Nurul Amin, though Bengali, played a disgraceful role against Language Movement

On Thursday (2 September), language movement veteran Ahmad Rafique passed away at the age of 96. He was a frontline organiser of the historic Language Movement. He was also a noted Rabindra researcher, and at the same time earned recognition as an essayist, poet and columnist. During his student life, he was involved in progressive student politics, which disrupted his academic career. He served as editor of several literary and science journals. With a sensitive heart, he was engaged in various social and cultural movements. He published more than 30 books, among which notable works are Shilpa, Sankriti Jibon (1958), Arek Kalantar (1977), Bhasha Andolon: Itihash O Tattparya (1991), and Rabindra Bhubane Patisar (1998). For his special contribution to literature, he was awarded the Ekushey Padak in 1995. Earlier, he had received the Bangla Academy Literary Award.

Three years before the twilight of Ahmad Rafique’s life, Rahat Minhaz, Assistant Professor at Jagannath University, took an interview with him. In it came forth Ahmad Rafique’s role in the Language Movement and his intellectual reflections. Today, that unpublished interview is being presented to the readers of Views Bangladesh.

Views Bangladesh: Can you please share with us what the morning of 21 February was like?

Ahmed Rafiq: It was a severely cold winter morning, the third week of February. A foggy morning, yet a tensed situation prevailed on the whole campus (of Dhaka University). Atmosphere on the campus was filled with a suppressed tension. Even before sunrise, students had started gathering at the university. The corridors of the Arts Building echoed with the footsteps of students from Dhaka University and other educational institutions. Student leaders had arrived at Madhur Canteen much earlier, where discussions and debates were underway on how to break Section 144. In front of the Arts Building, stood policemen in khaki shorts, some carrying batons, others weapons, with jeeps and trucks parked nearby. Nurul Amin’s [then chief minister of East Bengal] police force was fully prepared.

Views Bangladesh: A crucial moment of the Language Movement was the student assembly at Amtala that morning, where the decision to break Section 144 was made. Could you tell us about that meeting?

Ahmed Rafiq: As far as I recall, the meeting at Amtala began around 11 am. At first, Shamsul Huq (1918–1965) of the All Party State Language Action Committee, spoke against breaking Section 144. But the students rejected his stance, forcing him to end his speech midway. Then Abdul Matin, convener of the Dhaka University State Language Action Committee, argued in favour of breaking Section 144. With calm and logical reasoning, he presented a plan to break the Section 144 in groups of ten, aiming to march towards the Assembly Hall. The meeting concluded with a speech by Gaziul Haq, president of the Action Committee. The final decision was to break Section 144. The Arts Building resounded with slogans: “We want Bangla as the state language, we want the release of political prisoners.”

Views Bangladesh: What happened after that? The shooting began in the afternoon, but what took place in between?

Ahmed Rafiq: As soon as the meeting ended, excitement spread everywhere. Students began to leave the Arts Building in groups of ten. The police fired a large number of tear gas shells and launched baton charges. Several students were arrested and bundled into police vehicles, among them Habibur Rahman Shelley [former chief adviser of the Caretaker Government and former chief justice], Abdus Samad, Anwarul Haq Khan and others. It is worth noting that girl students too joined the demonstrations to break Section 144, some of whom were injured in police baton charges, though none were arrested. The tension mainly spread from Amtala up to the barracks.

Views Bangladesh: Who else joined the student movement that day? It is said that many non-students also participated.

Ahmed Rafiq: The affection for the mother tongue was shared by all, and it still is. So the students’ movement had everyone’s support. While intermittent clashes continued between students and police on campus, people from different walks of life became involved. These included third- and fourth-class employees of the Secretariat, shop and restaurant workers, and ordinary people. At one time, residents of Old Dhaka had held negative views about the movement, but on that day many of them also took to the streets in its support.

Views Bangladesh: Where and when was the first shooting? Who were killed or injured?

Ahmed Rafiq: To the best of my memory, the police opened fire sometime between 3:15 and 3:30 in the afternoon. Students were trying to come out through the main gate of the Arts Building, but police blocked them with tear gas and baton charges. As both sides hurled stones and bricks, the situation worsened. Eventually the police fired. The government press note claimed the police opened fire at 3:20 pm, firing 20 rounds. Barkat was the first to fall, bleeding on the ground. Tall and well-built, Barkat was a final-year MA student. Others, including Salam, were also hit, several of whom later died in hospital.

Views Bangladesh: What was the reaction to the student killings?

Ahmed Rafiq: It was unprecedented. Within moments of the shootings, Dhaka erupted in protest. The movement was no longer confined to students; the entire city became a city of resistance. The brutality of Nurul Amin’s police force enraged the whole country. Section 144 and all government restrictions were defied, as thousands poured into the streets in protest against the killings. The shock reverberated in the Assembly as well. Leaders like Maulana Abdul Takkabagish vocally condemned the events. Although the proposal to adjourn the session was not accepted, leaders including Dhirendranath Datta, Manoranjan Dhar, Khairat Hossain and Anwara Khatun walked out. The protests sparked by the police shootings on 21 February continued into 22 February, when several more were killed by police fire.

Views Bangladesh: A judicial commission was formed to investigate the shootings. What did the report say?

Ahmed Rafiq: After the incident, the government formed a commission headed by Justice Ellis, later known as the Ellis Commission. Its report was biased and full of falsehoods. It was shocking that a judge could deliver such a report. He claimed the students had been unruly and rioting, and that the 27 rounds fired by police were purely in self-defence. He also said the police had fired from outside the Arts Building — in other words, to save themselves. The people of East Bengal rejected the report. Before preparing it, Justice Ellis had interviewed several students, some of whom stated there had been no provocation to justify firing. Yet none of this appeared in his report.

Views Bangladesh: Some Bengalis themselves played almost a traitorous role in those events. Who were they, and how do you judge their actions?

Ahmed Rafiq: Among Bengalis, the one who played the most disgraceful role against the Language Movement was Nurul Amin. At the time he was Chief Minister of East Bengal. The shootings may not have been on his direct order, but they took place with his approval. Even after the killings, he said in a radio address that the police had been forced to open fire, and that if they had not, they would have been guilty before future generations. Bengali officers like Superintendent of Police Mohammad Idris and DIG Obaidul Haque also played highly negative roles. As Bengalis, their opposition to the Language Movement aroused deep resentment among all.