The nation had to pay a heavy price for the creation of JASAD

Writer and researcher Mohiuddin Ahmed is both 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 who wrote a book on the 1973 election, titled Tiyattorer Nirbachan (The Election of ’73). He also wrote Lal Santras: Siraj Sikder o Sarbahara Rajniti (Red Terror: Siraj Sikder and Proletarian Politics), Pratinayak Sirajul Alam Khan (Antihero Sirajul Alam Khan), Awami League BNP Kon Pathe (Which Way Awami League and BNP), JASADer Utthan Patan: Asthir Samayer Rajniti (The Rise and Fall of JASAD: Politics of Turbulent Times), among others. He continues to write on contemporary politics.

Recently Mohiuddin Ahmed appeared on Editorial Dialogue with Rased Mehedi, organised by Views Bangladesh. The discussion focused on the politics of Bangladesh, especially the political context of the post-independence period. Mohiiuddin shed light on the ups and downs of the country’s politics. The interview was conducted by Rased Mehedi, editor of Views Bangladesh. The first part of the four-part interview is published today:

Rased Mehedi: Since independence how has the political context evolved, and how much has it influenced Bangladesh’s political culture? Or, in the true sense, has any political party really been created in Bangladesh?

Mohiuddin Ahmed: Manly questions, but the last one is very difficult to answer. The people were the same before and after ’71. The political parties that existed before ’71, many of them we found after ’71 as well — particularly Awami League, NAP, Communist Party. Some parties went into hiding, the ones we saw siding with the Pakistan Army or Pakistan government in ’71. There were five of them (two Muslim Leagues, Nezame Islam, Jamaat-e-Islami, PDP). They were ostracised then. On the ground, the parties left were the old ones — Awami League, Muzaffar’s NAP, Bhashani’s NAP, and the CPB (Communist Party). The country was new, but the parties were old. So, what we saw in politics was that only the name changed — Pakistan replaced with Bangladesh. Awami League changed itself name in July 1971 at the Shiliguri Conference from Pakistan Awami League to Bangladesh Awami League. Theo others remained the same. But the people were the same asked before. What we saw was that even if part of the name or the signboard changed, what we call political culture did not really change much after ’71.

Thus, forming a political party, running its activities, carrying out programmes — the pattern was what we had seen earlier: at the time of a party’s birth some discontented people, or people with a specific aim, would come together to form a political party. That is how the Muslim League was born, not by one person but by several. Awami League too. That is how it happens. But later we saw that in reality every party developed a leadership that eventually turned into a syndicate. This was not as dire in Pakistan times, but after the birth of Bangladesh it took on a very dangerous form. Before ’71 this kind of syndicate gave rise to personalised politics wherever it occurred — holding up an individual as a card. This began in Ayub Khan’s time. Everything was Ayub Khan, Ayub Khan’s party — centred on an individual. When Ayub Khan fell, his party was finished too.

Right after the birth of Bangladesh, we saw the use of the individual card, especially among those in power. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman became godlike. In Pakistan times Jinnah was the established card. Everyone said Quaid-e-Azam. The party became a party in Quaid-e-Azam’s name. This continued until 1970. In 1972 we replaced Quaid-e-Azam with Bangabandhu. But the card worship did not stop; it continued. As a result, from the beginning of Bangladesh’s politics we clearly saw two trends: one was personality cult, the other authoritarianism in politics. Particularly among those in power, we saw the tendency to become authoritarian over time. If we think about the first regime, in parliament out of 300 seats, 293 were Awami League. Other parties had three or four seats, the rest were independents (three JASAD, one Bhashani NAP — Syed Kamrul Islam Mohammad Salehuddin, one independent Wali Ashraf, two from the Chittagong Hill Tracts — Manabendra Larma and Chaithoai Roaza).

So, there was no mentality to accept minimum protest, dissent or criticism. Awami League had neither the ability nor the mindset to handle it. From this mentality of “why 293, why not 300,” came BAKSAL. You will see that many argue that BAKSAL was not really a party but a national platform where everyone was invited to join — that is not true.

Because at the same time it was said that those who did not join BAKSAL would lose their parliamentary seats. Meaning there was compulsion, there was coercion. As a result, JASAD’s Abdullah Sarkar and Mainuddin Manik did not join BAKSAL, and their membership was cancelled. Before that, from inside Awami League, MAG Osmani and Moinul Hossain had no further need of it, because they had already resigned in protest at a parliamentary party meeting. That was the situation.

Rased Mehedi: One point here — since you have written on the rise and fall of JASAD. On 21 July 1972, when two groups of Chhatra League called conferences, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman went to one side. One side had his nephew and family members, while the other side had ASM Abdur Rob, Hasanul Haq Inu and others, who had been Mujib’s staunch allies during the Liberation War. But he did not go there, he went where his relatives were. From this JASAD was born. So, after independence did the politics of division, or a kind of split among pro-liberation forces, start from there?

Mohiuddin Ahmed: I have said this in many places, and I will say it again: if we are to call anything the political tragedy of the post-’71 period, during 1971–75, then the main two tragedies were these. One, the division among the freedom fighters, which led to JASAD being formed as a separate party of freedom fighters. All of them were freedom fighters, and Sheikh Mujib was everyone’s leader. The other tragedy was the humiliating exit of Tajuddin Ahmed from the political scene. These two tragedies — ultimately no one could manage their weight. A heavy price had to be paid for this.

So, on 21 July 1972, a kind of polarisation occurred in Chhatra League, with leadership disputes, issues of ideology — all combined. Now think, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was everyone’s leader. He was called Bangabandhu and Father of the Nation. If in a household the father is there and his two sons quarrel, then the father settles it or says, I will side with neither. But when he sides with one son against the other, that is not the kind of partiality any son expects from a father. Sheikh Mujib did that. He could have called and settled it. He could have scolded them. Or he could have taken people from both groups and formed a committee. Because the previous Chhatra League committees were never formed without Mujib’s endorsement (from around 1958, who would be Chhatra League president or secretary was determined by Mujibur Rahman). He could have done this, but he did not. Why not? My belief is he wanted this division to happen. Why did he want it? Maybe he wanted to get rid of trouble — meaning, I will not keep them.

Another piece of information has lately seemed very logical to me. That is, who could ideologically challenge Sheikh Mujib or Awami League in Bangladesh politics? One was the Islamist forces, the other the pro-Peking communists. Their role during the Liberation War was controversial, as we know. Many did not want independence. The Islamists certainly did not. Many of the pro-Peking communists followed China’s prescriptions and in many cases went against the war. Some of them even took part in the war, others called it a dogfight. So Sheikh Mujib may have thought that if a party of freedom fighters was formed, and when Sirajul Alam Khan told him that he was forming a new party, Mujib said, that is very good. Even if I am removed from state power, I will have peace that it was freedom fighters who took power, not Razakars. That is one matter. There are many things we do not know. We cannot say for sure, because none of them left anything written. So we can only say so much.

Thus, Sheikh Mujib had some contribution in the creation of JASAD, because he could have brought about reconciliation but did not, for whatever reason, or did not want to. Both Sheikh Mujib and JASAD paid the price for that. After ’75 we saw Awami League become completely disorganised, because it had become a one-man party, with all power in one person’s hands. Since opposing Sheikh Mujib was the central principle of JASAD, once he was no longer in the picture JASAD became largely irrelevant. I say that by 1975 JASAD had gone into coma, and after 7 November it died. After that what remains is the skeleton of JASAD being dragged along.

(To be continued)

Transcribed by: Shahadat Hossain Towhid