Unheard Voice

12 Responses to “November 1975: some seldom mentioned facts”

1. FZ says:

   November 11, 2009 at 11:04 pm

   I would not term the piece as a non-partisan version. This is more or less the progressive leftist (anti AL) POV of the happenings of 1975. Many of these leftist parties has now aligned themselves with AL, many of them have been assimilated into BNP, which has changed their version of history eventually. Syed Abul Maksud, on the contrary, sticks to the original POV in this article.

   About the ‘key points’

   1. Zindabad: Zindabad has always been used by the rightist/leftist/ socialist/ centralist in the subcontinent from the British period. Especially Inqilab Zindabad was the slogan used by Bhagat Singh and other revolutionaries. There is no problem with Zindabad in general. However, Joy Bangla was the slogan of the liberation war and this slogan was used by the state until August 15 1975. ‘Bangladesh Zindabad’ replacing ‘Joy Bangla’ was used first by Kh. Mushtaq Ahmed on August 15 radio speech. At the same time, Bangladesh Betar became Radio Bangladesh, without any govt order or clarification. These changes collectively symbolized the beginning Pakistanization of Bangladesh which was backed by the state machinery. Mr. Maqsud’s remark abt Zindabad is too ’shohojiya’, too simplistic sarcasm about something of graver importance.

   2. The rise of Islamic politics in Bangladesh: Jamaat was banned in 1975, any party based on religion was also banned. However, the religious groups were in the underground trying to re-organize themselves and the easiest way to do was to arrange some pseudo-religious mahfil, the ultimate goal was to regroup themselves. The state may be secular, but it cannot shut down a religious gathering without very strong reason. That’s how they could evade the law.

   However, should that be termed as ‘the beginning of islamic politics in Bangladesh ? The door of politics was closed to the religious parties at that time, so they could not do politics. Moreover, most of the leaders of Jamaat were accused in war crimes and so they were either abroad or hiding themselves in remote area. The collaborator act was still on, so they always had the fear or getting held. In this situation, it would have been really unimaginable for them to do politics directly. It was Zia who the path of Jamaat politics by allowing it to register itself as a legitimate political party in 1976 and by scrapping Collaborator Act, allowing their leaders to appear in public.

   [Reply]

   sensible Reply:
   November 12th, 2009 at 2:03 am

   Wasn’t it the case that all political parties were banned at that time? Why mention only Jammat or religious parties?

   [Reply]

   FZ Reply:
   November 12th, 2009 at 5:02 am

   All political parties were banned after formation of BAKSAL. But Jamaat and religious parties were banned since 1972.

   [Reply]

   Haroon Ur Rashid Reply:
   November 12th, 2009 at 6:39 am

   It was Zia who also made the path for Awami League, Communist Party, NAP etc to be re-established as ligitimate registered parties. So, in that logic can Zia be called an Awami or communist or Indian agent?

   Seriously speaking, is there anything wrong in allowing a religion based party to do politics? If the principle of our swadhinotar chetona is democracy or equal rights or freedom of expression, on what basis government can ban a religious organization or their political affiliate? If there are specific allegations of crime including war crime, persons implicated had to be tried. Blanket restriction on any form of religious organization getting involved into politics is not democratic in spirit.

   And did Awami League have any mandate to ban all form religious political activity? What kind of mandate was that? Was it part of six point of Sheikh Mujib or was in in the manifesto, AL published before 1970 election?

   And last question, if religion based political parties are so bad, why not the current government take the steps of undoing Zia’s wrongs? When they will re-slap the ban on all religious organizations doing politics, when they will remove Bismillah from constitution and retract Zia initiated changes in constitution?

   jyoti Reply:
   November 12th, 2009 at 11:52 am

   Imagine Sayeedi said ‘Bangladesh is in trouble because we have deviated from Allah’s law’ in TSC any time in the past 25 years! If it happened when BNP was in power, we would never have heard the end of how this was the evidence of grand conspiracy to overturn the 1971 victory etc. Among many of my progressive allies, there is a tendency to believe everything bad happened under non-AL governments. This is an example of how wrong that notion is.

   More importantly, Maqsud’s example illustrates the futility of banning this or that brand of politics. The other day the government banned Hizbul Tahrir. Big deal. Those guys will simply reorganise under a different name. If we say all religion-based politics is banned, we will run into a massive enforcement problem (forget about the fundamental rights to have opinion). Will we ban any khutba/monajat from asking Allah’s blessings for Bangladesh? If not, then what about asking Allah to help the current government in its efforts to rid poverty? If that’s okay, then how about some other mosque to support some other politicians’ efforts? Before you know it, we are in religion-based politics.

   If the society is largely religious, we have to accept that some people will base their politics in religion. Maqsud’s example shows that even in 1975, Jamaat (and other Islam-pasand groups) were active. If we don’t like their vision for Bangladesh, we have to provide a better vision and convince people to reject them (people have never accepted them anyway). Banning ‘religion-based politics’ will be simply useless at best, counterproductive at worst.

   [Reply]

   akash Reply:
   November 12th, 2009 at 10:42 pm

   This is rather poorly argued. Its not about liking the vision of Bangladesh or not, If a party – religious or iireligious – espouses a future that guarantees the upturning of the fundamental principles of the constitution, if they are in power, while all the time utilizing all its benefits, there is something seriously mischievous in there. And if an outfit – religious or irreligious – espouses and practices a militant or violent form of action, that should be handled right away. The Hizbul gang was banned not for a religious basis but for their dubious activities using religion.

   [Reply]

   tacit Reply:
   November 13th, 2009 at 12:52 am

   Which leads one to ask: Is secularism a fundamental principle of our Constitution?
2. akash says:

   November 12, 2009 at 1:25 am

   November 1975 is certianly the haziest part in our national history, but the events from August to November have been the most crucial in dictating the terms for what was to come for the nation in next twenty years or so: what came was neither democractic polity nor scientific socialism. Mr Maqsud’s piece reminds us of the widespread net of intrigue that was brewing in the country since the first day of independence, an intrigue that only had regime change in their mind but at any cost. That came from the left (JSD”s “scientific socialism”), the right (the holed-up Paki Islamists), and the military (ambitous and disgruntled). Of course, Sheikh Mujib’s government and governance provided fodder for the public protests, but I think the protests were facades for deeper intrigues that tied left, right, military, certain media, and international cohorts (Pak/US/Saudi) to topple the Mujib government. Mujib’s problem was he was complacent, and he also made ere some bad decisions. No matter, the intrigue-makers would have gone on anyways. Gen Zia, in the meantime, sat on the fences. The clever man he was, he knew what was going on, but he let things unfold, and rode the hero’s horse when the “revolution” came to and end. And then he struck. For the few years that he ruled, with mostly reactionaries coddling up with him, he systematically destroyed all the vestiges of the liberation war and its spirit: killing freedom fighter armymen, repealing collaborator laws, making collaborators and war criminals at home in Bangladesh, even making one his prime minister (Sha Azizur Rahamn), striking off secularism… the list is long. That simply was the goal of Project Zia. The advocates of democracy and scientific socialism , who made themselves hoarse crying against Mujib, had no problem cuddling up with a military dictator who was hell bent in undermining the orginal national vision. And, when the general died, tragically, it didn’t matter whether he was around or not. The juggernaut of the Paki-Islami-Reactionary forces were completely in control of the country. That’s where we are now even if AL is in power.

   [Reply]
3. Mohammad says:

   November 13, 2009 at 3:20 am

   As Mr. Maqsud said we have already experienced a total of Five Biplobs ( I somehow feel the word Revolution has different meaning than Biplob ) , we are perhaps pretty used to it. Are we afraid of an Islamic Biplob ? I don’t think so. JSD created huge following promising Shamajik Biplob and of course now licking the boot of their alleged tormentor who they blamed for killing 15000 of their activists. I think what Mr. Maqsud wanted to do is expose those lackeys like RK Menon , Inu etc. JSD’s role in Banladesh politics is as mysterious as their guru Dadabhai. Their role in 1975 is even murkier. I still do not understand why JSD supported and participated in killing of Khaled Mosharraf but never opposed Faruk and Rashid !!! And AL is also probably supporting killing of Khaled Mosharraf by idolizing Col Taher !! I have never heard AL or AL supported Sector Commander’s Forum ever asking for trying Khaled Mosharraf’s killers !!!! Inquest to Khaled Mosharraf’s killing will definitely bring out more about November 1975. But nobody including AL seems to be interested !! Probably every body is busy organizing Biplobs !!!

   [Reply]
4. jyoti says:

   November 13, 2009 at 6:33 am

   Tacit, secularism was a fundamental principle until Zia expunged it.

   —-
   Akash, specific to HT, show me one scrap of evidence from anywhere that they were espousing violence?

   More generally, the violent form of action should be dealt with. But banning the organisation that is alleged to have used the violent form of action is a pretty inefficient way of dealing with it. Think about the example Maqsud gives. In 1975, before even the 4th independence day, Sayeedi was engaged in “Jamaati politics” (Allah’r ain chai) in TSC. How useful was the ban then?

   FZ, I’ve already argued why this is wrong: “The door of politics was closed to the religious parties at that time, so they could not do politics”. Sayeedi appeared in TSC — in the heart of DU — and was calling for an Islamist state. If that’s not politics then I don’t know what is.

   This is also factually wrong: “It was Zia who … allowing it to register itself as a legitimate political party in 1976 and by scrapping Collaborator Act, allowing their leaders to appear in public.”

   Jamaat didn’t register as a legitimate political party under Zia. This happened under Ershad. Zia refused to allow Jamaat’s registration because they wanted to maintain a formal link with Pakistani Jamaat. By Ershad’s time, Jamaat stopped their policy of formally accepting a link with the Pakistani party.

   When it comes to rehabilitation of Jamaat in our politics, Ershad-Hasina-Khaleda have far more responsibility than Zia — another seldom mentioned and uncomfortable fact.

   —
   Mohammad, very good question re: Khaled Musharraf. Taher is a hero today because Zia — villain to the eyes of the opinionleaders and the chattering classes — hanged him. Since Taher is a hero, Khaled Musharraf has to be forgotten, because after all, Taher’s ‘biplob’ was against Khaled. We hear a lot about Taher being a brave freedom fighter who lost his leg in face-to-face combat in 1971. Who remembers that Khaled Musharraf took a bullet in his head in the battle of Kasba — one of the few battles in 1971 where Mukti Bahini had beaten a regular Pakistani unit without any Indian assistance. Taher and co dubbed Khaled Musharraf an ‘Indian puppet’, even though India stopped arming his forces in 1971 because of his ‘unreliability’ (he sought to purchase arms from European black market without Indian ‘approval’).

   I don’t mean to say Khaled was better or worse than Zia/Taher/Dalim — that’s a different debate. But it is noteworthy that this freedom fighter doesn’t have any champion today because there is no political gains to be had by asking for the justice for his family.

   [Reply]

   rumi Reply:
   November 13th, 2009 at 8:20 am

   Thanks Jyoti for mentioning this. Also not known/ talked is that it was Zia who faced most severe and direct threat from a Jamaat influenced take over.

   Along with militant leftists infiltrating our army ( Taher/ Ziauddin/ Jalil/ Inu), Islamists started infiltrating army even before Zia rose to power. We all talk about Bogra cantonment coup and killing of soldiers. We never ask who were behind that coup and who were killed. There has not been any denieing of the fact that that coup was an Islamist sympathizer conducted coup with patronage from Air Vice Marshall Tayab, Col Faruq And Rashid. ( Even it is heard that one of the goals of Bogra coup was reunification with Pakistan). Zia handled that Islamist infiltration of cantonment very ruthlessly. Tayab was forced out of the country.

   Only thing I would say, Zia understood the danger of militant Islamism at least 25 years before the rest of the world. He was also smart enough to know that slapping blanket ban would be counter productive. Under him some Islamic parties reopened but got significantly weakened by rampant fractionalism. There was several parts of Muslim league, nezam e islami, Khelafat Majlish etc. Zia invited a few Islamic leaders in his platform but did play a role to keep them quarreling among themselves.

   [Reply]
5. shadhinotar pokkho says:

   November 16, 2009 at 12:14 am

   Ultimately it doesn’t matter what X intellectual or Y buddhijibi says or writes. Our buddhiman class is very purchaseable and mercenary.

   It comes down to a fault line that we all know about but rarely acknowledge. That has more to do with Lahore in 1940 rather than Dhaka in 1975 or 2009

   [Reply]