False conclusions based on false premises
I am going out on a limb to make the following outrageous suggestions. The Liberation War of 1971 was launched by Lt. General Tikka Khan, the military governor of then East Pakistan, and the first president of Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) was President Gen. Yahya Khan. Now before you get your blood to a boiling point and call for my head, let me explain the logic that can be argued by a perverted mind following the statements made by two people recently bordering on a similar level of insanity. These two people, one living in self-imposed exile in the safe confines of a western city and the other, the leader of our major opposition party and proud mother of the callow politician in exile, went out with a bat and trashed our history and the country's founding father in an infantile attempt to resurrect a false image of their party's founder.
If the main logic behind the mother-son duo's claim that Ziaur Rahman, an army major that time, was the main actor of our liberation movement because he declared independence (a claim not even made by Late Ziaur Rahman), and that should also establish him as the first president of the country because according to them he said so, my extreme comments can also be explained.
The two stalwarts resurrected the dead and gone issue of proclamation of independence, which everyone thought had been long settled. But this time they not only arrogated to their party the sole honour of declaration of independence, the son claimed Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had never declared independence; but it was his brave father who did that. He would not stop there, but go to an all-out war against history and claim that his pater was also the first president of the country because of this alleged declaration. His mater did not miss a heartbeat to show her filial loyalty and echo the same statement only hours later.
Now pray, what historical events or non-events lead to this claim? First, Ziaur Rahman made this declaration of independence on his own and launched the Liberation War. Second, following this statement he became ipso facto the president of the country. The second is a deduction, since in no other way could Ziaur Rahman have assumed presidency, a reality that happened six years later via a military coup and ouster of a civilian president.
Following the twisted logic of the duo we can also argue that the Liberation War was started by Lt. Gen Tikka Khan. Had he not unleashed the massacre and mayhem of March 25 on the innocent civilians of Dhaka and other parts of the country, and had his marauding army not scorched the country, perhaps the War of Liberation as we know it would not have started, at least not at that time. Therefore, to Tikka Khan I would like to give the credit to help us start the war.
As to President Yahya Khan being the first president, I would submit that this tyrant with his plundering army laid siege until December 16 to a country that had declared independence. Technically, Bangladesh was a sovereign country, but the imposter held on to power officially as president of the territory. If the mother-son duo can claim presidency for Ziaur Rahman even though we had a government in exile with Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as president, why not President Yahya who was the official president of the part of the country that he ruled?
The main point of this absurd claim of the mother-son duo and my rather sarcastic suggestions is that the major purpose of such illogical arguments is attention getting and provoking people to react. We all know that such anti-history claims are not for real, but attempts at creating new controversies to deflect people to non-issues for a purpose. This purpose is to reinvigorate a dying movement to mobilise people who have been disenchanted and dismayed by failed attempts of a party that could not put its act together just a few months ago to have a general election under its own terms. With a general election that slipped away from its hands, albeit in an unconventional manner, and the prospects of another election some five years away, the party is hamstrung and is looking for ways to initiate another wave of discontent and dissension in the country.
No one, including some sane elements in the party of the mother-son duo, will stake their career to fall behind the new falsehood that is being spread by them. These are utterances of people who have reached the end of their tether and are looking for extreme causes to revive their failing leadership. The less we pay attention to such lunatic ideas and rhetoric the better we are. Insane thoughts are not countered by insane response. Bangabandhu will remain where he is.
The writer is a US-based political commentator and analyst.
Comments