groaning and agonizing situation.

We Muslims say “Innalillah Wa …….Rajeoon” upon hearing the death of any fellow Muslim irrespective of the relationship or how bad the dead person has been in life. Has anyone heard the word ‘Innalillah……….’ upon hearing Sheikh Mujib’s death? None that I know of. Rather, we heard the word ‘Alhamdulillah!’

Assuming that the August 15 coup was executed by a small group of army officers and men and the rest of the armed forces were not involved. The question is: What were the chiefs of army, navy, air force, BDR, JRB (Jatiya Rakhi Bahini), police and their powerful intelligence agencies were doing at that time? Upon hearing the coup and death of Sheikh Mujib, why didn’t they rush to the scene and crush that small group? Was it difficult to do that? What prevented them from doing so? Doesn’t it demonstrate that they all had the silent blessings for the coup, even though they themselves could not be part of it? In fact, they rushed and fell head over heels to present themselves before the new president and declare their open support and allegiance to him.

Reportedly, when Brigadier Khaled Mosharraf, the army Chief of General Staff, heard that main guns of the tanks taken out on the morning of the coup did not have shells, he immediately ordered shells to be issued to the tanks. Why did he do that, if he or other senior commanders did not support the coup?

Even after the coup, the parliament remained operative. Within a few days, a special session of parliament took place at Bangabhaban. Speakers one after another hailed the leadership change and extended their unqualified support to president Khandakar Mushtaque and his administration.

As mentioned earlier, none of the revolutionary officers who led the coup on August 15, 1975 took any leadership position. It was a unique deviation from coups around the world where the coup leaders usually assumed the administrative responsibility themselves, eliminating all pockets of dissention and rivalry. Reportedly, army chief Safiullah suggested that all the August revolutionary majors be promoted to brigadiers. The coup leaders politely declined, saying they accomplished a national responsibility and peoples’ happiness and blessings were their reward.

Another unique feature of the August 15 revolution was that the political and military hierarchy has not been disturbed. Immediately after completion of their mission, the revolutionary officers entrusted the responsibility of running the country to the elected representatives, while military commanders continued at their respective positions. The new cabinet of president Mushtaque, formed the same day, was composed entirely of the elected representatives of Awami League.

In Perspective

We are living in 2008, in a better socio-economic environment and relatively democratic atmosphere. It is perhaps easy to look at the things of 1970s of Bangladesh differently. Besides, many of us who seem to be critical of the August 15 Revolution did not have the opportunity to understand and experience the birth pangs of the liberation war, did not see what the nation had gone through at that time, and fortunately for them, they did not have to undergo the rigors of Sheikh Mujib’s misrule during his so called ‘Golden Period’ from 1972 to 1975. The generations in their 40s and under need to know more about the Bangladesh of that ‘Golden Period’.

To visualize the situation of Bangladesh of early 1970s, one needed to go back in time and then judge why August 15 was needed. And, if there was no August 15, what would have happened to the poor Bangladesh as a nation. Please read “Indemnity Rohit Kar Sarthey?” by M M Azizul Haq published in the daily Inqilab on November 1, 1991. It details the circumstances that led to the coup on August 15, 1975, as well as the possible scenario had there not been the coup.

The country may not be any better today, yet it does not have the Baksalite destructive regime, it does not have a one-party, one-man dictatorship. People can at least talk and write freely today.

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was one of the greatest leaders of Bangladesh, one of its founding fathers. At the same time, we can not ignore the contributions of other great leaders like Sher-e-Bangla A K Fazlul Haq, Shaheed Suhrawardi, Maulana Bhasani and others. We can not also ignore the great leaderships provided and unmatched contributions made by Tajuddin Ahmed and Ziaur Rahman during the liberation war and afterwards.

Sheikh Mujib’s and others perhaps did not have to die the way they did on August 15, 1975. Those deaths of the day are certainly regretted. But, the question is: was the death intended? Only those who planned the coup and those who were at the scene can explain that. According to reports, there were casualties on both sides. In an interview with Anthony Mascarenhas, Col Khandakar Abdur Rashid, one of the coup leaders, said that Sheikh Kamal had a sten gun with him when he died. Sheikh Jamal and rest of the family members were huddled in a room. When they declined to come out, despite repeated warnings, the angry soldiers lobbed in a few grenades.

At the same time, let us not forget the tens of thousands that perished under heavy hands of Mujib. Among those victims there were children and women too. If there were no August 15, 1975, there would have been many, many more deaths subsequently.

Since August 15, 1975 many monsoon floods had washed Bangladesh, many heroes and warriors traversed its capital, the public minds and perception underwent changes too.

But the bottom line: To understand and judge August 15, one must go back to pre-August 1975 scenario of Bangladesh.

Author: R Chowdhury