Our fragile secular democracy is very timid and has
taken a policy of
appeasement for its
survival. The
regular killing of
bloggers and the hindrance against free thought have halted the
country�s social progress. Economic progress alone cannot save the country�s morale and democratic
values. To save the country, we should revive not only the memory of Bangabandhu but his ideals as well
Bangladesh after Bangabandhu
Abdul Gaffar Choudhury
It was the 40th death anniversary of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on Saturday. This year it is being observed for long 40 days. Bangabandhu is now known throughout the world as the founding father of Bangladesh. One Indian columnist recently commented that there is a difference between founding father of a state and that of the nation. In this respect Mahatma Gandhi, Sukarno and Aung Sun are the fathers of the nation of their respective countries. They only liberated their country but did not build the statehood of the nation. Sheikh Mujib not only liberated his country but also created a nation-state based on Bengali nationalism. During rule of Pakistan, the name Bangla and the identity of Bengalis associated with it was almost written off by the rulers of the then Pakistan. They even tried to destroy Bengali language and its thousand years old secular cultural heritage. This ignited the revolutionary spirit of Bengali youth against the attempt to turn them into a slave nation in the name of religion. Mujibs leadership was the product of this turmoil rejecting the two-nation theory. When Sheikh Mujib became an undisputed political leader of Bengalis, he declared that this territory will be known as Bangladesh and the people of this nation will be Bengalis.
The political polarisation started in present Bangladesh with the Language Movement. Sheikh Mujib, along with Maulana Bhashani, demanded the abolition of separate electorate system for Hindus and Muslims, which was introduced by the British rulers to divide the people on their religious identities. The movement was successful and Pakistan government had to introduce joint electorate system replacing separate electorates. The next phase was in 1956, when Pakistan Government, under Chowdhury Mohammad Ali, adopted the first constitution of Pakistan. There was a great debate on the identity of the new state. The ruling Muslim League coalition government proposed the name of the state as Islamic Republic of Pakistan. On the other hand, Awami League protested against this naming and demanded it to be named as The Republic of Pakistan.
This movement did not succeed because of the submissive role of the then Bengali leaders in the constituent assembly. They were pressurised to accept the name Islamic Republic and succumbed to the pressure after getting some ministerial posts in the Central Government.
Shahid Sahrawardy was still the leader of Awami League but the polarisation of politics in Bangladesh took place in his party also. The younger group of Awami League became more and more left oriented and Sheikh Mujib became their virtual leader with secularist ideals. After Shahid Sahrawardys death, almost all the old leaders left Awami League and the party was rebuilt under Sheikh Mujib and his young associates. They declared secularism and nationalism as the basis of their politics and political clashes between old and new camps started. When General Ayyub Khan declared martial law in Pakistan and took over power abolishing democratic politics in the state, after suspending the Constitution of 1956, he expressed his opinion that he will draw a new Constitution, naming the country simply Republic of Pakistan. At that time, mosques in Pakistan were as powerful as the military. They opposed Ayyubs proposal and succeeded in renaming the country as Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In the medieval age as well, religion could not bind people of different languages and cultures under one nation-hood. It also happened in the subcontinent after the division on the basis of religion. In Pakistan, within a very short period, Sindhi, Balouch and Pashto nationalism raised their heads in spite of their religious and cultural bonds. On the other hand, in Bangladesh, Bengalis wanted their separate nationhood by rejecting religious bond with the other part of Pakistan.
In the name of religion, West Pakistani rulers imposed a rule of exploitation and discrimination on Bengalis that knew no bounds. Sheikh Mujibs historic six points was nothing but a proposal to end this domination. The polarisation of politics in Bangladesh took a sharp turn. The vast masses united under the leadership of Sheikh Mujib and the old guards, along with people of vested interests, wanted to keep the old system and the two-nation theory alive. The clashes were inevitable and it resulted in the war of independence of 1971. The communal and fundamentalist parties like Muslim league, Jamaat, Nizam-e-Islami etc. took the side of oppressive rulers and the identity crisis of Bengali Muslims became a bloody war between the two sides. One side, with the help of military and mosque, under the patronage of ruling military junta, tried to crush the independence movement of revolutionary Bengalis. They imprisoned Sheikh Mujib and tried to send him to the gallows, but they failed and Bangladesh achieved its independence on the basis of secular nationalism.
This military victory of 1971 did not bring political victory for the secular ruler of the new born state of Bangladesh. Within three and a half years, the defeated reactionary camps reorganised themselves with the help of foreign powers. They overthrew the Mujib government with its secular and socialist ideals. What we are seeing now in Bangladesh, the old political polarisation between secular and non-secular camps has revived. This time, non-secular camp is more powerful than the secular camp, since the rise of jihadists on a global scale. Our fragile secular democracy is very timid and has taken a policy of appeasement for its survival. The country has plunged into unprecedented corruption and terrorism. If President Bushs new world order could survive, Bangladesh could also turn into a killing field like Afghanistan and Syria. Whatever the weakness of present Hasina government in Bangladesh, they are trying to halt the tide of extremism, and to save the semblance of democracy. After 40 years of Bangabandhus assassination, this is the real picture of Bangladesh, which is developing economically tremendously but decaying socially at an alarming rate. The social unrest has produced religious hatred in its extreme phase. The regular killing of bloggers and the hindrance against free thought have halted the countrys social progress. Economic progress alone cannot save the countrys morale and democratic values. To save the country, we should revive not only the memory of Bangabandhu but his ideals as well.
