 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
Reply to Taj Hashmi�s comments on �Metamorphosis�- (part 1) Published on April 01, 2006 I must thank Prof Hashmi for his kind words about me in his latest response to my rather harsh criticism of his comments about the early Bangladesh history. I am particularly thankful to him for not personalizing the criticism or reducing the level of civility in our discussion. No matter how we feel about a particular leader or leaders, a political party or parties, and how we view a particular period in history, we have to keep a minimum level of decorum and a certain level of logic and objectivity to have a fruitful discussion. I have no hesitation to mention here that I found Professor Hashmi�s book, �Pakistan as a Peasant Utopia� scholarly and very informative about the Muslim peasantry of British Bengal. I found it quite useful while I was writing a long article, entitled, � Banglar Musalmander Utsho� (The Origin of Bengali Muslims) , appeared some years back serially in a Bengali daily in Dhaka. I just could not stand seeing the author of �Utopia� on a slippery slope of partisan bickering and Mujib-bashing. Professor Hashmi must have noticed that although my language in �Metamorphosis� may not be termed friendly, my objective was not to demean him but to remind him that he was a professor in the very field--and that he could not effort to be frivolous or petty like the others (�partisan critics of the street variety�) . Even if he intensely disliked Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his (�autocratic�, �corrupt� or however he describes )-- rule , it is incumbent on him to present his critic in a public forum like a scholar. I only asked him to give his ideas a proper and a wider perspective---a perspective of a scholar. Recently , in an open forum, I wrote the following to a distinguished Editor of a Dhaka daily in the similar vain, when he used hyperbolic, over-inflated figures to criticize Sheikh Mujibur Rahman�s rule :
In the 8 points I mentioned in my earlier writing , there was hardly any adjective added to the name of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman or his actions that would show that I was praising him or supporting a particular action directly. You looked only at the �empty� side of the glass and declared it empty, I only suggested there was a �filled� side also but did not say the glass was full. I also suggested that a scholar of Bangladesh studies would look at the entire glass before passing a judgement. Professor Hashmi is correct in realizing that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was not given a prize on a silver platter---he had a mountain of problems to overcome. The post-liberation Bangladesh, like most post-war countries--was in a mess. In this context, I did not mention in my earlier communication a few other very important factors that directly or indirectly shaped much of the history of post-liberation Bangladesh : (9) The presence of 6 divisions of Indian Army within the territory of Bangladesh, and almost totally unguarded wide open border-- etc. leading to what I would term -�the India factor� . (9) The factional divisions among the various groups of Muktijuddhas and factions within Awami League itself. (10) The problems related to the trial of the Pakistani army personnel for war crimes, and the trial of the collaborators--which the Pakistan later linked with the repatriation of the stranded Bangalis in Pakistan and with Pakistan�s recognition of Bangladesh. [Pakistani recognition came in February,1974 and United Nation�s in Sept/Oct 1974]. If one asks me what was the most vital factor that shaped the politics of Bangladesh after 1971, I have to answer that it was �the India factor�---the fear and apprehension about Indian domination or total absorption that evolved in the mind of a section of the population. It is unfortunate that both the geography and history placed Bangladesh in such a position that a large section of its elite class ( beside the so-called Islam-panthis) was consumed by a �negative� psychic energy, fear. Much of Bangladesh�s political problems--- could be related to this. One of the biggest failure of Mujib government was its failure to understand and recognise the depth and extend of this �fear factor�. But then --these are personal observations--and could be discussed in a separate debate. Before answering some of the specific questions you raised, let me ask you, as a scholar of history, do you think-- That even if all the complaints against Sheikh Mujib�s rule---that you mentioned ( and you missed some --like 1974 famine, police firing on the Student Union and Jasod crowd etc) were true to the extend of your belief, was killing his entire family including children, women and servants was the answer ? Regarding my point #1, Professor Hashmi wrote : "In a parliamentary system , the Prime Minister is all powerful---so it was not a sacrifice for him etc.� Look at my sentence in earlier write-up carefully, �(1) That Sheikh Mujibur Rahman gave up the all-powerful position of the President created by the Proclamation of Independence and chose to become a Prime Minister instead on the 12th of January, 1972� It appears that you probably ignored the phrase--� created by the Proclamation of Independence�. The Proclamation of Independence which came on the 10th of April, 1971, declared among other things: � We the elected representatives of the people--do hereby affirm and resolve that till such time as a Constitution is formed, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman shall be the President of the Republic----------that the President shall be the Supreme Commander of the all the Armed Forces of the Repblic,shall exercise all the Executive and Legislative powers of the Republic-------shall have the power to appoint a Prime Minister and such other Ministers, as he considers necessary-shall have power to levy taxes and expend moniesand shall have the power to summon and adjourn the Constituent Assembly-- � In other words, this instrument gave
the President virtually dictatorial power. � However, Mujib wanted to change the system by exercising the legislative power he had as the President under the Proclamation of Independence. Accordingly, on January 11, 1972 , by a Presidential Order the entire character of the government was changed. The Presidential form was substituted by a form aiming at a Westminister type Parliamentary system through a decree called the Provisional Constitution of Bangladesh Order, 1972.� [ Moudud Ahmed in �Era of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman�, page-7]. If you read this document ( Provisional Constitution) and compare the power of the Prime Minister in the new system with that of the President of earlier system, it would be clear to you that my expression was basically correct. All though I have no proof , I suspect that your hearsay story about Tajuddin was probably manufactured from the same factory---where the Satanic joke came from.. On Siraj Sikdar : This is what I wrote in a Bangladesh newspaper recently:
Shabbir Ahmed has already mentioned in what context the name of Siraj Sikdar came in the speech of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in Parliament. In fact, the speech delivered on the 25th of January (some 24 days after the killing of Siraj Sikdar) was delivered after the Parliament passed the 4th Amendment. The name of Siraj Sikdar came in passing, after he already delivered some 3500 words out of total of about 6000 words long speech describing in details some aspects of the amendment. It was not a �bragging� over a murder as your comments suggest. If one follows that speech carefully then it would be clear that he was bragging about catching/arresting Sikdar.
As for �killing thousands of young and not-so-young JSD and Sarbahara party men�, I appreciate the fact that you kept the �number of killed� vague unlike most critics who has a figure of their own. I have no doubts many insurgents, mostly from the left groups who carried on a �war� against the government ( I once complied a list of thana, police-farhi and police camp raids to about 200 during 1973-74), were killed by Rakkhi Bahini, police and other law enforcement authority. Some were killed during combat, some during raids for collecting arms and some �in custody�. Your �Tara case� is possibly one of the last category. I will join in condemning a regime for any extra-judicial killing, but what I contest is over exagerration and hyperbolic inference. In a Dhaka daily, a certain gentleman, name CAF Dowla recently published an article--
In a reply, I wrote to the paper :
Almost all the top leaders of JSD are still alive ( except Major Jalil). Will Mr Dowlah or any other writers like him verify from the living leaders of the then JSD whether the number of JSD workers killed by Rakkhi Bahini is 60,000, 35,000 or Ek hajarero odhik�, before they take up their pen to brutalize the Rakkhi Bahini and Shekh Mujib�s government ? If they need a copy of the pamphlet, I will readily provide one.� No one has responded yet. Moudud Ahmed , in his book �The Era of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman� spent some ten pages (p53-63) on the genesis of formation of Rakkhi Bahini and then describing their �unregulated� and �uncontrolled� activities, the indictments against them by High Court Justices in two cases ( one ' a disappearance in custody case' another torture and arrest of Aruna Sen , wife of a leftist leader Shanti Sen , and her associates). He even wrote a few words of praise for Rakkhi Bahini ( � It is not true that the Rakkhi Bahini did not do anything good. They recovered a large quantity of arms and smuggled goods and the hoarders and black marketers were frightened of them �) then goes on to say the Rakkhi bahini failed to keep its image because it was used for political purposes. And then described how RB was partisan and did not harass AL hoarders or black marketers etc. But what is amazing is that in the reference note to the phrase �for political purposes�, he writes : � The opposition parties claimed that in its first 2 years the Rakkhi Bahini killed 30,000 young political workers�--and then nothing else--no corroborating name either of a person or a party or any published reference . I think the hatred and strong feeling against Rakkhi Bahini rose from two factors : (1) India factor---Moudud describes it this way : � A large section of the public alleged that Rakkhi Bahini was an extension of Indian authority in Bangladesh�[page 62] (2) The entire Rakkhi Bahini was composed of irregular Mukti Bahini guerrillas (mostly Mujib Bahini and Kaderia Bahini, with minimum education and hailed from rural Bangladesh. How could the elite, the urban, the Ashrafs accept the power of the subaltern ? By theway, after 1975, almost the entire body of the Rakkhi Bahini (the Indian agents ? the brutal killers?)was absorbed into Bangladesh Army by Ziaur Rahman. Some of the answers to your other questions , in particular , the one when you asked �whether I have given any thought as to why so many ardent followers of Mujib changed their heart ' will follow soon. (End of Part I)
Dr. Bilayet Hossain writes from Oklahoma, USA. He can be
communicated through
[email protected] or
[email protected]
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
 |
 |
 |