What kind of Bangladesh will the next generations see as the nation crosses the sixth decade and enters the future? Will the country be recognized as one that had fought not only for independence from an occupying force, but also its existence as a separate nation with its own language and culture?
Or was the struggle purely for a political reason, a power struggle between two political opponents? Or was the struggle staged by forces that were guided by exogenous elements to drive a wedge between two ethnicities and break up a larger country?
These are questions that need to be resolved for our own good, and for the generations that will inherit this legacy for next decades. Here is a historical context to the questions I raised.
In the apocalyptic days of early December of 1971, when Dhaka was a beleaguered city, there were very few shops that would remain open at dark. A brave man of indeterminate age ran one such shop in Dhaka stadium that sold cigarettes, paan, soda, tea and biscuits.
This shop drew people who ventured out even in those life-threatening days if only for some open air, and some gossip. The shop owner was a store house of information. He knew about every attack that was launched in the city by the Mukti Bahini, where the Pakistani troops were, and what were the places to avoid.
I was a frequent visitor to the shop in my fugitive days in Dhaka in November and December. What was most inspiring during these visits was the upbeat spirit of the shopkeeper. Despite the doom and gloom that was almost everywhere in the city, the shopkeeper kept a smiling face and comforted us by saying that the end of Pakistan was near. It was very soothing to hear his almost prophetic utterance even though the circumstances around us pointed to a different direction.
A few days after liberation when I went to the stadium to greet my shopkeeper friend, I found him morose and downbeat. He was not his cheerful self because he did not like what he saw. In a sorrowful voice he said that he did not know how to separate the freedom fighters he had rooted for from the thugs who had aided and abetted the Pakistani army. These brigands had melded with the freedom fighters, and in the name of cleansing the city of Pakistani occupiers, had begun an endless operation of plunder.
I never saw the shopkeeper again as he closed his shop and moved on. But his comment stayed with me, and I would be reminded of it when events in our country ushered in an era of national politics comprising of people who were not exactly fighting our war.
I would be reminded of it when attempts were made by some of our own people to denigrate our Liberation War and its history, change the core values of our freedom struggle, and try to alter our national identity based on ethnicity and culture.
Since then, we have gone through many changes. With demographic changes, the older population who had witnessed and suffered in the war of liberation have aged or passed on leaving the younger population the legacy of the history of the war and their interpretation of it.
Under normal circumstances, the demographic changes would have had no adverse effect on the history of liberation had the new generation been given a truthful and consistent account of our liberation struggle and its heroes.
Unfortunately, this was not to be so because the political changes that followed a few years after our liberation distorted the true history of our struggle for liberation and the core values that it stood for. The changes happened because the political leadership changed not through a democratic process, but through violence, which would haunt the nation for a long time at frequent intervals. These changes were sometimes forced, and sometimes inevitable, but they also brought in their trail many casualties in addition to human deaths.
The first casualty of the political change was democracy itself. Some may argue that it began when a one-party system was introduced in 1975, but its real demise occurred with the military coup of August 1975. However, this political change did not only replace democracy with authoritarianism, but it also rehabilitated people who had stood against our liberation and had collaborated with Pakistan in suppressing their own kind.
The second casualty was dumping of the principles of our Constitution and state policy. The principal victims were the ideals of Bangalee nationalism which became Bangladeshi nationalism, and secularism which gave way to upholding Islam as the state religion.
These changes were to have a serious impact on our subsequent politics and shaping of political ideology and political groups in the country. A constitutional change allowing the formation of political parties with religious affiliations not only allowed the return of Jamaat-e-Islami and its infamous leader to Bangladeshi politics but also led to the growth of a plethora of religious parties in the country.
The third consequence of the political change was the distorted information of the Bangalee struggle for independence and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman purveyed to the young generation by the governments of the period and its immediate successor. The change enabled the opponents of the Liberation War to question the contributions of our founding fathers to our liberation and replace the history with an alternative version that would mislead coming generations.
The collective effect of these changes on the nation would be, however, visible only after three decades. During this time a whole generation would be raised with a misleading view of our liberation struggle. These changes would also help the growth of religion-based politics and lead to rise of intolerance and bigotry in politics.
The political rehabilitation of the enemies of liberation and their newfound position of strength in national politics would give a different interpretation of Bangladesh's identity to the world which is much removed from the language and culture-based identity that we all thought our liberation from Pakistan gave us. A new specter of religion-based identity would pose a challenge to us.
Unfortunately, many of these changes went unnoticed for a long time. These changes surfaced only during the political turmoil of the last decade when the country appeared to be polarized on some fundamental national issues such as war crimes trials, and restoration of secularism in the Constitution. The political division of the country into two camps on such basic issues brought into the fore just how far the country's political landscape had changed in four decades.
Today, when we look back into the mirror, we see remarkable progress in the national economy. From the much-maligned statement of Henry Kissinger of Bangladesh in 1972 (perhaps apocryphal) that Bangladesh was a basket case the country now on the verge of becoming a middle-income economy, judging by gross domestic product.
It has already surpassed Pakistan, its erstwhile master, and around the same as India in per capita income. Literacy has grown substantially, from a lowly 25% in 1973 to around 75 percent now. Female youth female literacy (15-24) is now an astounding 95%, a stellar example outshining most countries not only in South Asia, but also among developing countries of the world.
Similarly other human development index has improved tremendously indicating that growth has been multisectoral. If our economic growth founded by manufacturing, agricultural outputs, and exports continue to grow at the level they are now, Bangladesh is poised to be counted in the list of developed economies in the four decades from now. But will these be sustainable?
A fundamental condition of economic success and growth is political stability, and faith of the investors in the future of a country. This faith comes from a number of factors, which are political stability and security, state of governance, rule of law, and control of corruption.
Unfortunately, in Bangladesh we had low scores in all of these areas for much of our existence. True, there was a semblance of political stability for some time in the past, but this was the result of either a semi-dictatorship or authoritative types of political systems.
The stability was not the result of a nationwide consensus on governance or a political authority. Much of it came from intimidation either from a single person or a single political party’s chokehold on the politics of the country.
That is why the unnatural stability broke down periodically with political unrest, mass movement, and oftentimes anarchy. These unrests and upheavals put brakes on economic activities, investment, and affected the overall economy. We had seen it in the eighties, nineties, and most recently in 2023-24. The country suffered, people suffered, and most importantly the image of the country in international fora.
So, as we brace ourselves for our journey in the next decades, we would like Bangladesh to fortify itself against repeating the mistakes of the past. These would be again to strengthen the country to ensure a) political stability and security, b) a good state of governance, c) rule of law, d) control of corruption, and e) investment in developing a skilled work force.
Political stability should be our prime focus as that will also ensure security for all. This will mean practice of democracy at all levels and strong faith and pursuit of changes only through democratic means, and acceptance of the will of the people.
A good state of governance means a clean and transparent government, enforcement of government regulations and policies, efficient public administration, and accountability of public officials. Rule of law will entail prevention of crime, effective and transparent enforcement laws, and accountability of law enforcement officials.
Control of corruption will need accountability, transparency and efficiency of regulations and their enforcement, and strong and effective oversight of government agencies. Lastly, building a skilled workforce will need building centers for good education and vocational training to ensure availability of engineers, technicians, managers, and skilled labour.
These are not impossible to achieve if our leadership is committed to the country and its future. But it is easier said than done, particularly in a polarized state of our country where our current generation of politicians is uncertain about the direction that country should be headed.
We are dismayed to see our growing distance from the four original pillars that our nationhood was based on. Our political growth has been stunted not simply because we deviated from these goals, but also because our leaders never seriously tried to instill in the nation the values of democracy, nationalism, and secularism.
While some of the changes that have happened may be irreversible, it is possible to guide our next generation in the right path if we have the will. Values of democracy, nationalism, or secularism cannot be instilled in a country by simply inserting them in the Constitution or by rhetoric; they have to be instilled in people's minds by way of example and education.
Ziauddin Choudhury is a former civil servant and a World Bank staff.