(This piece is based on an interview of Bangladeshi intellectual Rehman Sobhan by Dhaka-based Bengali daily 'Prothom Alo'.
The English version was published by 'The Daily Star' (Dec 25, 2025)
****
Sadly, we (Bangladesh has) have over 54 years not been able to build a workable and sustainable democracy.
The struggle with the Pakistani ruling elite was over the denial of democracy which remained the root cause of the economic deprivation of the Bengalis.
We have, for a period from 1991 to 2008, had four relatively free and fair elections under a caretaker government in which power has been transferred to an opposition party. But even in this period of 'democratic' rule the institutions of democracy, such as parliament and the judiciary, have not functioned as they were intended to, so that a version of 'illiberal' democracy prevailed.
 |
| BNP leader Tarique Rahman arrives Dhaka ending 17 years of exile (Dec 25, 2025) |
The source of the problem lies in the appropriation of power in an all-powerful leader, whether as President or elected Prime Minister, and the tribalisation of our democratic politics which has led to a winner-take-all culture.
 |
| Sketch credit - 'The Daily Star', Dhaka |
The uprising of July 2024 was initially inspired by the restoration of quotas for government jobs through a High Court ruling.
The persistence of quotas for descendants of freedom fighters half a century after the Liberation War was quite wrong to the point of absurdity. Sheikh Hasina sensibly did away with quotas and later moved to appeal the High Court decision before the Appellate Division. Autocratic, oppressive, unjust and corrupt governance was the ultimate source of the uprising.
Sheikh Hasina's unnecessary and inappropriate remarks about razakars fuelled the uprising, bringing the widespread frustrations and anger of the citizens to the surface.
The July uprising was inspired by democratic failure and unjust rule.
Elements opposed to the Liberation War who have remained embedded in politics took advantage of the uprising, infiltrated it, and may even have played an important role in its direction.
This happens in mass upsurges against autocratic regimes where suppressed forces which have remained well organised and disciplined, even when they were repressed, can readily come into prominence when the opportunity presents itself.
In the period of the interim government, they have emerged as a more visible force with strong electoral prospects.
They are inclined to use this opportunity to reinterpret their historical collaborationist role with the Pakistan Army in 1971.
Being led by politically astute leaders, at this stage of the political process, their position on the Liberation War is likely to be projected with some caution.
It, however, remains a part of their political strategy to whitewash their role in 1971.
In an article Bengali nespaper 'Prothom Alo' this April, Rehman Sobhan wrote about Jamaat-e-Islami that,
"Although they display restraint in public rhetoric, one of their main objectives is to rewrite history so that, even if they are not seen as heroes of 1971, they at least appear as victims, portraying Bangladesh under Bangabandhu's leadership as having fought the wrong enemy in the wrong war."
But we are now seeing that not Jamaat alone; some segments of the student leadership that led the uprising, along with other groups, are also attempting to write history and shape narratives in their own way.
There are visible attempts from their side to marginalise or overlook the Liberation War of 1971.
The response of some of the student leadership to the Liberation War has surprised many.
Such a position indicates that some elements in the movement were nurtured by anti-liberation forces and have projected such views after 5th August, 2024.
Others appear to have elevated their strong antipathy to Sheikh Hasina and her party into an antipathy to Bangabandhu and the Liberation War.
 |
| Mujib : Now disowned by Yunus regime |
Both positions have become counterproductive to the political aspirations of the student movement.
The role we all looked for from the students and any political party they formed was to delink themselves from the historical and partisan debates which divided the Awami League and the BNP.
The students should have projected themselves as a forward-looking force of the 21st century and emerged as a modern-minded third political force which was badly needed to enable Bangladesh to move away from our tribalised politics.
Their origins from non-elitist social backgrounds could have provided them with credibility to provide an authentic voice to the concerns of the common people.
 |
| Rehman Sobhan |
During Sheikh Hasina's fifteen and a half years of undemocratic rule, the rhetoric of the Liberation War was frequently used as a political instrument to repress and delegitimise the opposition.
Moreover, historical discourse was narrowed to an exclusively Awami League–centric interpretation, restricting broader scholarly and civic engagement with 1971.
Maybe this environment contributed to the emergence of negative perceptions about the Liberation War among the younger generation.
Sheikh Hasina's initial response was motivated by the complete whitewashing of Bangabandhu and the Awami League from the public domain by the regimes in office between 1975 and 1996.
However, when she came to power in 1996, and more so in 2008, she overplayed the image of her father and oversold the prominence and role of the AL in the Liberation War.
The objective reality was that the AL was a vanguard force in the struggle for national liberation provided by the democratic mandate received through the 1970 election and the iconic role of Bangabandhu in giving leadership to the struggle for self-rule for the Bangalis.
However, other political leaders and parties contributed to this struggle, while our armed forces and the common people of Bangladesh also played a critical role in the Liberation War.
Their respective roles should have been more fully recognised both after liberation in 1972 and subsequently by Sheikh Hasina.
To assign an exclusive position to the AL in the liberation struggle was both politically and morally wrong and has proved costly for her party as well as to the memory of the Liberation War.
ends
No comments:
Post a Comment