History is once again in the dock
SINCE the fateful night of August 1975, distortion of the history of our liberation has been an incessant phenomenon, especially during the tenure of non-AL governments. History was once again in the dock when, a few days ago, the mother-son duo of the BNP declared that Ziaur Rahman was the first president of Bangladesh.
A citizen or, more so, a political party, through allegiance to the Republic, must abide by the constitution, the foundation of laws for the state. The Mujibnagar Declaration (April 10, 1971) was the legal basis of our Liberation War, and was later incorporated as sixth schedule (Article 150(2)) of the constitution. On the declaration of independence it was said: “Whereas in the facts and circumstances of such treacherous conduct Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the undisputed leader of 75 million of people of Bangladesh, in due fulfillment of the legitimate right of self-determination of the people of Bangladesh, duly made a declaration of independence at Dacca on March 26, 1971, and urged the people of Bangladesh to defend the honour and integrity of Bangladesh.”
On the presidency of the Republic, it said: “In order to ensure for the people of Bangladesh equality, human dignity and social justice, declare and constitute Bangladesh to be a sovereign People's Republic and thereby confirm the declaration of independence already made by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and do hereby affirm and resolve that till such time as a Constitution is framed, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman shall be the President of the Republic and that Syed Nazrul Islam shall be the Vice-President of the Republic.”
AL's six-point programme was a Magna Carta for quasi-independence, not for absolute independence. To justify the transition from the mandate of a quasi to a complete independence, the Mujibnagar declaration of independence contained nine "whereas" clauses that included: “Whereas instead of fulfilling their promise ... Pakistan authorities declared an unjust and treacherous war.” General Rao Forman Ali also attested that sequential transition when he said: “After the postponement of National Assembly, he (Mujib) came to the conclusion that the combined forces of the military and the PPP would not let him materialise his desire to rule Pakistan. Therefore, he decided to be the father of a new nation.”
Bangabandhu was the main force and the spirit of the Bengali nationhood. If anyone did anything to accelerate the process during the crucial nine months, at home and abroad, it was done invoking his name. It was he who unified the nation and brought us together to a height we never reached either before or since. During the nine months of genocide, armed struggle and untold sufferings, his name glowed ceaselessly in the hearts of millions.
It is imperative for the leadership of the nation to evoke the glorious chapter of history to make it a rallying point to induce patriotism, an indispensable pre-requisite for national unity. Quite to the contrary, history is being revoked, not invoked, and the much-cherished national unity remains an illusion.
Ziaur Rahman, as a major in 1971, promptly responded to the occasion (“If I cannot give orders to you…”) and shouldered the responsibility that fell on him with courage and determination. I heard his speech on radio on the morning of March 29. We were thrilled to know that, like our soldiers in Kushtia and Pabna, the Bengal regiment in Chittagong has also revolted and joined the War of Liberation. Zia was repeating over the radio that “our great leader Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is with us and is directing the Liberation War.”
From his own recollection of history on March 26, 1972 at the Bangla Academy premises Zia confessed that, since he was confused about what to say, he pronounced himself as president in his first declaration, but corrected it at the advice of industrialist A.K. Khan. When he became the strongman of Bangladesh in 1976, he never claimed that he was the first president of Bangladesh.
To put the confusion to rest, in a watershed judgment, the High Court (HC) on June 20, 2009 ruled that Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, not Ziaur Rahman, proclaimed the Republic's independence on March 26, 1971. The country's constitutional experts, following the judgment, opined that it would help end the long, bitter wrangle over a significant episode of the country's independence history. But the current discovery of the mother-son duo has apparently proved them wrong.
The HC further ruled that the government might take initiative to bring to trial those involved in attempts to establish an untrue version of the Liberation War. It observed that the persons who said otherwise should be considered to be committing an offence against the nation and the constitution. Should the government proceed with the ruling and observation of the nation's constitutional court to deal with those who are using the liberty of freedom of expression as a pretext to preach despicable lies about our glorious history?
The writer is the Convenor of the Canadian Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Bangladesh.
Comments