Khaleda Zia, Sheikh Hasina became central figures in anti-Ershad movement

Writer and researcher Mohiuddin Ahmad is at once a historian and a valiant freedom fighter. Among those who have written, analysed and researched most extensively on the political context of post-independence Bangladesh, he is one of the foremost. He is the only political writer in Bangladesh to have written a book on the 1973 election, titled The Election of ’73. He has also authored Red Terror: Siraj Sikder and Proletarian Politics, The Anti-hero Sirajul Alam Khan, Awami League and BNP: Which Way, The Rise and Fall of JASAD: Politics of Unstable Times and several other works. He continues to write on contemporary politics.

Recently, Mohiuddin Ahmad appeared on Editorial Dialogue with Rashed Mehedi, a programme of Views Bangladesh. The discussion focused on the politics of Bangladesh, especially the political context after the Liberation War. He shed light on the rise and fall of politics in the country. The interview was conducted by Rased Mehedi, Editor of Views Bangladesh. Today the second instalment of the four-part interview is published:

Rased Mehedi: If I may say a word here, after the killing of Bangabandhu and his family in 1975 a major change came to Bangladesh politics, and JASAD went into a coma. Then came the rise of BNP politics. Particularly, some former Muslim League leaders along with NAP-Bhashani and a few leftists came together to form the BNP. BNP became quite relevant in Bangladesh politics and a major political party. How do you see this politics? In the regime of Ziaur Rahman, did the state of politics in Bangladesh or the qualitative change that was expected actually happen? How would you explain that?

Mohiuddin Ahmad: On 15 August 1975 a void was created. A very powerful man who was running the country was suddenly no more. That left a great vacuum. At that time we saw military rule. The most organised political force within Bangladesh was the armed forces. As far as I know, this is the only profession where one first receives training and then gets a job; in all other fields one gets the job first and then training. Anyway, the armed forces were the most organised, and they filled that vacuum. As the most organised social force of the time, the military came onto the scene and filled the void. In the common structure, power lay in the hands of Ziaur Rahman. Although nominally there was a civilian – Justice Sayem was president – in reality, under military rule the army chief is the chief ruler. Then he moved into politics.

I still remember 1 May 1976. On May Day at a rally in Suhrawardy Udyan, in place of khaki military uniform he wore a comrade’s dress, a full-sleeve shirt. That picture is still around. At the time he said something like, “I am a soldier. I don’t understand politics.” Then gradually he entered politics. He formed his own party – the model was Ayub Khan’s. First he came to power. Ziaur Rahman first became Deputy Chief Martial Law Administrator, then Chief Martial Law Administrator, then he removed Sayem and became President. Then he held a Yes-No referendum. In that, he also held a presidential election. The number of votes shown was very shameful.

Government officials had been told to vote Yes. Because in referendums voters don’t turn out. Winning or losing wasn’t the issue. Maybe 5-10 percent people went. But it was shown as 95/97/98 percent. He became president exactly in the Ayub model. Then he formed a political front with six parties. The Muslim League split, and under Shah Aziz’s leadership one group entered this front. Under Mashiur Rahman, NAP-Bhashani entered this front. Then the Labour Party, Scheduled Castes Federation, small ones like that joined too. The main one was NAP-Bhashani. Then, as representative of this front, Ziaur Rahman held the presidential election. Against him was an alliance of political parties.

Awami League, NAP, Communist Party, JASAD together nominated M A G Osmani as their candidate. In that election Ziaur Rahman won. He became president. He needed a mandate because military dictators who seize power by force are not liked by the outside world. They do not look favourably on it. He obtained the popular mandate behind him. Then he decided not to keep the front. Under his patronage a new party, “Jago Dal”, had formed. Vice President Abdus Sattar was there. This too was within the front. What Ziaur Rahman did was abolish the front. Then on 1 September 1978 he formed the BNP. At a press conference at the Ramna Restaurant in Dhaka he announced the name with a 101-member committee. He was the chairperson. Immediately the front was dissolved. Many from the front did not join BNP. I remember, Kazi Zafar was in the front but did not join BNP, a few others too, but most went. So his transformation as a military commander and politician can be seen in this way.

The same model was seen later. Ershad followed the same model. Only he did not do the Yes-No referendum; but he too formed a party. Then came the 18 points. Then Ershad formed the Jatiya Party. He did not become its head then, because he was still in active military service. When he retired, he immediately became chairman of the party. Before that he held an election in which he secured an absolute majority in the 1986 parliamentary election. Two or three months later he held another presidential election. That created a lot of controversy. Within a few days was the presidential election. The parliamentary election was held in June-August. On the day of that election he withdrew martial law. The ’86 parliament he abolished in ’87. Later in 1988 he held another parliamentary election which the mainstream political parties boycotted, where ASM Abdur Rob became leader of the opposition. At that time the phrase “tame opposition” became common.

Rased Mehedi: Then?

Mohiuddin Ahmad: In 1986, when the parliamentary election was held, there had been consensus to boycott it. Their demand was that it must be under a neutral government. The long movement demanding Ershad’s resignation had begun in 1982. At that time we saw a 15-party alliance, a four-party alliance. Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia were in the very front of the movement, giving leadership. There was consensus that we would not go to any election under Ershad. At Laldighi ground in Chattogram Sheikh Hasina gave a speech saying that those who took part in the election would be national traitors. The next day she returned to Dhaka and announced she would contest the election. At that point BNP was very unprepared. They did not have the capacity to contest. They were for boycott. From there Khaleda Zia came to be called the “unyielding leader”. But Sheikh Hasina’s decision to contest with the Awami League drew criticism – that there was an understanding with Ershad. The understanding was that since it was a presidential system then, Ershad would remain president, the Awami League would be majority in parliament. That was expected. Because BNP was not there, the Jatiya Party was new, it had no popular base. With an overall majority Awami League would govern – that was everyone’s impression. Hasina thought so too. Ershad may have promised her that there would be a good fair election. In that case Sheikh Hasina would be prime minister. Sheikh Hasina would be part of power politics. Ershad as president, Hasina as prime minister.

But when the results were announced, you may recall that the term “media coup” came into use from that time. That is, media were reporting one after another Awami League candidates winning. Then for 68 hours the announcement of election results was stopped. Then the phrase “media coup” arose. The headline of the daily Sangbad was “Election Engineering and Media Coup” – something like that. Then we saw the Jatiya Party gaining absolute majority. My friends who were then upazila executive officers themselves said how manipulation was done. (To be continued)

Transcribed by: Shahadat Hossain Touhid