The validity of the claims of opposition leader Khaleda Zia and her son Tarique Rahman, that late Ziaur Rahman was indeed the first leader of resistance of independent Bangladesh against the genocidal aggression of Pakistan’s mighty military, has been discussed in the op-ed page of Dhaka Tribune last week.
As mentioned there, the discussion about the validity of the claims is quite straight forward and based on simple, irrefutable facts. However, the analysis of the reactions, especially of the reactions of present day BNP supporters, demand more in depth analysis - as it explains, to a great extent, the current state of BNP politics and its future.
Awami League’s (which includes Awami League leadership, Awami League block intellectuals and media commentators) response has been swift, overwhelming and dismissive. Starting from the top leaders to their minion facebook users, each one had to say something – decrying “unbelievable and ludicrous claim of Tarique and Khaleda Zia’s brazen attempt at re-writing history.”
However, in doing so, no “evidence was martialed,” no “facts were presented” to discredit the claim of Mr Tarique Rahman. Rather, in typical Awami League style, a case was lodged in the court to force-feed an approved narrative of the airbrushed history.
Awami League’s reaction is not surprising – at the root of their revival 21 years after they lost power, due to poor governance from 72-75, is their clever play of history and young peoples’ nationalistic instinct and bloodlust for vengeance.
Using history as a political tool, making larger than life hallowed figures out of flesh and bone human leaders and inciting communalistic bloodlust by drawing an artificial line to separate “us and them,” have been the hallmark of Awami League politics of the last three decades and this politics has paid off Awami League enormously.
So now, if the other party tries to, albeit half-heartedly and in the weakest possible way, play the same game, Awami League certainly will have reasons to get alarmed and lash back with its full force.
However, the reaction from BNP supporters may have been very puzzling to political commentators not much attuned to the current state of BNP.
Overall, BNP supporters’ reaction to the Zia presidency issue is fairly muted. Either they could not care less about it or they indeed got annoyed at this “useless” exercise of digging the past. BNP policy makers should take note of the reaction, as this reaction may have great impact on future plans of BNP and the impact may be a devastating one. If the reaction is examined in detail, the following pattern will emerge.
A small core group of active BNP activists cheered the revelation and was ready to defend this newly focused historical fact. However, it is not clear whether this group is standing behind the fact out of their respect for Zia or for the truth, or whether they are simply defending the claim because Tarique Rahman made this assertion. It is quite plausible that this group cheered the announcement more because Mr Rahman made this assertion. This group comprises core Tarique Rahman loyalists and will defend anything Mr Rahman says.
A second, much bigger and more heterogeneous group is not excited about BNP’s half-hearted efforts at fighting back in history wars at all. This group’s reaction emanates from their core reasoning and passion behind supporting BNP in 2014. A big number of this group had nothing to do with BNP; in fact, they may not have been a BNP voter as late as 2008.
They are gathering behind BNP because being reasonable and intelligent people, they have concluded that currently, BNP is the only viable answer to what they perceive as Awami League fascism. Some in this group, who are already tired of Awami League’s politics with history, do not have the appetite for BNP to resort to the same 1971 centric politics of the past.
As a result of three decades of constant feeding of airbrushed history – a large portion belonging to the second heterogeneous group developed an apologetic attitude towards 1971, Zia and a tendency of appeasement of the Awami League narrative of the history. They are not passionate enough to fight for upholding Ziaur Rahman’s rightful role in our history and present day discourse.
One other component of this second group is the Islamic nationalists. They are more driven by their anti-secular, anti-India passion and are more passionate about Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan than Ziaur Rahman. They are more hateful towards secular figures in Bangladesh or fearful of “Indian hegemony” than they are passionate about Zia’s politics of synthesis.
The third major component of the BNP support base is the so called Islamists. This is also a loose heterogeneous collection of Jamaat supporters, Hefazat-e-Islam sympathisers and global caliphate believers who are supporting BNP as the lesser of two evils. For this group, Zia is hailed for his personal honesty and his role in making space for Islam in the constitution. But Zia, by no means, is the hero or idol of these groups. Certain factions of this group even despise Zia for his role in 1971 - Zia’s refusal to allow registration for Jamaat and Zia’s heavy-handed crushing of Islamic revival attempts led by Air Vice Marshall MA Tayeb or Colonel Faruq.
To the generations who grew up after Zia’s death, irrespective of whichever of the above mentioned groups they fall into, Zia is an unknown character. This is due to BNP’s pathetic historical failure to project Zia appropriately and the relentless negative campaign on Zia by the Awami League media-political clique.
Furthermore, lost and silenced among the above mentioned groups are the Zia loyalists. This small remnant of Zia admirers are either totally sidelined or ignored by loud Tarique Rahman followers, Islamists or apologetic Awami League appeasers. In many cases, within present day BNP circles, the relentless promoters of Zia are often ridiculed as hopeless Zia worshippers – backward looking history huggers.
The above description of the BNP support base clearly shows that unlike Awami League activists, young and old, who are united and motivated in their passion about their political leader Bangabandhu – his patriarch role to this nation and his leadership in our war of independence, BNP activists do not have a central idol figure for whom they are passionate and unified.
BNP has not created any father figure for its activists, it has done nothing to keep the memory of Zia fresh in the minds of its activists. Unlike BNP activists of the 80s, when Zia and his 1971 role were still sharp in memory, BNP activists of this decade do not have any nationalistic bravado to be inspired with.
Perhaps this is the reason, despite being a massive political party with widespread grassroots organisation, despite supposedly historical low approval rating of PM Hasina and Awami League and despite its huge popular support, BNP has been an utter failure in materialising this favourable public mindset into tangible street movements or election campaigns.
It could not stop the government from holding the sham national election and mount any resistance in curbing the blatant rigging during upazilla local government elections. Despite unbelievable repression and wrongdoings of the government, BNP has failed to bring the youth out in the streets and stage their defiance.
BNP needs to understand why it is failing to excite its activists so miserably. A party cannot build an army of selfless street fighters without positive reinforcement of an idol father figure. Without the memory of Zia and his pragmatic politics of synthesis, BNP is now a loose collection of people of varying negative sentiments like anti-secularism, anti-India sentiment or other competing interests.
Zia’s bravado in 1971, Zia’s pragmatic politics of synthesis do not have much space here. That’s why there is a general lack of excitement about Zia’s newly defined role in history. This may be a major reason why there is this terrible inertia among its activists that is preventing BNP from launching an all-out decisive movement.
And that is exactly why BNP needs Ziaur Rahman again and simultaneously, it needs Khaleda Zia of the 80s. Otherwise, with Tarique Rahman’s motorbike riding followers, anti-Hasina 1971 apologetics, anti-secular, anti-India and Islamists – BNP will not be able to go too far from where they are now.
To infuse enthusiasm and passion among its loose collection of seasonal silent supporters and voters, as well as in the upcoming generations, BNP has no better alternative than reviving the brand Zia. And the lukewarm reaction among BNP supporters to Mrs Zia’s and Mr Tarique Rahman’s shots at history wars makes a case that they need to do it more often and more efficiently.
