The controversy over the contributions and commitment to our 1971 war of independence, especially those of the civil and military leadership, in nothing new in Bangladesh. There has been conflicting historical description of the early hours of the war of independence of Bangladesh.
The point of contention has been the question – who first declared independence of Bangladesh, was it late President Ziaur Rahman – the most prominent military leader of Bangladesh’s war of independence, or the most prominent political leader championing Bengali nationalism, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, also called Bangabandhu and credited to be the founding father of the country?
This article, for good reasons, will not revive that decades-old debate again; rather it will try to deal with a very recent new dimension that has been added to that controversy. BNP’s exiled leader, and son of opposition leader Begum Khaleda Zia, Mr Tarique Rahman, suddenly came up with a casual one-line comment in a political speech, which claimed that late president, then Major, Ziaur Rahman was the first president of Bangladesh. Mr Rahman’s speech started a firestorm of rhetoric war.
While the discussion of the fact about the historical claim may not be of much speculation and analysis, the discussion on the reaction from both the sides of the political divides may require in-depth study of the current state of Bangladesh politics, its past, and may potentially be a forecast of future of this politics.
First let’s discuss Tarique Rahman’s claim. Is he wrong?
No, he is not wrong. He is technically correct. Over the last decade, there has been a great push towards restoration of the correct and detailed history of our war of independence. And for the sake of the correct history, it is extremely important that the younger generation knows the details of the early hours of our war of independence.
And the truth is that on the night of March 25, 1971, when Bangladesh was under attack – when genocide was being committed on Bengali civilian, police, EPR, sepoys, students –when the top political leadership either were already in Pakistan military custody or in hiding or on the run – when everyone pulled down the newly designed flag of Bangladesh they were hoisting on their rooftop all across Bangladesh – when people even dared not keep the flag hidden at home for a moment, one military officer came on radio, he declared him provisional head of the new country called Bangladesh and declare independence and war against the perpetrator of the genocide.
To Bangalis, on the face of unprecedented brutality and genocide, that declaration meant that the brutal attack will be replied to – we will not lie and get beaten. That declaration from Major Ziaur Rahman and his modified follow up announcements spread the fire of mutiny among the Bangali officers and soldiers across the military installations in erstwhile East Pakistan and showed the people of Bangladesh the ray of hope.
During his follow up announcements, yes – Major Zia reiterated the declaration of independence on behalf of our “great national leader Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman,” but not on behalf of acting president/prime minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
Bangabandhu, by that time had become the spiritual leader and inspiration of our war of independence. Being in the custody of an occupation army, in a foreign prison he could no longer be the acting president or prime minister or even supreme commander of armed forces engaged in a war. Zia, declaring on behalf of “great national leader Bangabandhu,” does not make Bangabandhu our acting president or supreme commander. Gandhi was India’s “great national leader” post-independence without any portfolio.
On March 26, 1971 – until April 10, 1971 – Zia probably was the senior-most army officer engaged in regulation warfare. Brigadier Majumdar was out of command responsibility. MAG Osmani, a retd colonel later and Lt Col Abdur Rob later joined Mujib Nagar government. If we consider Bangladesh as independent starting March 26, 1971, and at war with Pakistan starting that day, we must also have a leader to lead this newly-formed government and fight the war.
Other than Zia and his declaration – we do not see anyone taking responsibility as the leader of the resistance until April 10 when Syed Nazrul Islam was declared the acting president. Zia, during his follow-up announcements, never retracted his claim and until April 10 no political leader claimed the job. During a war, the senior-most military officer involved in combat can take over civil administration in the absence/inability of civilian leadership.
It will be of extreme historical importance to accept the provisional leadership role Zia played between March 26 and April 10, 1971. Zia did not have the hindsight that Bangladesh would be independent in 9 months. What he did was pure and simple treason against Pakistan, and if Pakistan had their way, Zia would have been court martialed and summarily executed.
It is also very important to understand that the value of Zia making way to civilian political leadership and going back to their command as an active soldier is much more important than Zia being the de facto war time leader/provisional president of this newly independent state or 15-days until the political leadership could get the time to re-organise.
At the same token, a senior major of the army taking charge of the newly independent state on which a war is imposed, does not make the role of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the founding father of our nationalist autonomy movement any bit smaller.
This undeniable fact also does not reduce the credit due to exiled leadership of Bangladesh Awami League, especially Mr Tajuddin Ahmed and Mr Syed Nazrul Islam, as the political and civil leadership of the newly-created state.
While the claim of Zia’s role during the first weeks of independent Bangladesh faced a chorus of harsh criticism among Awami League-leaning commentators, none of the commentators could deny that fact that Zia indeed took the charge as head of state while declaring independence and war, tell any alternative name who was in charge of newly independent Bangladesh until April 10, 1971, and tell that Bangabandhu, in his independence declaration speech, nominated anyone the supreme commander, or disagree with the fact that Bangabandhu, while in Pakistani custody, could not be the head of the state and supreme commander of the armed forces at war.
The main spirit of our war of independence was democracy, and it was extremely important that at the earliest possible time a political civilian body with a clear democratic legitimacy takes over control of every resource of the new state (including its armed forces). Mujibnagar Government had that legitimacy and it indeed re-asserted itself at the earliest possible time. This is equally one of the greatest moments of the history of our independence struggle, as is the defiant stand of Major Zia and his shouldering of the historical responsibility at the moment of nations’ need.
