by Taj Hashmi 15 January 2024
The year 1971 holds great significance for the Subcontinent and Bangladesh in particular. It was a period between March 25 and December 16, 1971, during which the country experienced a momentous historical event that could be considered its “End of History” moment. This marked a turning point in the country’s trajectory and is a pivotal moment in its history. This event’s political, social, and economic implications were profound, leaving an indelible mark on the country and its people.
Until the afternoon of December 16, what was officially known as East Pakistan emerged as independent Bangladesh when the chief of the eastern command of the Pakistan Army surrendered to its Indian counterpart. It is worth noting that the vast majority of East Bengalis had already supported the declaration of independence of Bangladesh on 26th March 1971. The significance of 1971 cannot be overstated, and it remains an essential area of study for academics and policymakers alike.
The year 1971 holds significant historical importance as it represents freedom and the cessation of persecution and humiliation for the majority of Bangladeshis. This year brought forth a new era of fulfilling their aspirations for a better life, at least in their dreams and the hidden transcript of a utopia that they had been anticipating since the emergence of Pakistan in 1947. It is worth noting that this event symbolizes the resilience of the people of Bangladesh and their commitment to achieving a better future. Nineteen Seventy-one from the contemporary perspectives in Bangladesh raises various questions, such as whether the post-independence period since 1971 has improved the overall standard of democracy, governance, freedom, human rights, and last but not least, the living standards of the majority of the people in the country. The issues still need to be solved despite the remarkable improvements in the country’s per capita income, life expectancy, human development index (HDI), and impressive infrastructure development. It is a matter that demands careful consideration and analysis.
The index of 1971 serves as a benchmark to measure all things tangible and intangible, virtuous and malicious, within the nation. In much the same way, we gauge various aspects of life, such as ideas, literature, philosophy, lifestyle, culture, prosperity, and poverty, by juxtaposing pre-and post-World War II, pre- and post-Cold War, or pre-and post-9/11 eras to make comparative evaluations. These assessments aid in a better understanding of the relative periods and the changes that have occurred. The year 1971 in Bangladesh, much like the years 1945, 1990, or 2001 around the world, contains a range of contradictions, truths, half-truths, and lies. How one measures happiness, prosperity, peace, and order (and their opposites) depends on who measures it. Some measures are quantifiable, while others are not. Some measures are objective, while others suffer from subjectivity, biases, and prejudices.
Scholars and laymen often ask: Did Mujib, East Pakistani Bengalis, West Pakistanis, India, or the Cold War play a decisive role in the creation of Bangladesh? “All of them” could be the most appropriate answer. The emergence of Bangladesh is an enigma. Because Bengali Muslims, who played a leading role in the creation of Pakistan, also created Bangladesh. Was it a decision by design or by default? Most East Bengalis wanted an autonomous East Pakistan under Pakistan and fought for its autonomy under Sheikh Mujib’s leadership. The narrative which remains unsaid is critical, i.e. that some leading politicians like Bhutto and his hawkish supporters in the Pakistani armed forces wanted to get rid of East Pakistan. The latter’s majority status under a democratic setup would disempower them. This is what Bhutto and West Pakistani politicians, Pakistan’s powerful military establishment, business and professional elites, and their beneficiaries felt in any way. This was the crux of the issue.
Again, the history of the liberation war of Bangladesh, the role of Mujib and the freedom fighters, and India’s role in the creation of Bangladesh (or the disintegration of Pakistan) are exaggerated. We need an objective appraisal of the history of the country’s emergence. Would there be an independent Bangladesh without Indian direct military intervention is the mother of all questions. Another critical question is whether Mujib played a decisive role in creating Bangladesh. These are pertinent questions: Was not Mujib desperately and legitimately trying to become the prime minister of united Pakistan (after winning the 1970 elections decisively)? Did not he walk a tightrope to keep the Yahya Administration and Mujib’s Young Turks in the Awami League party during December 1970 and March 1971?
The radical Bengali youths under the leadership of the enigmatic Serajul Alam Khan, who, since the mid-1960s, wanted nothing short of full independence for East Pakistan, aka Bangladesh, since 1969. Especially so after Yahya Khan’s fateful speech on March 1st 1971, to prorogue the National Assembly’s first session, which was supposed to be held in Dhaka on March 7th. Despite his significant contributions to the independence movement, there remains a level of ambiguity surrounding Mujib’s role in 1971. While some argue that his actions were counter to the independence movement and even pro-Pakistani, others maintain that his intentions were purely in the interest of freedom and autonomy for the people of Bangladesh. Despite the controversy surrounding his legacy, it is clear that Mujib played a crucial role in the formation of Bangladesh as an independent nation.
Scholars and laypersons from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and beyond have delved into the events of 1971in the Subcontinent, particularly in Bangladesh. However, divergent accounts of what occurred and a handful of similar narratives have emerged. Deciphering the truth has proven challenging due to the prevalence of political, ethnic, and communal biases and the subjective and objective criteria that rely on available data. It is, therefore, vital to juxtapose Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and worldwide perspectives to understand the events that transpired comprehensively. Whether the events in the Subcontinent in 1971 were inevitable is significant. This query is similar to the inquiry surrounding the Partition of 1947. It is plausible that the response to both of these questions is in the affirmative.
A growing number of multi-ethnic nations in the Subcontinent is projected to attain independence in the foreseeable future. While the prospect of the Punjab’s union appears plausible, the unification of Bengal remains dubious due to various factors. The more affluent and educated Bengalis in Paschim Banga and Tripura, who are predominantly Hindu, are least likely to integrate with poorer and predominantly Muslim Bangladesh, which is far more populous. Acknowledging that these factors were the key drivers behind the second partition of Bengal in 1947 is crucial. Pakistan is expected to undergo disintegration in less than half a century, with the northwestern region aligning with Afghan Pashtuns and Baluchistan. Additionally, Afghanistan is also anticipated to encounter political fragmentation. The future trajectory of the Indian Northeast and South is uncertain. In summary, the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 was inevitable, just as the Partition of India in 1947.
The Bangladeshi populace must unite and eschew divisive tendencies concerning 1971. The emergence of political polarization, which has persisted for over five decades, between “pro-Liberation patriots” and “anti-Liberation Pakistani collaborators” has engendered ongoing political crises in the country, further exacerbated by the polarized followers of the two major political parties, namely, the “pro-Liberation” Awami League and “Pro-Pakistan” BNP. A better alternative would be to transcend the existing polarization on phoney grounds and embrace a more unified stance. This would foster stability and prosperity for all citizens of the country and the sub-regions in the surrounding neighbourhood.