That an election is nothing without the voters goes without saying. And more often than not, young first-time voters can become the deciding factor in the polls since they are most likely to cause a swing towards whichever platform catches their fancy. The vibrancy of an election particularly hinges on these youths, who add to the overall heady atmosphere leading up to voting day. This has been a common phenomenon in Bangladeshi electoral politics, which is why the national elections often take on the mood of a large festival irrespective of religion or race.

But gone are those days. No longer is an election festive in Bangladesh. Nor do the first-time voters show much enthusiasm. More importantly, the political parties, especially the ruling one, care little about the voters. This frustrating trend was clear in the 2014 election—when 153 lawmakers were elected uncontested thanks to the main opposition camp boycotting the polls—and voters were deprived of the value of their vote.

The voting atmosphere, especially since the beginning of what is said to be "modern democracy" in Bangladesh in 1991, has gradually waned and is possibly at its historical low now. The media reported heavily that many voters could not even cast their votes in the 2018 election. This upcoming election, 25 million fresh voters, almost one-fourth of total voters, may cast their votes for the first time.

Read more

We are heading towards another one-sided election

What's worrying is that an entire generation has grown up without being accustomed to the actual exercise of elections. It may not sound very alarming, but the impact is severe. If they grow up knowing that public representatives can be elected without voting and that there is no system of accountability, if they grow up in a winner-take-all culture, then the future of the nation is bleak, indeed.

Even more worrying is the fact that youths have turned away from politics out of frustration. We may keep blaming poor politics, corrupt politicians, and a rotten society, but to resolve our problems, we need solid political leadership to steer the nation in the right direction. A bureaucrat, a businessperson, a social worker, or a journalist can only extend their support, but leadership must come from the political figures. Right now, in absence of that lead, the young generation is becoming increasingly disinterested in politics.

Why am I expressing such deep concern? Because another election is due in a month. BNP, the opposition, has announced to boycott the polls, and so, it seems that polling is going to be lopsided again. And if there is no strong political opposition in the battle of the ballots, voter turnout will be less or voters will be deprived of their right.

Recently, I got the opportunity to listen to a bunch of youths at a university programme organised by DW Akademie. They discussed everything from traffic congestion to water scarcity, from psychological issues to medicare facilities—along with voting rights and the electoral atmosphere. What impressed me was that they want to speak up, they want to come up with ideas and solutions, but are not getting the space, or we are not providing it.

Read more

As things stand, Bangladesh election is all but doomed

One of the participants said, "Everything around us is affecting or influencing our young generation, but we are in pain. We can't talk." Another said their generation has never seen a proper election. After the talks, the youths summed up the proceedings saying that the voting process and election system could be improved. They have a myriad of problems, which could be resolved if they only had the chance to talk about it at the right forum.

A fourth of the country's population is in the 15-29 age group. In numbers, the country's current youth population is around 45.9 million, according to the census report published by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. While the elderly will certainly provide guidance, the youth must be the foot soldiers, and the relationship should not be just unidirectional (top to bottom) but reciprocal. Whatever approach we have must blend the experience and wisdom of the elderly with the technical savviness and creativity of the youth. This combination is imperative for the advancement of any society. The wider the gap, the poorer the nation will be.

Read more

The fog before the election

Therefore, we have to keep in mind that youths have been missing out on being part of the democratic process, the voting environment, and rights. They need to connect with a mainstream political process that accommodates diverging and opposing views. There must be a healthy debate of conflicting ideas to enlighten the youth. Otherwise, there won't be any progress. We will only hurtle back from the light of reason, away from the benefits of a democratic process that preaches equality.

Mohammad Al-Masum Molla is chief reporter at The Daily Star.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

The Awami League yesterday decided not to field party candidates in any local government polls as a measure to stop infighting between AL leaders.

The infighting worsened after the party decided to nominate candidates in the recently held national election and allowed their party colleagues to compete against them.

The new decision will be effective in the polls to Cumilla and Mymensingh city corporations, which are slated for March 9, said sources.

No candidates will get the party symbol "boat". 

The decision was made at an emergency meeting of AL Central Working Committee, the highest decision-making body of the party, at the Gono Bhaban. AL President Sheikh Hasina chaired the meeting.

The ruling party convened the meeting to discuss the way out of the intra-party feuds.

As the BNP and some other parties boycotted the polls, the party adopted a strategy to make the election appear participatory and to increase turnout. This ultimately led to violence between AL leaders in many places.

According to insiders, at the beginning of the meeting, Hasina asked party leaders to come up their recommendations on how to minimise the infighting and party's role in upcoming elections to upazila parishads, which will be held in phases. The polls are likely to begin in March.

AL Joint General Secretary AFM Bahauddin Nasim started first with his proposal for not providing party electoral symbol in local government elections.

He also recommended holding extended meetings in the districts where AL's internal feuds are intense and said the party should take all-out measures so that the infighting does not intensify further, said sources.

Almost all other party leaders echoed Nasim.

Some of them also suggested that the government take stern action against the arsonists to stop the recurrence of arson attacks, said sources.

At the one stage of the meeting, Hasina, also the prime minister, brought up the US presidential election and said the presidential election between George W Bush and Al Gore was questionable, said meeting insiders.

She said Donald Trump also did not recognise Joe Biden's victory.

Those who are preaching good elections to Bangladesh are mum on the issues of the US presidential election, Hasina said, according to meeting sources.

At the end of the meeting, AL chief Hasina decided to take "boat" out of the local government polls.

The AL started fielding candidates for the local body polls with its electoral symbol "boat" from 2015 after five laws related to union parishads, upazila parishads, municipalities and city corporations were amended, allowing party-backed candidates in local government bodies.

The meeting also assigned eight divisional committees to meet the leaders of the districts where there are intra-party feuds. It also decided to hold extended meetings there to resolve the problem.

While briefing reporters about the outcome of the meeting, AL General Secretary Obaidul Quader said the party would not allocate "boat" to any candidates in upazila parishad elections.

He, however, said the final decision would be made at a joint meeting of party's local government and parliamentary nomination boards.

Bangladesh captain Shakib Al Hasan couldn't stay away from the field for too long despite being occupied in campaigning for the upcoming general elections where he will be contesting for the ruling Awami League from the Magura-1 constituency in his hometown.  

The ace all-rounder, who is recovering from a finger injury, gave the crowd at Magura city's Nomani Maidan a glimpse of his genius with both bat and ball in a tape-tennis exhibition match involving former local players organised to commemorate Bangladesh's Victory Day on Friday.

The venue is a special one for the 36-year-old as it helped kickstart his cricketing journey. After the match, he reminisced about his beginnings as a cricketer at the ground and revealed what made him make the switch from being a pacer to Bangladesh's leading spinner. 

"Gorki bhai told me to come here and play for his team. He saw me play in a tournament and took a liking to how I played. I was so shy that I couldn't come for training on the first day. I came back again the next afternoon. Then I waited and waited, almost till the stroke of dusk before going to him.

"I told him that he asked me to come. He told me to get on and bowl. I bowled a bit on the first day and then bowled spin and batted on the second day. He [Gorki bhai] told me to stick to bowling spin and after that, I became a spinner. Till then, I was a fast bowler or someone who bowled whatever was needed," Shakib told attending journalists after the match on Friday.

In 1978, a book edited by Guy Hermet, Richard Rose and Alain Rouquie was published with an interesting title, Elections without Choice. The book drew some attention soon after its publication, but little did we know that, decades later, the notion of "elections without choice" would become so relevant to the world in general but more so for Bangladesh. As the country is heading towards an exercise that the incumbent is calling an election, it is imperative that we understand what is in the making.

The edited volume of Elections without Choice was an outcome of a research project initiated by the Committee on Political Sociology, composed of the International Political Science Association and the International Sociological Association. The editors quite rightly noted that political scientists deliberately avoid discussing non-competitive elections, because those elections do not meet the fundamental criterion of a liberal democracy. Not only did they underscore the need for understanding non-competitive elections, but also insisted that such elections are important in tracing the trajectory of each country.

Read more

Placing dummies as alternatives disenfranchises voters

The book was published at a time when the world was witnessing a gradual shift towards democracy, one country at a time. The Carnation Revolution in 1974 in Portugal and the death of Francisco Franco in 1975 in Spain started a wave, identified as the "Third Wave of Democracy" by Samuel Huntington in 1991. In the early days of democratisation, promoted by Western countries, it was assumed that an election was a key indicator of the political liberalisation process.

In the 1990s, with the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, democracy proliferated globally. It was believed that democratic regimes would be the norm and there could be only a few holdouts of autocratic regimes. But within less than a decade, two features became evident. The first one was that elections by themselves do not demonstrate democratisation, because authoritarian regimes also hold elections that are manipulated. The second feature was the emergence of a new kind of regime, with some apparent democratic traits but which are essentially autocratic; they were called hybrid regimes.

The 2014 election was boycotted by the opposition, yet strategies such as packing the Election Commission, or harassing the opposition, or changing electoral rules were used by the incumbent. In the 2018 election, another tool was added—keeping opposition candidates off the ballot—and this was done both by confining leaders and cancelling their nominations on flimsy grounds, making the candidates spend time at the courthouse, which has not been helpful to the candidates.

Subsequently, these regimes, which often hold elections and win at ease, were described as "electoral authoritarianism." These regimes tend to hold regular elections, but these elections are engineered in a fashion that opposition parties have little to no chance to win. In both closed autocracy and hybrid regimes, these exercises are essentially "elections without choice." Consequently, the attention of political scientists and observers shifted to the "quality" of elections.

Evidence mounted in the 2000s that autocrats and rulers of the hybrid regimes manipulate elections. Election manipulation was not a new phenomenon. However, from the 1970s through the 1990s, manipulation of elections was easily detectable: there was blatant rigging, which included capturing polling booths on election day and weapon-wielding party loyalists scaring voters away from polling stations and stuffing the ballot boxes.

But as these hybrid regimes emerged and the despots needed to have some semblance of legitimacy to continue their rule, rigging of an election took a different route. This is the period of regression of democracy, often described as "democratic backsliding," which political scientist Nancy Bermeo defined as "the state-led debilitation or elimination of any of the political institutions that sustain an existing democracy." These political institutions, Bermeo reminded us in an essay, include "all the institutions that enable people to formulate and signify preferences and then have them weighed by their elected representatives."

Two years after Bermeo's essay was published, a seminal book by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt published in 2018, titled How Democracies Die, unequivocally stated that sometimes democracy dies with a bang, with coups, quickly and forcefully. But lately it happens slowly, incrementally; "democratic backsliding today begins at the ballot box." The would-be autocrats rise through the elections, and then they change the rules of the game. Levitsky and Ziblatt use the analogy of a football game. "To consolidate power, the would-be authoritarians must capture the referees, sideline at least some of the other side's star players, and rewrite the rules of the game to lock in their advantage, in effect tilting the playing field against their opponent." When they talk of a referee, in the political context, who are they referring to? "These include the judicial system, law enforcement bodies, and intelligence, tax and regulatory agencies," they write.

Election, in a tilted field, is already rigged in such a manner that it can deliver only one result—a victory for the incumbent. The manipulation of elections, Bermeo told us, is one of the three key features of democratic backsliding. But such manipulation is not like how the classical autocrats used to do it—blatantly. Instead, these are "strategic manipulation," which includes "a range of actions aimed at tilting the electoral playing field in favor of incumbents." Bermeo provides a list of these actions: "keeping opposition candidates off the ballot," "packing electoral commissions," "changing electoral rules to favor incumbents," and "harassing opponents." Usually, these are done "in such a way that the elections themselves do not appear fraudulent" and are intended to fool election observers and the international community.

Read more

How constitutional is the 15th amendment?

As for these practices, perhaps nobody else has identified them better than Nic Cheeseman and Brian Klaas. Their book, published in 2018, is titled How to Rig an Election. The name sounds like a manual. In some measures, it is so. Only that they have dissected the manual or the playbook of the autocrats drawing on elections around the world. Cheeseman and Klaas identified the leaders who go for rigging: "Leaders are most likely to try and stay in power when they believe that their presence is essential to maintain political stability; in cases when they are less committed to plural politics; when they have engaged in high-level corruption and/or human rights abuses; when they lack trust in rival leaders and political institutions; when they have been in power for a longer period of time; and when they control geostrategically important states with natural resources, effective security forces, weak institutions and high levels of distrust."

They looked at six strategies that autocrats use to manipulate elections: gerrymandering (shaping electoral constituencies to the incumbent's benefit), vote buying, repression of opposition, hacking the election, stuffing the ballot box, and playing the international community. Interestingly, while ballot box stuffing is the most effective strategy, considering the risk of exposure, often autocrats use other strategies ahead of the election to ensure a victory. This is how elections are held by autocratic regimes.

Since the 2014 election, none of these strategies have been in short supply in Bangladesh. That election was boycotted by the opposition, yet strategies such as packing the Election Commission, or harassing the opposition, or changing electoral rules were used by the incumbent. In the 2018 election, another tool was added—keeping opposition candidates off the ballot—and this was done both by confining leaders and cancelling their nominations on flimsy grounds, making the candidates spend time at the courthouse, which has not been helpful to the candidates.

Read more

How to judge the Election Commission’s performance

These have delivered victory, not only a hollow one but something more than that, if we borrow from Cheeseman and Klass: "so one sided as to beggar belief, exposing the ruling party to ridicule." The ruling Awami League has not, by any means, abandoned its 2014 and 2018 strategies, but instead has become further audacious. The violent crackdown on opposition since October 28, arrests of BNP leaders, convictions of BNP leaders and activists at lightning speed, and shutting down party offices are testimonies to the continuation of these strategies. They also show how referees have been captured.

But in search of a way to avoid the ridiculous situations of winning 153 seats unopposed in 2014 or winning 96 percent of seats with allies in 2018, and additionally to "play the international community," it has invented a new way called fielding "dummy candidates." The so-called 'dummies" are candidates who belong to the ruling party but are contesting the election as "independents" with the approval of the party. Besides, the smaller parties, "king's parties," and individuals who have been cajoled or coerced into participating in the election, thanks to state apparatuses, would like to run under the symbol of the ruling AL.

Ironically, these have not saved the party from being a subject of ridicule, but made it more embarrassing for it long before a single vote has been cast. Importantly, all these have laid bare that the ruling AL is moving towards an "election without choice."

Ali Riaz is distinguished professor of political science at Illinois State University in the US, non-resident senior fellow of the Atlantic Council, and president of the American Institute of Bangladesh Studies (AIBS). His forthcoming book is titled 'Pathways of Autocratization: The tumultuous journey of Bangladeshi politics.'

Views expressed in this comment are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

The necessity that was felt a few days after the Declaration of Independence of Bangladesh was that of a Government which could take upon itself the burden of directing the liberation struggle. Because of the sudden attack and the resultant disorganisation, the Awami League leaders could not get together and work out the formation of such a government. Obviously, as the Awami League had received the mandate from the people, it was the party that could form the government. The necessity of the formation of the government was felt by everybody. The readers are aware that in its first broadcast over Swadhin Bangla Beter Kendra, Major Zia announced himself to be the President of the Revolutionary Government. Later on, he modified his announcement and declared that he was leading the armed struggle in the name and on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Mr. Zia's announcement only asserted the necessity of the formation of a government, but he and his colleagues did not obviously constitute the government.

I always had this belief that such a liberation struggle could not proceed in an organised manner if a top body like a government at the top did not guide the movement in a proper way. This is why I became extremely happy to know that a civilian government had been formed for Bangladesh.

We were sitting at Kishoreganj, like many others eagerly awaiting the formation of a government by the Awami League. Awami League leaders at Kishoreganj were quite vocal about it, and some of them even grew impatient over the issue. All of us were anxious since the movement could not be guided if political forces did not take the lead for proper organisation and confrontation. The directives could only come from the elected representatives. Moreover, the formation of a national government could enhance the prestige of the struggle and raise altogether different hopes in the minds of the people. The foreign powers could then be persuaded better. We felt all these and eagerly waited for the formation of the government.

When Major Safiullah reached Mymensingh and Kishoreganj, he also agreed with us that a government should immediately be formed. There was, at that time, a frantic search for some elderly politicians of the Awami League. Since nobody was sure about the fate of Sheikh, it became obvious that the only man who would be more suitable for the formation of a government was Syed Nazrul Islam, Vice President of the Awami League and the man next in command to the Sheikh. Syed Nazrul Islam happened to be from Kishoreganj P.S. itself and this is why Major Safiullah and all others put pressure on me to locate him so that he could take the initiative for forming a government. I must praise him for the foresight of Major Safiullah and others who rightly foresaw that the job of the armed personnel was simply to fight according to given directions. The directions could only come from a civilian government consisting of the elected representatives of the people.

Cover of the author’s book ‘The Turbulent 1971: My Diary’. It was published by Agamee Prakashani in 2020.

Throughout the beginning of the liberation struggle, one of my aims has thus been the location of Syed Nazrul Islam. The scanty news we used to get from Dhaka implied that Syed Nazrul Islam had fled from Dhaka. But nobody could give details about where he could be. On many occasions, Major Safiullah and Major Nazrul Islam used to inquire about it from Brahmanbaria over wireless. When a few days had passed they became very anxious and repeatedly requested me to locate Mr. Nazrul Islam.

Since Mr. Nazrul Islam's hometown was Kishoreganj, I was confident that he would have to come this way, even in hiding. This is what actually happened. It was possibly on the 6th or 7th of April that Mr. Mustafizur Rahman Khan had secretly approached me and told that Mr. Nazrul Islam was in hiding at the village home of his wife. Mr. Khan came to me with the request for transport and sufficient [sic] to cover Nazrul Islam's journey from Kishoreganj to Durgapur. Mr. Khan told me that Mr. Nazrul Islam was aware that all of us were in the freedom movement, he hesitated to come out in public because that could have many implications. From that day on, I knew the whereabouts and movements of Syed Nazrul Islam but I kept my promises in keeping this as top secret. The only information I gave was to Major Safiullah telling him that I had knowledge Mr. Nazrul Islam had proceeded towards the free zone. I told Major Safiullah that things were gradually broadening up and the formation of a national government was eminent.

Khashruzzaman Choudhury, 1967.

How Mr. Syed Nazrul Islam fled from Dhaka was an interesting story. While proceeding from Kishoreganj towards Durgapur, he was located 10 miles outside the town by my S.I., another Mr. Nazrul Islam. The S.I. was coming back after a survey of the area in the evening. From a distance, he could see that another jeep was coming from the opposite direction. As soon as Mr. Nazrul Islam's jeep saw the other jeep, its travel stopped and Mr. Nazrul Islam tried to hide to avoid identification. S. I. Nazrul disclosed the story to me on his return to Kishoreganj. He told me that soon he could understand that it was possibly Mr. Nazrul Islam who was in the other jeep. So, he cried out, giving his identity and requested them to come out from hiding. After repeated assurance, all of the passengers of the other jeep came out and Syed Nazrul Islam soon left towards Netrokona and Durgapur. He sent a message through S. I. Nazrul to me, thanking me for the cooperation I had extended to him. When I heard the story from Nazrul, I requested him to keep it as a secret and not to disclose it to anyone.

When Mr. Nazrul Islam could reach the free zone, the government was formed. It was possibly on the 10th of April that the All India Radio gave the news of the formation of a civilian government, announcing the names of the Ministers. I was sitting at the local police station when the Awami League Leaders rushed to that place with sweets even in those circumstances of trials and tribulations. All of us were really happy that after all, a government had been formed. I always had this belief that such a liberation struggle could not proceed in an organised manner if a top body like a government at the top did not guide the movement in a proper way. This is why I became extremely happy to know that a civilian government had been formed for Bangladesh.

The identity card of Khashruzzaman Choudhury, Deputy Secretary at the Home Ministry of the Mujibnagar Government, 1971.

The announcement of a government on the 10th of April was after consultation among different leaders of the Awami League. Later on, I came to know the whole story about the background of the government. Mr. Mustafizur Rahman Siddiqui and Zahur Ahmad Choudhury both from Chittagong Awami League escaped to Agartala. At Agartala, they used to sit in meetings discussing the formation of the government. It was after the arrival of Mr. Tajuddin that the talks were finalized and a tentative government was fixed up. Mr. Nazrul Islam's arrival was later, and even though he was absent, he was tipped as Vice President and Acting President in the absence of Sheikh Mujib.

Incidentally, it would be of interest to know that the parleys in this connection used to be held in the residence of one Mr. K. P. Datta, a Deputy Director of Education in the Tripura Government. I later met Mr. K. P. Datta at Agartala. Mr. K. P. Datta was originally from Sylhet District of Bangladesh. During my stay at Agartala, I had come in close contact with him. Mr. Datta used to narrate how all these began and how the ultimate decision of the formation of the government was taken up. Since I myself was from Sylhet, Mr. Datta and I could communicate in our native dialogue, and possibly because of this, we were very close to each other. Mr. Datta is an intelligent man whose wife is also in the education line. I had seldom come across such a nice man during that period. Mr. Datta used to tell me the story about the government. He told me that in his house there used to be sessions which used to last longer than midnight. It was after a lot of discussions, the final decision for the formation of the government was taken up.

Though the announcement of the government was on the 10th of April, it was on the 17th of April that the actual government was placed to the journalists, both foreign and Indian. Few people know that the 16th of April was fixed for the ceremony of swearing in of the government at Chuadanga. This could not be done because of heavy bombing from Pakistani planes and attacks on the towns by the Pakistan army. It is in this context that Baidyanathtala was selected for the ceremony on the 17th of April. I came to know about all of this from my friend Tawfiq-e-Elahi Chaudhury who was then SDO of Kushtia District, within the jurisdiction of which this Baidyanathtala was situated. The place was only a few miles from the Indian border. The journalists were taken there without any notice. The ceremony was simple but impressive. The Ministers were sworn in on the 17th of April, and the actual government started from that day.

Acting President Syed Nazrul Islam addressing attendees at the oath-taking ceremony of the Mujibnagar Government on April 17, 1971.

Captain Murari Ram of BSF told me a story about Syed Nazrul Islam. He told me that his friend Baljit Singh, another adjutant of BSF, one day received information that Syed Nazrul Islam was coming. None of them had seen Syed Nazrul Islam, but they had heard lots about him. They knew that he was an elderly man. Ultimately, the man who landed at Haluaghat was a young man who introduced himself as Nazrul Islam. Baljit Singh was the first, not in confusion, had told everybody Syed Nazrul Islam had come. When other officers of BSF went to meet him, after some time, they would find out that this was not Syed Nazrul Islam, but Professor Nazrul Islam Choudhury, an elected representative from Mymensingh District. The confusion was soon cleared. Captain Murari joked with me that when Syed Nazrul Islam actually arrived this time, Baljit Singh took precaution and started asking him a number of questions. This time the gentleman was none other than Syed Nazrul Islam himself, and possibly he became very confused at such a reaction from the BSF. When Baljit Singh became satisfied after a long time, he sent the message up to his senior officers that Syed Nazrul Islam had come. Captain Murari Ram jokingly told me that Baljit Singh had not first believed, even this time. There were queries from above about how this gentleman looked like and poor Baljit Singh had to talk to so many people, attempting to convince them that this time he had made no mistake and that the gentleman was really Syed Nazrul Islam. When all went to meet Syed Nazrul Islam, they found that he was really Syed Nazrul Islam, and quick arrangements were made for his movement from the border areas to another place where he could meet his other colleagues.

The S.P. Garo Hills, whom we met after coming over to Tura, was from Bihar. We had an interesting story to tell about Maulana Bhasani. As everybody knows, Maulana Bhasani had been hospitalized for bad health. On the 25th of March, Maulana Bhasani was at Mymensingh Medical College itself. Maulana was a clever man and he had his own source of information. This was evident when on the 26th the hospital staff and the doctors found that Maulana had disappeared from the hospital. When Maulana Bhasani entered India through Haluaghat, he was received at the border by the D.C. of Garo Hills, a Khasi gentleman named Mr. Cajee and S. P. Mr. Jha. The Maulana was driven away to Tura. Mr. Jha told me that when Maulana Bhasani sat with them at Tura, he started speaking a lot about massacres. He was all the time speaking against the Biharis who had committed a lot of crimes in Bangladesh. As Mr. Jha himself was from Bihar, he could not possibly join in the discussion in the same manner. When Bhasani saw that Mr. Jha did not sound as enthusiastic, he wondered what might have happened to Mr. Cajee. D.C. had been smiling all through. The Maulana was at his wit's end when Mr. Cajee told him that Bhasani was describing things to a person who was himself a Bihari. Mr. Jha told me later that as long as Maulana Bhasani stayed at Tura, he used to refer to this incident and cut jokes with Mr. Jha telling him that he was a Bihari and thus at the side of the Pakistani.

This article is an excerpt from the author's book "The Turbulent 1971: My Diary" (2020).

Dr. Khashruzzaman Choudhury joined the Liberation War while serving as a Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). He involved himself with the Mujibnagar Government as Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs. Later, he served as a Professor of Economics in the USA. Khashruzzaman Choudhury was honored with the highest civilian award, the 'Swadhinata Padak,' in 2014 for his contribution to the Liberation War.