Why political governments ignore past contributions

In July and August, the anti-discrimination students' victory is being claimed by both the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami. While the anti-discrimination students have recognized Jamaat, they are less inclined to give credit to the BNP. As a result, occasional verbal conflicts arise between the two factions. The BNP believes that their continuous struggle against the Awami League government for 15 years was crucial; without their efforts, the fall of the Awami League government in the July-August popular uprising would not have been possible. This statement is not entirely false. On December 6, 1971, India recognized Bangladesh as an independent nation, and the direct involvement of Indian forces led to the surrender of 93,000 Pakistani soldiers on December 16, marking Bangladesh’s victory.

Though the 10-day war was significant, from March 25, 1971, the people of East Pakistan began fighting against Pakistani soldiers. Police, BDR, Bengali soldiers, and people from all walks of life attempted to resist the Pakistani army with all their strength. At that time, the people of East Bengal had no weapons, there was no communication among the resistance fighters across different regions, and the internet-enabled mobile phones did not exist. There was no leadership either. For the next nine months, a guerrilla war was waged across the country, and Pakistani soldiers lived in constant fear of death, terrified by the guerrillas. Without this nine-month guerrilla war, the joint forces could not have defeated the Pakistani soldiers in the 10-day war so decisively. Therefore, the anti-discrimination students should recognize the contribution of the BNP in the downfall of the Awami League government.
Through the lens of a fair judgment, the anti-discrimination students' argument is indisputable.

Their reasoning is that the fall of the Awami League government did not occur due to the BNP's 15 years of struggle but through the students' movement. The students are clear: despite having blocked Begum Khaleda Zia’s house with a truck, the BNP could not remove it, so how could they bring down the government? While this statement is sarcastic, it is not entirely false. Had it not been for the anti-discrimination students' bloody struggle, the fall of the Awami League government would not have happened through the BNP's movement. However, the BNP believes that its party members sacrificed more lives. In this regard, the BNP seems somewhat contradictory.

If their 15-year struggle is considered the primary factor in the downfall of the Awami League government, then the history of Ziaur Rahman's struggle and self-sacrifice prior to his declaration of independence should also be acknowledged.

The six-point movement, the mass uprising that led to the fall of President Ayub Khan, the non-cooperation movement against President Yahya Khan, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's speech on March 7, the creation and raising of the separate flag for Bangladesh, the military training of students and the public with dummy guns, and the battles between police-BDR and Pakistani soldiers at Rajarbagh and Pilkhana on the night of March 25 — all of these events occurred before Ziaur Rahman’s declaration of independence.

Before Ziaur Rahman's involvement in the battle in Chittagong, Bengali soldiers had already begun fighting. In his book ‘Lakhho Praner Binimoye’, Captain Rafiqul Islam Bir Uttam clearly states that when they started the fight against the Pakistani soldiers stationed in Chittagong, Ziaur Rahman was still working for the Pakistani army. At the time, he was tasked with overseeing the unloading of weapons from the 'Swat' ship anchored in Chittagong port. He was brought back midway from this mission. Upon the request of Chittagong Awami League leaders and the operatives of the Kalurghat radio station, Ziaur Rahman agreed to declare independence as a senior military officer. Prior to this declaration, Ziaur Rahman was virtually unknown to the general public, and no one had heard his name. He later became a sector commander and was honored with the title of Bir Uttam.

Before the declaration of independence from the Kalurghat radio station in Chittagong, there had already been numerous bloody clashes between the Bengali army, BDR, and police against Pakistani soldiers. The first armed resistance occurred on March 19, 1971, in Joydebpur, Gazipur. However, the unstoppable movement had been ongoing across Bangladesh since March 1. Yet, the BNP does not mention these earlier events, instead focusing solely on Ziaur Rahman’s declaration of independence. Ziaur Rahman had no involvement in the struggle or movement before the declaration of independence. The BNP, not having any involvement in the earlier movements, only seeks credit for the declaration of independence. Similarly, the anti-discrimination students also disregard the previous 15 years of struggle by the BNP and are determined to publish a new "declaration" on August 5, adhering to the same principle.

Both the BNP and the Awami League are responsible for overly emphasizing the declaration of independence while ignoring the broader historical context. The Awami League, like the BNP, wants to erase Ziaur Rahman’s role in the declaration. Ziaur Rahman initially declared independence in his own name, and the BNP only acknowledges that declaration. However, he later declared independence again on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, a fact that the BNP never mentions. Similarly, the Awami League has not acknowledged Ziaur Rahman’s contribution.

For the Awami League, the only recognized declaration is the one made by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on March 26 through the BDR’s wireless communication. This declaration, however, was intercepted by Pakistani soldiers' radio waves, a fact mentioned by Pakistani soldier Siddiq Salik in his book Witness to Surrender. Later, Brigadier Siddiq Salik died in a plane crash with Pakistan's President Ziaul Haq. One undeniable fact is that, although made on behalf of Sheikh Mujib, Ziaur Rahman's declaration at that critical moment strongly encouraged the confused Bengali soldiers and public to rise up in armed resistance against the Pakistani army.

In Bangladesh, no one acknowledges the contributions of others. Sheikh Hasina repeatedly speaks of the sacrifices made by her family members, to the point where people grew so tired of hearing it that even Awami League supporters started avoiding her speeches on television. During the year-long celebrations for the centenary of Bangabandhu’s birth, many people, including even conscious Awami League workers and supporters, did not feel emotionally moved by the events. The ruling Awami League lacked the sense that overdoing anything makes it bitter.

Mawlana Bhashani’s contribution to the anti-Ayub Khan uprising is undeniable. He also played an enormous role in the movement to free Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who had been imprisoned in the Agartala Conspiracy Case. Despite political differences, Sheikh Mujib had genuine admiration and respect for Mawlana Bhashani, even touching his feet in salutation. However, under the Awami League's rule, Mawlana Bhashani’s contributions were never properly acknowledged. After Bangabandhu’s passing, the contributions of Tajuddin Ahmed and his colleagues in managing the exiled government and conducting the Liberation War stand as a glorious chapter in history, yet they are only remembered on the anniversary of their deaths. It is true, however, that in the epic struggle for Bangladesh’s independence, no one should be considered the equal of Bangabandhu.

The policy of denial is also being followed in the governance of the country, where no one acknowledges the rise to power of another, nor do they recognize each other's development initiatives. People often forget that in the mass uprisings, four governments—including those of Ayub Khan, the Jatiya Party, BNP, and the Awami League—were toppled, and all these governments were labeled as autocratic and accused of corruption. However, despite being autocratic, every government, to some extent, contributed to the country's development. Ayub Khan celebrated his development achievements with the 'Decade of Development,' but no subsequent government has ever acknowledged the continuity of this development. Each political government denies the development achievements of previous administrations and only sings the praises of their own development.

In an effort to glorify their own development, they have vilified the immediately preceding government and published white papers. Just like the current interim government, the BNP-led four-party alliance government also published a white paper in 2001. Initially, this tactic of publishing a white paper to highlight the misdeeds of the previous government and sway public opinion worked, but later its significance faded. This is because the same corrupt practices flooded the actions of those who published the white papers. Perhaps this is why the anti-discrimination students' strong assertion that they did not sacrifice their lives to overthrow one autocrat only to install another, nor to replace one corrupt government with another, resonates deeply.

Even though the anti-discrimination students are not involved, the blame for the current extortion and terrorism is being placed on them. This is a political strategy—taking advantage of someone else's misfortune. Therefore, to bring about change in the country, Dr. Yunus's government must be more cautious and strategic.

Zeauddin Ahmed: Columnist and former Executive Director of Bangladesh Bank.