The very first act of the Mujibnagar government, once Bangladesh stood liberated after a nine-month guerrilla war against the Pakistan army in December 1971, was to proscribe the Muslim League, Jamaat-e-Islami, Nezam-e-Islam and Pakistan Democratic Party in the country. These four parties, based on a communal approach to politics, had been supportive of Pakistan’s military action against the people of Bangladesh.
In 1972, the constitution adopted by the Constituent Assembly made clear mention of the fact that the state would be based on four core principles -- secularism, democracy, nationalism, and socialism. The logic was obvious. Bangladesh was not a successor state of Pakistan but had been a revolt against it. It therefore followed that where Pakistan existed as an Islamic republic, Bangladesh conferred on itself the fundamentals of a people’s republic where every citizen, irrespective of religious belief, would enjoy equal rights with other citizens.
This fine nature of the state was of course rudely disturbed in the 21 years the country was hostage in the hands of elements determined to push it into a non-democratic, communal mould. Much has been said about politics being opened up in the Zia years, allowing for a resumption of democracy. That was a false narrative for the simple reason that the parliament elected in February 1979 swiftly went for a validation of the assassinations of Bangabandhu and his family through incorporating the infamous Indemnity Ordinance, earlier promulgated by the Moshtaq cabal, into the constitution.
That step was a blow to any chances that democracy might have had. And with that came the move to permit religion-based political parties, particularly those which had blatantly defended the Pakistan army’s genocide in 1971 and had been instrumental in the formation of such goon squads as al-Badr and al-Shams, to make their entry into Bangladesh’s politics. The strategy of the Zia regime could not be missed: In order to keep the Awami League at bay, it needed the communalists to give itself protective cover. It was a move which effectively killed the secular spirit of the constitution.
The 21 years between 1975 and 1996 and an additional five years between 2001 and 2006 were a period which upheld every political move that militated against the ethos of Bangladesh. The imposition by the Ershad regime of Islam as the religion of the state and the induction of some 1971 collaborators of the Pakistan army into the Khaleda Zia cabinet, along with moves to replace the nationalistic slogan of Joy Bangla with "Bangladesh Zindabad" and push Bengali nationalism aside in favour of "Bangladeshi nationalism," were renegade acts against the very concept of the country. Therefore, when today questions are asked about our failure to put the country back on the rails of proper democracy, we know only too well that it is this dark burden we carry from those 26 years which holds us back from steering Bangladesh back to its original roots.
But, yes, the Awami League has been in power without interruption for the last 14 years. It has had absolute control over parliament. It has been enacting and legislating laws of a varied nature all these years. It has promoted a foreign policy which is certainly appreciable given that it demonstrates the government’s understanding of geopolitics in these times. It has presided over a long stretch of economic prosperity. Its role in developing communications infrastructure in the country has been nothing less than remarkable. It is poised to take the country to middle income nation status from the current LDC position in 2026.
And yet there are the very many areas where the government could have done much more to ensure a return to the spirit of 1971. It has done a commendable job through ensuring justice in the matter of prosecuting Bangabandhu’s assassins and the collaborators of 1971. But it somehow has been unable to restore the ideals which governed the nation’s freedom struggle 52 years ago and which ideals found space in the 1972 constitution. In these 14 years, the government should have gone for legislation aimed at a revival of the old ideals.
That exercise has not been gone through. In what is today a putatively secular country, the government has been unable to enact legislation clamping a ban on religion-based politics. More importantly, the Awami League is today engaged in a struggle to retain power in the face of the agitation by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, an organization which has consistently been symptomatic of anti-history through propagating a political stance which continues to undermine the reasons why we went to war against Pakistan in 1971. That ought not to have been the case.
The Awami League government should have undertaken, as a priority, legislation relating to political parties, decreeing that they include within their constitutions a formal acknowledgement of the principles of 1971. The constitutional stipulation should have been there that all political parties would need to acknowledge Bengali nationalism as the basis of Bangladesh’s nationhood before venturing out into normal or electoral politics. Indeed, if legislation could have the caretaker concept removed from the constitution, similarly strong legislative measures could have been enacted toward ensuring that any political party engaged in a denial of history would have no place in Bangladesh’s politics.
These necessary actions have not been taken in these 14 years, with the result that at this point of time Bangladesh’s people are sadly compelled to choose between the cardinal nationalistic politics envisaged by Bangabandhu and his political associates and the spurious politics set in motion by the beneficiaries of his assassination. It does not make anyone happy that Bengalis have to choose, at the ballot box, between those who have consistently upheld the inviolability of history and those who would trifle with it.
The issue today is beyond and above that of democracy and rule of law. Every citizen who believes in democracy and rule of law is also one who has not strayed from the original concept of the War of Liberation. But one who asks for democracy and yet is unable to free oneself of those very ideas which have undermined national history in these past four decades-plus is doing the country grave disservice.
All political parties surely have the right to propagate their programs before the electorate. But no political party, from the historical standpoint and in any country, should expect to engage in activities which run counter to the spirit enunciated by the founding fathers. It is an argument the Awami League government ought to have advanced and acted on in these 14 years. Nations thrive on progressive politics. They lose health and energy when anti-history insinuates its way into politics.
The Awami League leadership, which is under pressure from various local and overseas quarters in relation to the forthcoming election, would do well to reflect on what might have been had the party, in government with a huge majority in parliament, taken decisive steps toward cleansing the political arena of ideas gnawing away at the spirit of 1971.
The Mujibnagar government’s move against the four pro-Pakistan parties in December 1971 was a fresh new turning in the road. When Bangabandhu’s government went for the 1972 constitution, it was enlightenment for the nation. In both instances, strong leadership was provided to the country.
Perhaps the Awami League, as it governs today, will take a look back at those instances of leadership and reshape its strategy, in the constitutional sense of the meaning, for the future?
Syed Badrul Ahsan is Consultant Editor, Dhaka Tribune.
