1971 and the present crisis

March 26, 2015 12:10 am0 Comments

by Afsan Chowdhury
Is there any link between the history of 1971 and the present situation?

NOT directly but history is a process, a

continuous journey and 1971 was a product of the previous history and the events afterwards, that is now, are a product of 1971.
That is always inevitable. History is not a series of isolated events but a single stream with dips and peaks. But there are many
interpretations and approaches to the study of history. What we do know is that the promises of history of 1971 were never
realised as far as ordinary people are concerned. That is universal knowledge and much has been said and written on this but not
enough work has been done to ask why this was never realised. If we could detect that, we could find many answers. However, I
should mention that detection doesnt mean our problems would be solved. We probably would understand our present better but
how much our today would change is not clear.
Broadly speaking, we did begin with great promises. What happened?
WE BEGAN with great expectations and of course that never materialised because nobody worked towards that. Or, should we
ask if promises were made or not? We are quite vague on this and talk about the spirit of 1971. Where was it in a concrete
form? We had a high opinion of ourselves so our constitution was a lofty one in terms of principles but we killed it almost at
birth. Its like we wanted to commit constitutional infanticide. So while we spoke of nationalism, democracy, secularism and
socialism, we never really subscribed to any of them. I would say that we probably never considered the country we always say
we never achieved was not a priority perhaps. Or even if we did we didnt know how to realise them. Our journey from 1972 to
present shows that.
How can it be explained?
DID we really mean them? Do our aspirations and ambitions check out against achievements? Take the four major principles.
Our nationalism meant we excluded many others and that led to the reduction of the rights in general which we have either
justified or were ready to accept because we felt we had a right to be intolerant. But I believe we not only denied rights of
minorities such as Hindus and adivasis but also of other groups that are disadvantaged, particularly the poor. So, we are not only
Bengali nationalists but also part of a privileged nation. Its this belief in privilege that breeds partisanship, the kind we have now.
We have to belong to the nation of privileged as a matter of ideology. Or we perish.
Our participatory democracy is the least participatory of them all. Not only did we have one-party rule and martial law but our
parliaments are not even talk shops. They practically dont exist. Now, we have to listen to TV chat-shows or read interviews to
get the opinion of both sides on any issue.
Socialism as a constitutional direction never worked for a day. It was absurd as a principle because there were no socialist
concept in ruling party politics and it only served as an excuse to justify excesses against political enemies. And ultimately oneparty rule was offered to the people as a socialist aspiration. Of course, the demise of international socialism ended the matter but
no one was ever serious about socialism.
Finally, the concept of secularism was used and misused. It was not necessary in a country like Bangladesh where almost
everyone is religious and doesnt like to be told by the government about how to conduct faith-based issues. The insertion of this
clause in the constitution only created suspicion that the state was going to interfere in a personal matter. And now we ended up
having Islam as a state religion. The main thrust which was protection of the vulnerable was never carried out. Power is the
ultimate religion.
There is a peculiar disconnect between what we say we aspired for and what we actually got or achieved. I think we should
consider the fact that we probably didnt mean any of them.

And why did that happen?

I THINK that is traceable to 1971. The division within that event needs more analysis and exploring. It is seen as a monolithic
war where the people were one but this is an argument of convenience. People fought the same enemy but the war was
experienced differently by different people. Within that we had a formal and the informal war. The group(s) who were powerful
during the war whether because they were more official than others or led the war or had groups under their command
subsequently developed the narrative that described post-1971 Bangladesh. Its their history that we inherited and its their ideas
that we relied upon to build Bangladesh. I see them as privileged groups in waiting in 1971.
These are people who ran and controlled the war and ultimately benefited most from it. This is natural in a nationalist war and
obviously that is also what happened. But our analysis faces problems because our nationalism prevents us from observing that
while everyone participated in the war, it was in the interest of the few. This has resulted in the gap, in the construction of the
state where a tradition has developed going deep into the national structure. So we did something unusual: a jana juddha, peoples
war, in the interest of an elite. That dichotomy has dictated our history, our past, our present.
Was this deliberate?
I THINK it was inevitable as the war was obviously fought under the leadership of small elite as it happens in most such wars.
But the factors that controlled the progression of the war, the many conflicts including class conflict, social conflict or even
international conflict shaped the patterns that emerged later on. For example, the pro-Soviet groups were by themselves not
significant during the war but their influence due to Indias proximity to Russia had a contingent effect on Bangladesh and helped
shape one-party rule, provided the then national leadership with a false sense of security and national unity but finally finished
the pro-Soviets as a credible political force.. Similarly, the pro-Chinese groups fought against Mujibnagar in 1971 and in the
process lost the public space. The kind of politics they followed which was very alienated from the people ultimately ended their
politics too.
Then who gained from the war?
WELL, its so obvious that we dont have to discuss that. All we have to do is trace the process which began right after
independence. One doesnt see any break in the continuity of the rise of the elite who are not affected by history. Having ignored
history once they know its role is limited so they can get away with it. I believe that when we say is this the Bangladesh that we
wanted? it carries pain but is also a painful reminder that we probably did want this type of a country which causes so much pain
to so many.
What then should we say we fought for in the war?
DIFFERENT people and groups fought the war for different reasons. The upper class has seen their dreams realised. Lets hope
others who wait in the wings of history can also realise their dream.
Afsan Chowdhury is a journalist and researcher.
- See more at: http://newagebd.net/106384/1971-and-the-present-crisis/#sthash.EGS4MbzR.dpuf