On March 7, 1971, when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman walked toward the stage at the Racecourse Maidan, now known as Suhrawardy Udyan in Dhaka, the entire nation waited anxiously to hear what he would say.
Not only the people across Bengal, but also the Pakistani ruling establishment in Rawalpindi, the army command stationed at Dhaka Cantonment, and policymakers in world capitals were keenly watching his next move.
Although Sheikh Mujib had consulted party colleagues beforehand, there is no dispute that the speech he delivered was entirely his own.
Over the decades, debates have emerged over its deeper meaning. Did he formally declare independence for the Bengalis, open the path to independence, or keep the door open for a negotiated settlement? Even the fact that the speech ended with a slogan of victory for Pakistan has sometimes been cited in these debates. Researchers and commentators have continued to revisit these questions.
Yet among the people of Bengal—from urban residents to rural workers—there was little confusion about the message. The speech inspired them to prepare for struggle and dream of freedom. When the Pakistan army launched its brutal crackdown later that month, people across the country rose to resist with whatever means they had. Even without Sheikh Mujib physically present before them, they understood their duty and entered an unequal war.
How a nation facing overwhelming military odds could unite behind a shared dream of liberation remains a subject worthy of deeper examination. Unfortunately, in today’s polarized discourse, discussions about Sheikh Mujib often swing between reverence and vilification, leaving little space to assess his role within the broader domestic, regional and global political context of that time.
The international community was also closely monitoring developments. Henry Kissinger, national security adviser to US President Richard Nixon, was particularly interested in what Sheikh Mujib would say. After listening to the speech, Kissinger wrote in a note to the president that by calling for a peaceful non-cooperation movement, Rahman had made it difficult for President Yahya Khan to justify an immediate military crackdown.
Although the crackdown eventually came—with the tacit approval of powerful international actors—it carried heavy moral consequences that history continues to judge. What is often overlooked is the unprecedented scale of the non-cooperation movement led by Bangabandhu, which effectively placed him in control of East Pakistan even before the formal outbreak of war.
The struggle for Bangladesh also drew attention from international scholars. Australian political scientist Herbert Feith of Monash University closely followed developments. Disturbed by the humanitarian crisis and the plight of millions of refugees, he helped organize support efforts through the Victorian Committee to Support Bangladesh.
In an academic lecture delivered on September 10, 1971, at Flinders University, Feith expressed optimism about the eventual victory of the Bengali people. He described the Pakistani state as a form of colonial domination by West Pakistan over East Pakistan and argued that the Bangladesh movement differed from other separatist struggles such as Biafra. In his view, it was fundamentally a democratic movement reflecting the will of the country’s majority.
Feith noted that the extraordinary success of Sheikh Mujib’s non-cooperation movement had effectively made him the ruler of East Bengal. He compared the moment to the spirit of the Prague Spring, when a brief experience of freedom ignited widespread enthusiasm across society. According to Feith, the non-cooperation movement created a similar awakening in Bengal.
Reflecting on the significance of the March 7 speech, he famously remarked: “It was the time when Bangladesh was born as a state in the world of the mind.”
The speech was driven by the dream of liberation, yet it was also grounded in political realism. Sheikh Mujib remained aware that he stood as the elected representative of the majority of the people. His four key demands—including the immediate transfer of power to elected representatives and the withdrawal of the army to the barracks—left open a constitutional path toward resolving the crisis peacefully.
In essence, he sought to give constitutional legitimacy to the people’s power that had emerged through the mass non-cooperation movement. This would have allowed the Bengalis to govern themselves within a democratic framework.
The international legal perspective also recognized the legitimacy of Bangladesh’s emergence. In 1972, the International Commission of Jurists visited India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to examine the issue. Referring to the United Nations declaration on the right of nations to self-determination adopted in 1970, the commission concluded that Bangladesh’s independence was not merely a separatist movement but a legitimate expression of the people’s right to self-determination. It also acknowledged the validity of trying Pakistani war criminals for genocide.
Thus, beyond inspiring people at home, Sheikh Mujib remained firmly committed to the constitutional mandate given by the electorate.
Through the March 7 speech, he planted the dream of a state in the hearts of the people. To understand the text and significance of such a speech, one must read it as a document of dreams as well as political strategy. Even today, the words of March 7 continue to awaken the enduring dream of freedom—one that refuses to fade from the collective memory of the nation.
The author is a researcher, writer, publisher and founding trustee of the Liberation War Museum
