 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
Has the nation been divided in 1971? Published on February 13, 2007
Dr. Mozammel H. Khan is the Convenor of the Canadian Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Bangladesh. He writes from Toronto, Canada.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
 |
 |
 |
Has the nation been divided in 1971?
Published on February 13, 2007
The honorable finance minister of Bangladesh has the reputation of being very candid in his disposition no matter if his remarks carry any merits in logical arbitration. He is in the fore front of government�s crusade against the news media, which, according to his views, are the main culprits in tarnishing the image of the country. In reference to the recent observations of the World Bank President that �corruption� and �confrontational politics� are the major impediments to Bangladesh�s economic growth, the finance minister has promptly responded by acknowledging, never done by any one in the past, that �the source of this confrontation lies in 1971 since when the nation has been divided into two camps -- the so-called pro-liberation and anti-liberation forces. It is very difficult to reconcile these feuding sides." The finance minister is considered to be the second person in the BNP hierarchy and as such, there is no reason to believe that his opinions did not carry the endorsement of his party. This time around, the minister has set his foot in an uncharted territory, albeit most people believe that the nation is very much divided; but no one ever suggested that the division took place in 1971.
Any nation that has liberated itself from the yoke of foreign domination, either through an armed struggle or through a political negotiation, carried the support of bulk of its citizens, though not the support of each and every of its sons. There were collaborators with the occupation or colonial powers at all times. Even during the Japanese and German occupations of the countries of Asia and Europe during World War II, people collaborated with the occupation forces. However, their numbers were so insignificant as compared to the number of people who fought for and supported their liberation that it was never considered that the nations were divided in their quest for freedom. In the general election of 1946, prior to the creation of Pakistan, the Muslim League got a majority support only in the province of Bengal. Nevertheless, it was never argued that the people of the provinces of the newly created State were divided in their pursuit for a new homeland.
In all the countries that achieved freedom through armed struggle, the collaborators, more or less, met the similar kind of fate in the aftermath of the liberation. In China, many of them met the firing squad after a brief trial. In Singapore, those who were pardoned for their relatively light crimes were never given any government position in the liberated country. In a lecture to the current generation, the founding PM of Singapore Mr. Lee Kwan Yew, once elaborated that the principal strength of Singapore�s elevation from an underdeveloped country to a modern developed nation in a span of thirty years, came from its determined policy not to involve those traitors in the affairs of the State. In Europe and North America, Nazi collaborators are still being haunted and sent back to the country for trial where the crimes have been committed.
In the liberation war of 1971, there are varying degrees of estimates about the percentage of people who directly or indirectly collaborated with the occupation power. In the words of the Pakistani General Rao Forman Ali, �90% of the people of Bangladesh were taken in by the magical power of Sheikh Mujib, and they were ready to sacrifice their lives for the creation of Bangladesh�. If this estimate had validity, there were 10 percent of people who sided with the Pakistani forces. Out of theses people, only the supporters of the Jamati Islami have publicly defended their actions. A few years ago, one of the senior ministers belonging to the BNP certified that the Jamat did not do anything wrong by their active opposition to the creation of Bangladesh. On the other hand, many people who were either indifference or even collaborated with the occupation forces in 1971 still very often like to share the credit by their utterances, such as, �we have achieved the independence through armed struggle�, in order to bolster their right as the sole vanguard of the nation.
If one looks at the histories of nations that liberated themselves from the colonial dominations, very few had the parallel of such massive support of its people as enjoyed by Bangladesh movement. However, the basic difference that the other nations were able to hold on to the values and virtues that worked as the principle guiding force towards achieving the freedom while Bangladesh miserably failed to hold onto them. This turning point occurred on the tragic night of August 15 of 1975 when the chief architect of nation�s freedom was brutally assassinated and so were the virtues on which the newly created State was founded. That was the sad beginning of a backward journey. Over the decades, distortion, deception, destruction, deviation and dichotomy have taken the centre fold in every sphere of the national life. At this moment, it has reached a point where it would be difficult for the members of current generation to reflect back why the sons of this soil took up arms and sacrificed their lives in 1971. Over the years, leaders (and those who write in their support) of all the non-AL governments have delivered sermon to the nation not to recollect and reflect too much of the happenings of 1971, which in their views, would further divide the nation. It would be really candid, at this time, to admit that they have been successful beyond expectation in their pursuance. A few years ago when a Dhaka-based Pakistani diplomat attributed the conflicts of 1971 as the works of the AL thugs, the longest serving (in the government) Bangladeshi party did not even condemn the utterly humiliating attribution until the Pakistani government itself issued its dissociation from the observation of its diplomat. The silence of the party, on an issue of such fundamental importance, did not create any dent in its credential in winning back the power in the election of October 2001.
Truthfully, today, not in 1971, the nation is divided into two clear camps as indicated by the finance minister. For instance, in 1971 a few dozens Bangalee residents of Toronto were able to march through the street of the city carrying the large portrait of their leader and were in unison in their demand from the international community to prevent the genocide in their motherland and the release of their leader. In contrast, today, more than thirty thousand Bangalees or Bangladeshis in Toronto helplessly look on when thousand of Pakistanis or Indians parade through the streets of Toronto on August 14 and 15 carrying the portraits of M A Jinnah and Mohatma Gandhi, the founding fathers of their nations. Our failure comes from our inability to recite our history that has been written and re-written multiple times and it included not the truth, but what the rulers of the day wanted to hear. If what the honourable finance minister has indicated is true, except for the variation of time line, then it would only fair to identify the camp that the minister, the person who even did not know who Syed Nazrul Islam was, obviously leads. In fact, in my logical assertion, both the finance minister and the PM are in a moral high ground to lead the campaign to eliminate the line of divide. In 1971, the finance minister used to live in UK and I have never come across any of the narrations that would suggest the minister�s participation either for or against the creation of Bangladesh. Like wise, it was never clear that the PM, the then the wife of a middle ranking army officer (who at that time was not an indispensable identity), was a prisoner or in protective custody during the war of liberation. There are enough testimonies to endorse the accusation that she refused to join her husband in India when several freedom fighters volunteered to carry out the arduous task. If she were a prisoner, simple hind sight would dictate that she would be grateful to her liberator, which was negated when she failed to deliver even a message of condolence when General J S Aurora breathed his last a few months ago. Quite to contrary, as the PM, she defied all the protocol to send a message of condolence directly to the family of the deceased Pakistani Army Chief of Staff who was stationed in Dhaka in 1971. This action of the PM added more merits to the hypothesis of her being in protective custody. The well-known freedom fighters of her party, the way they have disparaged the supreme leader of our independence while getting indoctrinated in BNP politics, would be out of ambiguity if they publicly confess (many of them supposedly and privately have done so) that they, in 1971, were on the wrong side of the history. The pace at which the history is marching backward, the time is probably not far away when the Bangladesh government would publicly apologize to Pakistan for the wrongdoings of her sons in 1971. And who would be better placed than our current PM to lead that government?
Dr. Mozammel H. Khan is the Convenor of the Canadian Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Bangladesh. He writes from Toronto, Canada.