The Debate
Lately, the debate about Bangladesh’s Father of the Nation has resurfaced. Many are contesting the monopoly of this honour being attributed to one individual, Bangabondhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
The antagonists argue that independence of Bangladesh was a collective effort, a struggle where not one but several leaders, who over the years through their pollical activism, social mobilisation and actual direct involvement in the liberation war made contributions that eventually culminated into a liberation war and emergence of Bangladesh as an independent state in December 1971.
This school of thought thus argues that since the idea and creation of Bangladesh is a collective effort, it makes sense that instead of one Father of the Nation, Bangladesh should have more than one and that these contributing leaders should be given the honorific, ‘Founding Fathers’ of Bangladesh.
Yet, others have suggested, “Why we need founding fathers, why not founding leaders who helped in political mobilisation public opinion for and spearheaded the independence movement and eventually successfully separated the erstwhile East Pakistan from Pakistan (the Western wing) and created Bangladesh?”
There are also those who argue against the whole idea of Founding Fathers/Leaders saying, “Useless debate, most nations have no founder or founding fathers as such. It has no impact whatsoever in solving existential problems faced by Bangladesh.”
Others have joined and echoed similar sentiments, “What do we achieve from having founding, whatever?
‘Father of Nation’: Global Precedents
The term, “Father of the Nation” is an honorific title given to a person considered the driving force behind the establishment of a country, state, or a nation.
Most countries either have Father of the Nation/Country or Fathers of Nation/Founding Fathers etc.
Currently, including several European countries there are 109 countries that have ‘Father of the Nation’ whereas, Argentina – ‘Mother of the Homeland’, Hungary -‘Founder of the Homeland’; Tunisia – ‘Supreme warrior’; Germany – ‘Fathers and mothers of the Basic Law’ – those who drafted the Basic Law, the constitution of (then West) Germany; Poland – ‘Fathers of the Nation’; Indonesia – ‘Main leaders of the Indonesian National Revolution, those who wrote and signed the Proclamation of Indonesian Independence; Kazakhstan – Founders of the Nation; Philippines – Father of the Revolution + National Hero; Poland – ‘Fathers of Independence, Fathers of Reborn Poland’; Trinidad and Tobago – ‘Moulders of the Nation’; USA – ‘Founding Fathers’.
From above it is clear that most countries do have the practice of recognising their founding leaders with honorifics that use the expressions – ‘Father/s of Nation’, ‘Founding Fathers of Nation’ etc.
These honorifics are important for two reasons – honouring the leader/s that have contributed to a country’s creation is a way of saying expressing gratitude, saying “thank you”; and secondly, it is important for nations to have role models to follow and be inspired by. This is healthy.
Indeed, as Confucius once said, “A nation without role models is like a blind person without eyes who does not know where to put the feet and hands on.”
Bangladesh: Re-Examining the Idea of the ‘Father of Nation’
Now coming to Bangladesh. In recent times, a certain ruling political party showered all the credits of liberation to one individual whom they called the Father of the Nation, whom they deified to such an extent and at the neglect of others and did this in a political environment, where critiquing the establishment especially the monopoly position of the deified leader’s position as the ’Father of the Nation’ entailed deadly consequences.
Situation has changed since July/August 2024. The July/August 2024 uprising has dismantled the equilibrium of unfreedom and created conditions for open discussions including those relating to the issue of the Father of the Nation.
This is the backdrop to the current debate on the issue of the Father of the Nation in Bangladesh.
The members of the Facebook Forum ‘Advancing Bangladesh’ (AB) have argued that “…true history with correct narrative is what we need for informing the generations to come. Contributions of all politicians from pre 1947 period to 1971 should be evaluated and be given their deserving credit, not more nor less! Then history from 1972-2024 should also be established without any bias, based on facts only! That’s how we can preserve our true history.”
Majority in the AB forum have voted in favour of having not one but more than one, Founding Fathers/Leaders.
Some have suggested that instead of calling them Founding Fathers/Leaders, how about, “Founding Architects” which is very similar to Trinidad and Tobago’s, – ‘Moulders of the Nation’?
One AB member, a female has pointed at and quite rightly so, the gender bias in the expression “Founding Fathers”, and thus asked, “No founding mothers?”
This is an important question not merely for gender neutrality but more importantly, to reflect and identify females and there were many, that have contributed to the cause and liberation of Bangladesh and in the advancement of post-liberation Bangladesh. Indeed, there are countries that have given due recognition to female liberation contributors and in case of Argentina, it is ‘Mother of the Homeland’, and Germany’s, ‘Fathers and mothers of the Basic Law’ have maintained due gender recognition and sensitivity. Thus, there are examples of gendered honorifics.
In terms of choosing between individual and collective, all AB members have voted for the collective and most also prefer the expression, ‘Founding Leaders’ over ‘Founding Fathers’ arguing that, while “…‘Founding Leaders’ is the most appropriate and gender-neutral expression….what is important is to document unbiasedly and empirically contributions of those who made transformative changes that lead to the creation of Bangladesh and development of post-independence Bangladesh.”
There are also those who have argued that the expression ‘Founding Leaders’ is a geopolitically preferred expression as well, in the sense that the term disallows certain external entity to claim, “.to be a sole liberator!” of Bangladesh.
In sum, chronicling of contributions of leaders, male and female, who actively and visibly advanced the cause of Bangladesh – pre, during the liberation and post-Bangladesh periods – is not only important for history but essential as a gesture of appreciation of the contributions the leaders have made, which is equally important to inspire the younger generation in nurturing a strong sense of pride, nationhood and patriotism involving the motherland, Bangladesh.
The ‘Founding Leaders’ of Bangladesh
Most ‘Advancing Bangladesh’ forum members have nominated the following as the Founding Leaders (FLs) of Bangladesh: Maulana Bhashani, Bangabondhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and the Liberation War Leader/Prime Minister, Tajuddin Ahmed.
Yet, others have extended the list which include – Maulana Bhashani, Bangabondhu Sk. Mujibur Rahman, Tajuddin Ahmed, Syed Nazrul Islam, General Osmani and the sector commanders as the 1971 liberation war.
Notwithstanding, the AB members have not quite discussed nor agreed as to who qualifies as a ‘Founding Leader’ and this is problem because without a consensus on what and who qualifies as a ‘Founding Leader’ it will always be difficult to determine who are the ‘Founding Leaders’ of Bangladesh, concretely..
Another issue which is equally relevant and needs to be resolved is whether the FLs should only be those who contributed to the idea and liberation of Bangladesh, or rather, FLs should also include those who helped Bangladesh to stand on its feet and advance economically, socially, and culturally during post-Bangladesh period.
A criteria-based dispassionate, apolitical, objective, and inclusive discussion would help Bangladesh to identify and acknowledge its national heroes – the Founding Leaders’ (FLs)? – which is a sin qua non for history and to project the FLs to the younger generation as exemplars to follow and inspired by!
‘Advancing Bangladesh’