National Citizen’s Party (NCP) convener Nahid Islam has said those wanting to return to 71 are denying the new political reality of 24 and trying to drag the country back into an outdated political framework.
In a verified Facebook post on Friday (8 August), he said: “The rebellion of 24, through the participation of such people, acted as a form of atonement for many political forces. But that atonement will lose its meaning—if they or we go back to the old ideological politics. It is our responsibility to resist the re-emergence of the old binary framework in our political horizons.”
<>
Calling 24 the continuation of 71, Nahid said its uprising reaffirmed the aspirations of equity, dignity and justice when “Mujibism” tried to insert 71 into an Indian narrative, compromising national sovereignty and interests.
“’Twenty-four reasserted the true spirit of independence, sovereignty, and the Liberation War. It was a united struggle against authoritarianism, fascism, and domination, driven by the hope of a democratic and egalitarian Bangladesh,” he said.
After 24, he said, a new political reality and a new generation emerged—those who fought and won that war. “We have gone beyond 71 and reached 24. But from 24 we wanted a new beginning—one that would build a political culture based on the values and aspirations born from a rebellion.
“It is our responsibility to defeat Mujibism and all forms of authoritarian and fascist forces, and to unite the state and society into a democratic one.”
Nahid said the current generation has already gone beyond 71 and no one accepts the “pro-71” or “anti-71” binary.
“’Seventy-one will remain in history—as a principle respected and upheld as the foundation of the state. But it will no longer take precedence as political legitimacy. Forty-seven will similarly be remembered, with historical reverence—but not as a tool for political manipulation.
“This does not mean we will not discuss or debate those events. Rather, in this new political reality, we will finally be able to resolve our historical questions. Politics now must be based on the values of 24.”
He stressed that ’24 was never about revenge. “Those who are trying to weaponize it as an act of revenge have misunderstood its essence.
“’Twenty-four is a place for national unity and reconciliation. Its spirit lies in building a future through consensus, empathy, and shared responsibility—not through cycles of vengeance.”
