Untold Facts

Widespread fears for re-emergence of the notorious BKSAL among the seniors around

Many senior and proven nationalist intellectual citizens of high integrity of all shades have been very much worried about Hasina’s evil machinations against the freedom loving people of Bangladesh that she has each day driving and forcing the people to swallow the bitter pill of the BKSAL her father innovated. In the wider groups there are many well known ones who had at one time been deeply devoted to Mujib, Hasina’s father, the pioneer of BKSAL in independent Bangladesh in earlier1970s.

Is this anything unusual to follow father’s ideal? Being a devotee of the great father her approach in the matter should be nothing unusual or unworthy, particularly, in the political culture of Bangladesh. What looks bad is that by doing so she has been trying to chart a wrong path for the people she is on to the driving seat of the country. The people are for open society and plural democracy that BKSAL had put to death formally in 1974 by her father that hastened his fall as well. She wishes to resurrect the skeleton from the grave and give a new lease of life, dignity and honor. What must Hasina make choice for, her father’s ideal or the people’s common aspirations? Why should she detest her father whatever others think or stand against differently?

Like Hasina many loved Mujib for many of his rhetoric and political programs. I had a friend, a former Student League activist and leader in early 1950s who was a devotee of Mujib as many other not less than Hasina, apart from the blood relation. In the 1954 general election he worked hard canvassing for Khaleq Nawaz against seating Chief Minister Nurul Amin of the Muslim League in the constituency in Mymensigh away from his home village Ahmadpur in Brahmanbaria that he fell seriously ill. That meant that he was a serious supporter of the Awami League and also of Mujib. Further he was the founder Vice Principal of the Mirpur (Dhaka) Bangla College, Mr. Abul Kasem being the founder Principal in late 1950s and early 1960s. Later on Matiur Rahman did his Ph.D. in the SOAS in London in History. Unfortunately he rejected Mujib’s secessionist move and sided in 1971 with the integrity of Pakistan, our forefathers created through popular votes in the 1946 general election. Further on he stayed in London after 1971 and died there in 1982 never returned to his birth place. During death he left a last wish that his body be buried in Islamabad National Graveyard and was so done. He had 6 valuable books about politics, history and future of Bangladesh, apart from his many occasional publications, two in Bengali and all other in English. He could not see one in printed shape during his life time but later on published by his equally capable wife, a life long teacher in London, Dr. Razia Rahman.

Mahmud Ali’s case is historically well known. Although a native of Sunamganj, Sylhet, and Revenue Minister in 1950s of the East Pakistan Cabinet, very much a progressive left leaning politician, stayed back in Pakistan and died there in 2006 November. He was also buried in the same graveyard with national honor of the State of Pakistan.

Another interesting case was about the pre 1971 Pakistan Observer (Dhaka) senior journalist and Chittagong Burea Chief Fazlur Rahman of Sujanagar, Pabna. He stayed in Bangladesh all through until early 1973. On being to London to attend a cooperative seminar, he held himself back there. He was by that time until 1970 well known as a supporter of Mujib’s six points so far as the economic ‘disparity’ between the two wings was concerned. He was a serious column writer in the pages of the English daily verbatim and translations into Bengali done by Taheruddin Thakur (as he told me later) in the pages of daily Ittefaq mainly on economic disparity issues. A life-long bachelor, he stayed in London from 1973 to 2003 connected with Labor Party politics as councilor of Waltham Forest Borough and then lastly Mayor in 2003. When on a visit to Azad Kashmir leading a delegation from London in March 2003 he expired there and buried with national Pakistan honor. Fortunately, I had occasions to pray on the grave sites of all these three great men. He became known to me in late 1982 in London, Matiur Rahman in 1974 again in London and Mahmud Ali also in London in 1986 ( if my memory does not fail me). None of them had less fondness for Mujib before 1971 but had their way parted that way. They were no fewer patriots than Mujib either. The renowned Awami League Minister of the Pakistan Central Government in mid fifties and one of the founders of the same League, Abul Mansur Ahmad termed such difference on 1971 issue for independence and/or remaining together was just matter of simple difference of belief and opinion. His verbatim was: ‘The fact that a man worked for the integrity of Pakistan does not make him a criminal. Opposition to independence until it was achieved was a matter of political difference. It can not be construed as anti-state.’(M.Rahman & N. Hasan, Iron Bars of Freedom, News and Media Ltd., London, 1980, P.20.) Had there been no Indian armed intervention, things would have remained different. Mujib then would have been freed not hanged as his hanging verdict remained unconfirmed for about four months (See, Kamal Matinuddin, Tragedy of Errors, P. 235, n.d.; and S.M. Choudhury, The Ultimate Crime, Lahore, 1997, P. 98) by the Pakistan President General Yahya and secret relation between the two stalwarts and so were most likely to be given to administer the whole country of Pakistan (See, Stanley Wolpert, Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan, OUP, Delhi, p.175, 1993). In such a most probable case, the activities of the exile government of Tajuddin and his Bangladesh independence movement would have a different fate.

To make the long story short, there was nothing wrong for Hasina to do as many things as she liked for the memory of her beloved father so long as those items would not go beyond normal social decency, morally untenable and cause no aspersion on other equally important personalities of Bangladesh history and politics. But the equally weighty question must she ask herself, what did Mujib really want. Did he cherish seriously for independent Bangladesh subservient to India or Prime Minister or President of the much larger and bigger country Pakistan for facing the Indian hegemony and chauvinism in the sub-continent? Some clues on this question might be obtained in the serious rift he developed with Tajuddin, his sacking and end in prison during Mujibs life time by Mujib himself seated at top of the power of the country.
The other crucial issue was that being almost a life long pluralist and democrat why had he been initiator and innovator of the lone party state and country? Was that only for dictatorial power to ensure rapid development and ensure well being of the people? Or, did he wish to found his dynastic rule in perpetuity?

In any case the lone party dictatorial system of government is almost a bygone mode, never to return in civilized and humanitarian societies. The dynastic rule by evil design or ill machination is also an obsolete matter having very few people in Bangladesh sensibly to stand for. Even so, more sensible people are really scared that Hasina has already created an air of fear syndrome and intimidation perpetrated by the goons of the party that signals clearly for fascism and one party rule on the one hand and for burying down democratic norms, ideals and values, on the other.

If Hasina has any good sense of sobriety in her personality that many doubt very seriously, she must not go for fascistic one party rule in whatever format or for dynastic continuity that she might venture for. She must try to reflect the fall of her father from the highest of popularity not only to the unimaginable depth of hell amidst popular jubilation for deliverance by the welcome heroes of the army coup led by Col Farook - Col Dalim - Col Shahriar from the tyranny of the notorious Awami League and of the BKSAL’s top boss having among the people not the slightest visible resistance by any group or individual in the mid August 1975, exactly the day of the 15th August that year duly celebrated by overwhelming majority people at home and abroad, not in Calcutta and Delhi, then and afterwards rightly as the Great Day of Deliverance just as also had been the 22 December 1939 at the fall of the provincial Congress governments in the last leg of the British India. Whether Delhi would sustain her for the dynastic continuity ‘at any cost’ is to be seen when time comes.

Author: HB Khair