Don't choke me for speaking about country's disappointments

Following the fourth part
An unprecedented mass movement and people's war led to the emergence of the state of Bangladesh. Step by step, the country has now traversed 52 years of independence. The golden jubilee of independence was celebrated with great enthusiasm at the national level; but how far has Bangladesh progressed as a country in these 52 years? How much progress has it made in the fields of industry, culture, literature, intellectual pursuits, and intellectualism? These issues were extensively discussed in an interview between renowned intellectual and thinker Salimullah Khan and Rahat Minhaz, Assistant Professor of the Department of Mass Communication and Journalism at Jagannath University. Important parts of that conversation are presented here in series. Today is the final part:

Rahat Minhaz: In our previous lengthy discussions, I heard a lot of words of disappointment from you. Do you not see any glimmer of hope in present-day Bangladesh?
Salimullah Khan: Of course, the fact that there are so many universities being established in the country today is a hopeful sign. The increase in the number of primary schools in the country is also a hopeful sign. We have managed to survive the COVID-19 pandemic with a relatively low death rate, which is another hopeful sign. There are many reasons to be hopeful; but why shouldn't every person have a health card? Why can't I get medical treatment when I need it? If these issues are a source of disappointment, then I will speak words of disappointment.

Rahat Minhaz: Many criticize India's role in the Liberation War of Bangladesh. Do you think it was easy for India to make the decision regarding Bangladesh's independence?
Salimullah Khan: The significance of Bangladesh becoming independent in the eastern region of India is considerable. However, India itself was ambivalent about the question of Bangladesh's independence for a long time. Let me give you an example from a book. An Indian researcher named Srinath Raghavan published a book in 2013 titled "1971," subtitled "The Creation of Bangladesh." According to the information in this book, India's Prime Minister Indira Gandhi thought about it for a long time. If Bangladesh became independent, it would have both benefits and drawbacks for India because it might inspire many others to seek independence. Bangladesh was once oppressed and deprived. Foreign scholars still refer to it as a backward and uncivilized country. Yet, today this so-called backward country is the only state in the world for Bengalis. I want to make it clear that I am not a nationalist. I am a democrat; however, I recognize every person's right to self-determination. In this regard, Bangladesh stands as an example to the world.

Rahat Minhaz: Could you elaborate a bit more on this?
Salimullah Khan: The circumstances under which Bangladesh gained independence were unprecedented. Apart from a few countries like Iraq, no third-world country supported us (Bangladesh) at that time. Why didn’t they support us? Because they were all conservative then. Breaking up one state to create another—people in the third world did not support this idea. The so-called Muslim world that currently supports us did not support us in 1971.

Rahat Minhaz: As far as I know, when the Pakistani invaders attacked East Bengal and during the final days of the war, many Muslim countries provided weapons to Pakistan. However, in the final days, Bangladesh's greatest ally was the Soviet Union. How do you evaluate this situation?
Salimullah Khan: You know that the United States provided weapons to Pakistan in 1971; however, China, which was supposed to be a friend of the people, could not support Bangladesh due to political ideologies. At that time, China was trying to establish a rapport with America. This is why I want to say that sometimes the poor oppose the poor. Nevertheless, Bangladesh achieved independence in an extraordinary situation, which is indeed remarkable.
We gained independence by taking advantage of various global circumstances. For instance, if the Russians had not formed a friendship treaty with India, and if they had not repeatedly used their veto power in the United Nations, the war in Bangladesh might have become as prolonged as the Vietnam War. Now, everyone has forgotten about the Soviet Union. I do not want to forget. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, if the Soviets had not used their veto power in the UN, the American proposals would have been accepted. Even on December 14, Poland proposed a resolution to stop the war, suggesting that all troops return to their own countries. If this proposal had passed, Bangladesh's independence would have remained uncertain.

Rahat Minhaz: So, how exactly did Bangladesh achieve independence? Whose struggle and sacrifices primarily led to Bangladesh's independence?
Salimullah Khan: I believe Bangladesh became independent for two reasons. The people of Bangladesh fought the war. By people, I mean the farming community fought. If you look at the list of approximately 250,000 freedom fighters, you'll see that over 90-95% were from the farming class. People are forgetting these facts.
I edited a book a long time ago called Behat Biplob 1971. This is the translation of Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci's term "passive revolution." Our revolution is no longer in the hands of the people; it has moved into the hands of others. You all know how many millions of middle-class people are created in Bangladesh each year. We can see this as national development, but has murder, rape, and robbery decreased in Bangladesh? Former President Abdul Hamid said, "Drugs are still destroying many families." How did we reach this point with drugs? Do you think this is without reason?

Rahat Minhaz: You have spoken a lot about the role of intellectuals in Bangladesh in 1971 and even about their role today. Is there anything more you would like to say on this topic?
Salimullah Khan: In our country, doctors are intellectuals, engineers are intellectuals, accountants are intellectuals, government officials are intellectuals, and students are intellectuals. But ultimately, students have to play roles in various issues. Students had to take to the streets for the "Safe Roads Movement"; but why? The city corporation driver's license was not valid, and he killed a student from Notre Dame College. Students had to come to the streets to check licenses. What does this indicate? It indicates that our society is still in a primitive stage. You have said many commendable things in our conversation, which is your job. My job, however, is to talk about disappointment.
Let us come to this agreement: do not silence me for speaking about these disappointments.

Rahat Minhaz: Thank you very much for your important opinions and discussions.
Salimullah Khan: Thank you too.

Also Read
Episode 1
Intellectuals proceeding with fragmented ideas of history a major problem
Episode 2
No more politics, only diplomacy dominates our country
Episode 3
We are now in a dark age in the literature of Bangladesh In Arabic, it is called Ayame Jahiliya
Episode 4
Nobel literary works cannot be concessional