It may sound ridiculous or even insane to ask the question – who owns the country? But in the context of Bangladesh, with its present political predicament, it is not so insane or ridiculous. In fact, it is the most poignant question at the moment, as there are contradictory and competing claims by certain sections or groups of people claiming the ownership or proprietary right of the country. The ‘father of the nation’, ‘daughter of the father of the nation’, ‘prospective grandson of the nation’ on the one hand and the ‘widow of the nation’, ‘the son of the nation’, etc. on the other hand are the venerable prefixes attached to honorary titles of the sanctimonious supremoes of the claimant tribes.
Ever since Bangladesh came into being more than 40 years ago, there were internecine tussles between these two tribal combatants – one headed by ‘father of the nation’ Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, a political leader who headed the Awami League Party and the other by Ziaur Rahman, an Army officer holding the rank of a Major in the Pakistan Army. Both of them were laying claims on the basis of their first proclamation of ‘Free Bangladesh’. These contradictory claims are at the heart of the present day national turmoil and the blood feud between the flag bearers of the initial claimants. It is not only creating a vicious atmosphere within the country but also tearing apart the basic fabric of the country which they are claiming to own.
But before going into the truth and authenticity of the said claim, one may ask: What legitimacy one may claim to derive from the first announcement of ‘Free Bangladesh’? Does this pronouncement make one more patriotic than those who fought and even sacrificed lives for the liberation of the country? Does this claim confer one exclusive right to govern the country perpetually? Conversely, does not this claim make one potently selfish who is out to take undue advantage from this action? Even more sinister development is that the claimant’s descendants consider that the advantages and privileges deriving from that initial action are largely transferable to them as their inheritors. In other words, these tribal groups are trying to impose a sort of dynastic rule in an otherwise ‘People’s Republic’ of Bangladesh!
Whatever had happened on the fateful day and night of 26th March 1971, any attempt to use those events for personal advantage is utterly disgraceful, to say the least. On 25th March, 1971 General Yahya Khan, the Chief Martial Law Administrator of Pakistan, after months of preparations and military build-up in the then East Pakistan, decided to unleash savage attack on the province to crush legitimate political demands of the people. He ruthlessly cracked down on the people of the province, particularly on the students and teachers of the Dhaka University, as they were deemed to be at the vanguard of the demands. Although Sheikh Mujibur Rahman a few weeks earlier, on March the 7th 1971, defiantly declared in a public speech that this time it was going to be the struggle for independence; but he never uttered the all-important words ‘Free Bangladesh’. When in the evening of 25th March he was rounded up, he either did not or could not make a statement that Bangladesh must now rise-up and fight for its independence. Major Ziaur Rahman, second-in-command, of the 8th East Bengal Regiment took over the command of the Regiment on the day and occupied a small Radio Station in Chittagong and broadcast in the early hours of 26th March that ‘at the direction of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, I hereby declare that Independent People’s Republic of Bangladesh has been established.’ The war of independence had truly begun and the rest is now history.
So, it is clear that there was confusion as to who can be credited with the accolade of being the first to announce ‘free’ or ‘independent’ Bangladesh. It matters not an iota from the country’s perspective. But it does matter from the perspective of the person concerned if he has the motive to gain advantage from such accolade. Love of the country seems to have taken a back stage. Even more insidious situation is that the proclaimed accolade is being used by the descendants of the original claimants to enjoy undue privilege and advantage from the State. A state of de facto lineage of privilege transfer is being established – similar to the royal family. An embryonic political dynasty (in fact, two competing political dynasties) is transplanted in the country – although the country is ostensibly the ‘People’s Republic of Bangladesh’!
The struggle for independence was to have a homeland where Bengalis could live in a free and fair society; where culture and heritage could be preserved; where people of all culture, religion and ethnicity could live in harmony; where secularism and political democracy could be practised. In almost all of these criteria, Bangladesh at present seems to have failed and failed miserably.
Let us just look at the state of democracy. Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally, either directly or through elected representatives, in the exercise of social, political, religious and economic rights. These rights are implemented through social and political equality and that, in effect, requires abrogation of entrenched privileges of certain sections of the people. Instead of abrogation of privileges, the ruling class is consolidating privileges for themselves and their cronies. Democracy requires total separation and operational independence of the judiciary and the executive branches from the political lawmakers. Instead of enshrining such separation into laws, the political cliques are doing everything to destroy whatever vestiges of separation and independence there were at the time of liberation of the country.
Now let us make a cursory appraisal of Bangladesh’s present position. In Bangladeshi parlance, democracy means nothing more than conducting elections. In whatever form these elections are held is immaterial – the only requirement is to have polling booths and voters (real and fake) cast their votes. Any other requirements and preparations for free and fair election are optional extra. Other branches of the democratic system – the judiciary and the executive branch – have been savagely subjugated by the removal of dissenting or fair-minded voices and replacement by cronies and sycophants of the regime. Consequently all the branches of democratic system have become totally and utterly subservient to the wishes of the political leaders. The faces of subservience could be seen from the following picture where top bureaucrats and politicians were attending the airport reception for the Prime Minister when she returned from England recently after attending her niece’s wedding. These practices are, however, not unique to the present regime. They had been in practise ever since Bangladesh came into being.
This state of affair of the administration, with its total submission to the political clique, is extremely conducive to the onset of corruption. The executive branch officials and their subordinates would carry out economic sleight of hands on behalf of the political leaders and then share out the loot among the masters and servants – this has become the norm of the day. The opposition does not want to rock the boat too much as they will carry out the same thing when their time comes.
The country seems to have neatly fallen into the hands of two ruling cliques (two royalties!) – each claiming to be the possessor of inalienable right to rule the country by virtue of the initial announcement of ‘free Bangladesh’. However, because of the strange, unresolved situation arising from the quirk of birth of the nation, the two political cliques have reluctantly agreed to accommodate each other and no further. To them, the country does not belong to the public; it belongs to them! The general public are only needed to cast votes every five years and give them the legitimacy of ‘democratic’ rule!
Source: Bd news24
A very erudite and incisive writing indeed! But the common people are no less responsible for this miserable state of affairs prevailing in the country. Maybe the slavery for over two centuries under the British and then Pakistani rulers made their mindset as such that they cannot think of others than ‘masters’ who must command their esteem and servility. Observe the psyche of the common people. They ascribed godliness on Sk. Mujib, called him Bangabandhu and were ready to lay down their lives if he had wished so. The result was that the long cherished dream of real democracy, social and legal justice, the traditional values, the hitherto strong social bonding between all groups of people, mutual respect and care – everything fell apart. Remember when after returning to independent Bangladesh Bangabandhu declared that ‘tin basar kisui dibar parbo na’ (I’ll not be able to give anything for three years), people accepted it with loud applause and approval. But during that three years people saw his two daughters-in-law posing for photo shots with gold crown on their head. They were mute, maybe in shock and surprise or with deep respectful awe. Whatever, the tragic fall of Bangabandhu was not unexpected as many observers said. But the fact is that once again people were moved to forget that ‘terrible’ era by continuous propaganda by a vested group who were thrown out of the ‘milk & honey trough’ for the time being. Had it been the people of any other country or race, they couldn’t have forgotten what AL could do if they were given absolute power. But no. Maybe the post liberation political party BNP failed to fulfill the hopes and aspirations of the people forgetting the ideals of Shaheed Zia. But still they have not been able to come out of the trance and have failed to perceive that neither AL nor BNP should be fully trusted. They’ve seen JP of Ershad. Now they should think of another alternative. But would they? Maybe not, because they are heartily content and satisfied to be able to cast their valuable (?) votes for one day pawning all their power and authority for five years to a man/woman who they hardly know. In such a situation the change of scenerio – be it political, social or cultural – is almost impossible.