LATELY, in addition to several reform programmes, the interim government has also embarked upon the task of investigating, unravelling and rectifying what it called the ‘exaggerated, imposed history’ of Bangladesh.
Ìý
The ‘imposed history’
THE ‘imposed history’ in question relates mainly to the issues concerning ‘the declaration of independence of Bangladesh’ ie, who declared the independence of Bangladesh first; the honorific, the ‘father of the nation’ ie, whether the honorific should be the monopoly of one person, namely, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the father of the deposed leader and not include a host of other leaders who made significant contributions in promoting the idea and liberation of Bangladesh?
This article investigates these issues to assist in arriving at a consensus based on facts and logic.
Ìý
Declaration of independence
THERE are several versions on the issue of the declaration of independence. For example, during Sheikh Hasina’s rule and under the instruction of her government, textbooks at primary and secondary levels inserted the following narrative: ‘Sheikh Mujibur Rahman declared independence through a secret wireless message in the early hours of March 26, 1971, minutes after the Pakistan army cracked down on the civilians and arrested him.’
Then, there are also those who claim that Sheikh Mujib’s March 7, 1971, public speech at the Dhaka racecourse ground, where, among other things, he also said, ‘…this time the fight is for freedom, for liberation…’ should be treated as the first declaration of independence.
The authenticity of these claims — Mujib’s declaration of independence on March 26 through a secret wireless message and his March 7, 1971, speech as the first calls of independence — has since been questioned.
Indeed, as no concrete evidence of Sheikh Mujib’s March 26 ‘secret wireless message’ of ‘declaration of independence’ has been provided to date, the claim is more of a hearsay than an evidence-based fact.
Many also argue that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s March 7, 1971, racecourse speech, which no doubt was inspiring and, to some extent, transformative, can by no means be treated as a ‘declaration of independence’ either, for if it were, the Pakistan authorities would have arrested Mujib right then and tried him for treason. They did not. Besides, the speech included several conditions for the transfer of power and had the Pakistan government accepted those conditions, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman would have been the prime minister of Pakistan and not of Bangladesh. Therefore, it would be misleading, if not a gross factual error, to treat his March 7, 1971, as a proclamation of independence of Bangladesh.
Ìý
Ziaur Rahman’s declaration of independence
According to many, it was not Sheikh Mujibur Rahman; it was former President Ziaur Rahman who made the first ‘declaration of independence’ of Bangladesh’ on March 26 and 27, 1971, through radio announcements in Chattogram.
Ziaur Rahman, a major in the Pakistan army in 1971 who was then based in Chattogram, rebelled on March 25, 1971, against the Pakistan Army/Pakistan state for their brutal crackdown on the innocent ‘East Pakistanis,’ and declared independence through two back-to-back radio announcements, first on March 26 and then again on March 27, 1971, at a makeshift radio station in Chattogram.
Ziaur Rahman’s March 26 and 27, 1971, radio announcements were the very first ‘declarations’ of independence that everyone heard. Furthermore, these announcements also signalled in a more concrete manner that a Bengali section of the Pakistan army has rebelled and that a liberation war has commenced, and thus the claim that it is Ziaur Rahman who made the first declaration of Bangladesh.
All true, but can we still treat Zia’s radio announcements as a ‘declaration’ for independence?
To answer the vexed and contested question as to who made the veryÌýfirstÌý’declaration’ of independence of Bangladesh, it may be worthwhile to explore these announcements/declarations within the framework of theoretical precepts that constitute what is known as the ‘Unilateral Declaration of Independence.’
Ìý
‘Unilateral declaration of independence’:ÌýTheoretical Precepts
The concept of ‘unilateral declaration of independence’ or ‘declaration’ of ‘unilateral secession’ that describes more accurately the context of Bangladesh’s separation from Pakistan is defined as a ‘formal process leading to the establishment of a new state by a subnational entity which declares itself independent and sovereign without a formal agreement with the state from which it is seceding.’
The term unilateral declaration of independence was first used in 1965, when Ian Smith, the colonial administrator of Rhodesia (presently, Zimbabwe) decided to sever connections with the mother country, the UK, and declared independence and seceded without an agreement with the mother country.
Thus, judging from the theoretical precepts of the unilateral declaration of independence which implies formal announcement of separation of a sub-national entity from an existing country into a new nation, without the agreement of the mother country and by a group/individual that officially represents the citizens of the seceding unit, neither Sheikh Mujib’s yet-to-be-proven clandestine telegram of March 26 nor his March 7, 1971 racecourse public speech and not even Ziaur Rahman’s March 26 and 27, 1971, radio announcements where Zia clearly stated ‘…hereby declare that the independent People’s Republic of Bangladesh has been established…’Ìý can be considered as unilateral declaration of independence, for none of these announcements including that of Zia’s revealed nor envisaged a ‘…formal process leading to the establishment of a new state…’ Ìýnor were these announcements made by entities that had the representational authority of the separating unit, namely, the people of the then East Pakistan to declare separation and independence, formally.
So, who made the first declaration of independence that conforms to the theoretical precepts of a unilateral declaration of independence?
Ìý
The April 10, 1971, Proclamation
On April 10, 1971, the Bangladesh government-in-exile made the following declaration at Mujib Nagar, then a liberated area in Bangladesh, which, among other things, stated, ‘…declare and constitute Bangladesh to be a sovereign People’s Republic…’ and more importantly, the declaration was made by an entity, the government-in-exile, an elected body that officially represented the seceding entity, the then East Pakistan, the subnational entity of Pakistan. Through the proclamation, the government-in-exile also formally commenced an organised liberation war and led the war that contributed to liberation and the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent state.
Therefore, in the context of the theoretical precepts of a unilateral declaration of independence — a formal declaration of separation of a subnational unit from an existing state into a new state and by a team that represented citizens of the seceding unit — the only ‘declaration’ that qualifies as the first official and acceptable proclamation/declaration of independence of Bangladesh is the one that was made by the government-in-exile on April 10, 1971, at Mujib Nagar.
But then, what about these other dates and milestones, which are no less important, for example, the March 7, 1971, speech of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his March 26 secret telegram and Ziaur Rahman’s March 26 and 27, 1971, radio announcements in Chattogram? Do we discard and/or ignore these announcements/statements?
Not at all; we must acknowledge and venerate these dates and events as important milestones in Bangladesh’s march towards independence but not as unilateral declaration of independence of Bangladesh. April 10, 1971, should be commemorated as the official unilateral declaration of independence of Bangladesh.
Ìý
Honorifics: individual vs collective
ANOTHER issue that is being debated a great deal in Bangladesh, especially since the July-August uprising, involves the honorific, ‘father of the nation,’ which has been conferred on Sheikh Mujibur Rahman at the very inception of Bangladesh in 1971.
Questions have been raised as to whether Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who no doubt played the pivotal role in the processes that led to the independence of Bangladesh, did it alone and deserves the monopoly to the honorific, the ‘father of the nation’?
Many argue and with good reasons that while it is true that Sheikh Mujib played the transformative role in the political mobilisation of the ‘East Pakistanis,’ at whose call millions rose, resisted and fought against Pakistan government’s violent and discriminatory treatment of the East that ultimately led to the liberation war and creation of Bangladesh, contributions of other leaders including the academics as well as the students who played crucial parts first, in conceptualising the ‘two-nation theory’, and later, in political mobilisation of resistance and conduct the liberation war that led to the idea and creation of Bangladesh, should neither be ignored nor minimised and, therefore, should these heroes and their contributions not be venerated?
In other words, giving all credits of independence of Bangladesh to one individual, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and conferring upon him the honorific, the ‘father of the nation’, while ignoring others is not just unfair but a huge disservice to the nation.
Many thus suggest that honorifics should be both individual and collective, for example, the honorific, ‘father of the nation’ to Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib, who towered over all others in the mission of liberation and creation of Bangladesh, and others, the ‘founding leaders.’
Ìý
Lionisation/demonisation of leaders
LATELY, as a manifestation of a rising culture of mean politics, people in Bangladesh seem to demonstrate this despicable habit of lionising and demonising their leaders.
The practice, which reveals yet another sad aspect of ‘imposed history,’ has involved Bangladesh’s two most important and towering leaders — Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman.
While the loyalists lionise Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to an extent that they made him a deity-like figure, they demonise the other leader, Ziaur Rahman, a freedom fighter and a transformative leader, in a manner that is not just distasteful but mean! Zia followers also criticise Mujib but not as distastefully as that of the Mujib followers. This is completely unnecessary, for it is hard to imagine a Bangladesh without Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, especially for the role he played in mobilising people and in advancing and creating Bangladesh, and at the same time Ziaur Rahman’s strong and visionary leadership at a critical juncture of Bangladesh that helped, ‘…put a collapsing nation on its feet…’ that helped Bangladesh to march forward does deserve due recognition as well. At the same time, it is also important to acknowledge that both Mujib and Zia committed mistakes.
Sheikh Mujib subverted democracy, brutally suppressed political opponents and encouraged extrajudicial killings that caused deaths and injuries to many of his opponents, including that of Bangladesh’s first murder-in-custody of a high-profile political opponent, Siraj Sikder.
Similarly, Ziaur Rahman, a war hero and a transformative leader, has been criticised for the deaths of many soldiers who mutinied against him, some of whom, allegedly, were executed through dubious trial processes.
In other words, however great the leaders are, they do make mistakes, and the challenge is to find a way to deal with and reconcile the virtuous contributions of heroes with their not-so-virtuous deeds in a balanced and mature manner. So, how do we go about it?
Ìý
Accounting leaders in a balanced manner: the China example
The answer to the conundrum came from a recent account of a BBC journalist who travelled extensively throughout China, asking young Chinese of their impressions of Chairman Mao, ‘How do you evaluate Chairman Mao?’ The majority answered, ‘He did both good and bad.’ The BBC journalist asked, ‘What are the good and bad deeds of Mao?’ They replied, ‘Chairman Mao united the country and restored China’s sovereignty, but his cultural revolution destroyed the economy, and millions died of starvation.’ Then the BBC journalist asked, ‘I can understand how you learnt of Mao’s good deeds, but then, how did you come to know his bad ones?’ They answered, ‘Why, these are in our school textbooks.’ Then the BBC journalist asked, ‘How do you reconcile Chairman Mao’s good deeds with his bad?’ The young Chinese answered, ‘Chairman Mao’s good deeds inspire us and remind us of the value of unity and the importance of sovereignty; his bad deeds have taught us what not to do.’
Balanced accounting is key to the nation-building. After all, notwithstanding their mistakes, a nation needs genuine role models to follow and be guided by their good deeds, taking note of and avoiding their slippages, for as Confucius once said, ‘A nation without role models is like a blind person who does not know where to put the hands and feet on.’
Ìý
M Adil Khan is a professor (adjunct) of development practice at the School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and a former senior policy manager at the United Nations.