As bad as were Hasina’s trademark sins of monumental violation of human rights and unbridled crony corruption, these pale in comparison with her gravest sin, namely, the ruthless and calculated mutilation of Bangladesh history
Hasina did this disgraceful and dishonourable disservice through prolonged laser-like focus on the claim that her father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (BB) was the sole fountainhead of Bangladesh’s liberation. She studiedly denied and willfully ignored the contribution of all others, big and small.
Particularly offensive was her treatment of Tajuddin Ahmed, Prime Minister of the Bangladesh government-in-exile, whose sterling role from March to December 1971 was obliterated (Muyeedul Hasan, Muldhara ’71, 1985).
Goebbelsian repetition of this claim for years by incessant propaganda through the media, textbooks, speeches of her acolytes and other techniques of persuasion willy-nilly led to a cult-like divine worship of BB. Like other autocrats, Hasina used these vintage methods to pursue her pet phobias.
History like water finds its own level and can’t be legislated or established by fiat. Where Hasina went completely overboard and off-the rails was using legislation to consecrate BB’s place in history. This was achieved through the the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution passed on 30 June 2011 under Awami League (AL) initiative.
Fifteenth Amendment
The Fifteenth Amendment included, inter alia, the following provisions: (i) acknowledged BB as the Father of the Nation; and (ii) inserted three new schedules at the end of the constitution which are the 7 March speech of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Declaration of Independence by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on 25 March 1971 midnight, and Proclamation of Independence by the Mujibnagar Government on 10 April 1971.
Item (i) is a strategic evaluation of judgment while the three items under (ii) are tactical ones of facts. The article will examine the three schedules under(ii) first as these have an impact on (i).
BB’s 7 March 1971 speech was preceded by considerable public anticipation that he would issue UDI (unilateral declaration of independence) for Bangladesh, like Rhodesian PM Ian Smith’s UDI on 11 November 1965. BB did mention that “our struggle was for freedom (mukti)…and independence (shadhinata).” While a masterly diplomatic equivocation—dhori machh, na chooi pani (catch fish, not touch water)—BB’s speech explicitly didn’t call for UDI. He had good reasons for prudence.
A meeting of top AL executives on the evening and night of 6 March decided against issuing
an “explicit” UDI as its costs would exceed benefits and give the junta a pretext for military action (Kamal Hossain, Bangladesh: Quest for Freedom and Justice, 2013, 87). Inducing this restraint was the local army authorities’ threat to ‘wreck the meeting… raze Dacca to the ground’ if Mujib declared UDI on 7 March (Maj. Gen. Khadim Hussain Raja, A Stranger in my own Country, East Pakistan 1969-1971, 2012, 62. Raja was GOC, 14 Division, Dhaka).
BB’s decision to choose discretion over valour was unequivocally correct. However, by the same token, it rendered invalid any reason for including this speech in the Constitution, which is a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed. Provisions glorifying an individual, however distinguished, do not belong in a Constitution.
The second tactical point that has generated more scorching heat than illuminating light is BB’s Declaration of Independence on 25 March 1971. Three sets of facts belie that this Declaration happened.
The first fact is that BB repeated his direction to, even admonished, three of his close comrades— Tajuddin Ahmed, Kamal Hossain and Amirul Islam—who visited him in his Dhanmondi house that day to seek shelter “in the old town (of Dhaka) as you were told to do.” Kamal and Amirul left BB at 1030 p.m. that night, Tajuddin an hour or so earlier. (Hossain, 103,106; Hasan, 4; and Amirul Islam, Muktijuddher Sriti (Memories of the Liberation War, 1991,14). Were BB planning a UDI, it stands to reason that he would hardly command the troika to stay in or near Dhaka.
The second fact is that it’s evident from this directive that BB was not mentally prepared to declare independence, and couldn’t have done so at midnight of 25 March, especially as he had neither informed nor consulted his colleagues. Nor was he physically prepared to resist. This is borne out by his quiet surrender to a company of 3 Commando Battalion—ordered to take BB alive at all costs by Acting Army Chief Lt. Gen. Abdul Hamid Khan, then in Dhka– shortly after midnight under the terse message “Big Bird in Cage” (Brig (Retd) Z. A. Khan, The Way It Was, 1998, 266-269).
It defies logic and common sense that BB would issue UDI and then surrender quietly. It’s like a commander declaring war on the enemy and then giving himself up without a fight and not subsequently providing a rationale for his behaviour. Hasina can’t have it both ways: claim credit for the declaration without explaining or interpreting the motivation behind BB’s surrender.
BB’s declaration is inextricably compared to that Ziaur Rahman issued on 27 March. Hasina wants to prove that her father did it first and claim the credit. The resulting controversy is as mindless as it is infantile.
The Pakistan Army’s crackdown was the last straw that made the struggle for independence inevitable and unavoidable. Citizens rebelled and resisted outside Dhaka spontaneously without waiting for a directive from any civilian or military source. They were ready, willing and able to fight and did so for nine arduous months before achieving liberation where, to be sure, Indian sanctuary and assistance and USSR security umbrella to India were pivotal factors.
The third fact is the dubious method BB used to communicate his so-called declaration. His supporters claim hat he telephoned the signals section of the East Pakistan Rifles in Peelkhana and asked them to circulate this message to other EPR units and the public. Another claim is that he telephoned this message to Awami League leader Abdul Hannan in Chittagong. Neither claim makes any sense, even assuming the phone services were functioning. Why would BB choose such a convoluted communications method? The short answer is that he did not.
Had he wanted, BB had a far more convincing method of getting his UDI out. And that was to ring up one of the numerous foreign correspondents living in the then Intercontinental Hotel to reach a worldwide audience including his countrymen (Rehman Sobhan, Untranquil Reflections, 2016, 331-332 for a list of such journalists then in Dhaka).
The third tactical point on the Proclamation of Independence by the AL Mujibnagar Government is correct. The ostensible reason is to glorify the AL. Fair enough. But it’s not appropriate to include it in the Constitution.
BB as Father of the Nation
The preceding information provides an appropriate background to assess the honorific Father of the Nation bestowed on BB in the Constitution. This condescending appellation bordering on arrogance immediately establishes, or at least suggests, a superior-subordinate relationship. BB is the permanent all-knowing and benevolent father with Bangladeshis lucky enough to be his children, with its implicit command to obey and respect BB.
Father-son relationship is a variable commodity, is not etched in stone and can and does change over time. Fathers can behave badly, like stepfathers. Growing and grown-up children can outgrow their earlier attachment and obedience. This leads logically to the crucial question of how to evaluate BB’s position in Bangladesh society.
The Dhaka Tribune in its editorial of 15 August 2024 noted that BB’s place in Bangladesh’s history is unquestionable. True. But it begs the question of how to evaluate BB’s place objectively?
Perhaps one criterion is to see how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) evaluated Mao Zedong (1893-1976), the founder of modern China who was as great if not a greater leader than BB, Bangladesh’s founder.
On 27 June 1981, the CCP’s Sixth Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee after considerable introspection unanimously adopted a resolution describing Mao’s contribution to the Chinese revolution. This judged Mao to be 70 per cent right (establishing national independence, transforming China’s social classes etc.) and 30 per cent wrong (mainly responsible for the chaos of the Cultural Revolution 1966-1976 and promoting a cult of personality).
In other words, the CCP found Mao to be more right than wrong. At a minimum, a similar assessment can be made of BB. His inspired leadership led to an independent Bangladesh. But his surrender in 1971 and adoption of BAKSAL in 1975—a cult of personality if ever there was one—are severe blemishes.
What percentages of rightness and wrongness one assigns to BB is a matter of debate for Bangladeshi historians and public.
But one thing is clear. It can’t be the 100 per cent that Hasina was advocating. BB like any other leader and human being was not infallible. He did good things alongside bad ones.
Laws supplementing the Fifteenth Amendment
The Fifteenth Amendment was supplemented by laws such as Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology Act of 2013 and later in the 2018 Digital Security Act, section 21. This section stated that any ‘propaganda or campaign against liberation war, Cognition of liberation war, Father of the nation, National Anthem or National Flag’ is punishable with imprisonment for a term ‘not exceeding 10 (ten) years or with fine not exceeding 1 (one) crore taka or with both.’
Previous non-digital legislation on defamation, in particular section 499 of the Bangladesh Penal Code, carried a sentence of maximum two years. More crucially, defamation of Bangabandhu was a cognisable offence and non-bailable. This means the police can arrest immediately and the accused must stay in prison until the matter has been decided upon by a court. (Source: Bangabandhu as the eternal sovereign: on the construction of a civil religion (Ruud, University of Oslo, RELIGION 2022, VOL. 52, NO. 4, 532–549.)
The above laws prohibited honest discussion about BB, encouraged sickening toadyism, aroused considerable and growing disenchantment amongst the public and led to the regrettable but understandable defacing and destruction of BB’s statues in various places after Hasina’s flight on 5 August 2024.
Why did Hasina behave the way she did?
Why did Hasina exploit BB’s image to construct a Mafiosi fascist kleptocracy to loot, maim and torture? Arguably, only psychiatrists after examining Hasina can provide a credible explanation.
However, laymen observers have suggested that Hasina sought revenge upon the nation for the murder of her father and family in 1975. But the viciousness of her revanchism suggests irrational behaviour, emboldened by unparalleled support from Delhi.
It’s telling that Hasina’s shenanigans started from about 2014, when she manipulated the first of three flawed general elections after abolishing in 2011 the caretaker government requirement. Modi became prime minister in 2014 and remains so to this day.
The Hasina-Modi nexus merits further examination but is outside this article’s scope. The current chill in Indo-Bangla relations is a natural and direct consequence of Delhi’s outsized even malevolent but unsustainable influence over what it considered to be, and in fact had become, its satrapy in Dhaka courtesy Hasina.
What is to be done?
Hasina’s mutilation of history struck at the very root and foundation of Bangladesh’s existence and identity. Two things—they are not rocket science– should be done to remedy this inestimable damage
The first is the abolition of the Fifteenth Amendment by the new parliament whenever it convenes. Before that, executive action should be taken to repeal or suspend black laws inhibiting freedom of speech and of discussion on our liberation war and related issues. This will allow citizens to conduct a constructive, even contentious, dialogue on who did what before, during and after 1971.
Let many flowers bloom in the garden of Bangladesh’s history. Only those flowers well-watered by sound comparative logic and credibility can and will survive. Rightly so. Hopefully, this will yield a proper recording and interpretation of national history and a substantial degree of agreement on its basic parameters that will be positive for the national psyche, morale and identity and enable Bangladesh to hold its head high amongst the comity of nations.
The second is to prepare an objective and rational much overdue and sorely needed biography, not slavish hagiography and secular deification, of BB’s political life warts and all. What did BB do right and where was he wrong?
Preparing this document is a formidable challenge for Bangladesh society especially its academics. Also, to a future Awami League should it emerge from its current doldrums after undertaking repentance and purification under new leaders for its commissions and omissions.