A few days ago, a woman named Tamanna Chowdhury Priyanka filed a petition with the Dhaka Metropolitan Magistrate Court as a plaintiff.
She alleged that on February 5 last year, the Bangabandhu Memorial Museum on Dhanmondi Road 32 in Dhaka was demolished after calls were made on social media, hundreds of people were mobilized, and bulldozers and excavators belonging to the City Corporation were used.
She blamed 27 people, including the then head of the interim government, Muhammad Yunus, for the destruction.
What happened next was predictable.
The court dismissed the petition, saying there was no “material” on which to accept it.
In other words, the case itself was deemed inadmissible, even before there could be any question of proving or disproving the allegations. Multiple applications naming Muhammad Yunus as a defendant have been dismissed.
However, the real issue here is not the former chief adviser. The issue is the rule of law and accountability for crimes.
During Yunus’s 18-month rule, numerous acts of violence, vandalism, arson, and mob violence were committed openly, while law enforcement agencies turned their backs on them.
One example came last December, when the offices of The Daily Star and Prothom Alo were vandalized and set on fire.
However, the nature of the case that was sought to be filed on August 20 was different from that of other incidents of mob violence.
This case concerned the destruction of one of the most important buildings in the history of Bangladesh.
The building, associated with both the glory and pain of the country, was destroyed in a planned manner, following advance notice, over three to four days and in front of the army.
History of the freedom struggle
The entire destruction, which began on February 5 last year, was broadcast live on television and across various social media platforms. No one can say they did not know what was happening; no one can say they did not know who was behind it.
But this historic building was not merely bricks and cement. It was a monument to independence, a witness to brutal murder, and a museum dedicated to the memory of the architect of the state.
Far from bringing those responsible for destroying the building to justice, there has not even been an investigation into the incident.
So why was the house at No 32 demolished? Perhaps the answer lies in the history of the building. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s house was not simply the home of a former leader. The history of Bangladesh’s struggle for independence is inextricably linked to this house.
Mujib conducted all his activities from this house in March 1971. From the non-cooperation movement to the call for the Liberation War, crucial decisions were made from this house.
The house became a political pilgrimage site for the people. People from various professions and different parts of the country came in processions, to listen to Mujib and to tell him their stories.
Perhaps the most glorious day in the history of this building was March 23, 1971. It was Pakistan’s National Day. The Pakistani flag was supposed to be hoisted across the country.
But throughout the day, thousands of people streamed along 32 carrying the Bangladesh flag.
That day, Mujib himself hoisted the Bangladesh flag at his house, which had effectively become the administrative centre of what was then East Pakistan.
He demonstrated how independence could be proclaimed without a formal declaration of independence. Even Pakistani army officers understood the significance of that day.
The Bengali service of German state broadcaster Deutsche Welle recently published a lengthy report on 32, citing a book written by four senior Pakistani army officers stationed in East Pakistan.
“The Bengali youth were marching in the streets shouting ‘Joy Bangla’; for them it was practically an independence day,” Deutsche Welle quoted Brigadier-General Siddique Salik as writing in his book Witness to Surrender.
“That day was very significant,” the German broadcaster quoted Major General Rao Farman Ali, political adviser to the governor of East Pakistan, as saying, “It was on that day that Mujib hoisted the Bangladesh flag at his residence and declared independence.”
Black chapter
When the Pakistani army began attacking various parts of Dhaka on the night of March 25, in the initial stage of implementing its genocide plan, Mujib remained at 32.
Another chapter was added to the history of the building when he was arrested there and taken to Karachi. Preparations were made to put him on trial for treason.
Mujib’s colleagues, senior Awami League and Chhatra League leaders, had come to this building every day until the night of March 25, holding meetings, deciding on future courses of action and greeting people arriving from different parts of the country.
That night, however, the house was empty. The leaders and activists had left Dhaka for other places.
Many may not have known that within a day or two, the top leaders would enter India, meet Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, issue a formal declaration of independence, form a government-in-exile with Mujib as president, and bring the Liberation War into an organized framework with India’s assistance.
After independence, the importance of the house diminished somewhat.
Mujib himself did not leave the house to move into the official residence of the prime minister or, later, the president.
His attachment to this building would ultimately prove tragic for him. The darkest chapter in the history of the building came on August 15, 1975.
Mujib, along with almost his entire family, was killed in this building by a group of army officers and soldiers.
The image of his body lying on the stairs tells everyone what a horrific and brutal incident took place there.
The killers were granted immunity, and since then, the word “indemnity” has carried a cursed significance in Bangladeshi politics.
Vandalism and arson
The building did not remain the property of the Mujib family for very long. Nor were Awami League activities conducted from it.
Sheikh Hasina regained possession of the house from government custody in 1981. But in 1994, she and her sister Rehana established the Bangabandhu Memorial Trust and transferred the house to the trust. In other words, the house was no longer owned by Hasina and Rehana.
That same year, the “Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Memorial Museum” was established in the building. The building then became national property.
But evidence that Bangladesh’s political frenzy has failed to develop a culture of preserving history emerged once again on August 5, 2024.
For the first time, amid the student-led mass uprising and the fall of the Awami League government, house No 32 was attacked, vandalized and set on fire.
At the time, it was said that members of the public, angered by Hasina’s atrocities, had attacked an establishment associated with her name. There was no functioning government in the country at the time. Although the army was responsible for maintaining law and order, it did not want to confront the angry crowd.
But what happened on February 5 last year was entirely different.
Using a speech by Sheikh Hasina to Awami League leaders and activists as a pretext, calls were made on social media to demolish the building.
People were urged to go to 32 with bulldozers. There is no way the advisers of the interim government did not know. Not even a fool would believe that the law enforcement agencies had no advance information.
The army was at 32 that day, but when the “angry crowd” arrived carrying flags bearing Arabic script and began demolishing the building, the troops withdrew.
Bulldozers and excavators were brought from the South City Corporation, and the walls and roof were torn down.
What had begun amid public anger on August 5 the previous year was completed in a cold-blooded and planned manner on February 5.
The destroyers were not merely trying to erase the memory of Bangabandhu. Their outrage was directed at the symbolic value of this building, at its moral strength. Every brick of the building bore witness to the Liberation War of 1971.
Those who demolished the building that day were not striking at Sheikh Mujib or Sheikh Hasina. The target of each blow was the memory of the Liberation War.
The current BNP government, which claimed during the election campaign to embody the spirit of the Liberation War, has remained silent about the destruction carried out during the interim government’s tenure, including the demolition of 32.
It does not appear willing to address crimes committed during the Yunus period.
But the recent attempt to bring a case suggests that demands for justice over the destruction of No 32 and other monuments associated with the Liberation War will not disappear overnight.
Sabir Mustafa is former head of BBC Bangla and is currently working as a freelance journalist and podcaster. Views expressed are the writer’s own.