Wed 15 Aug 2007
The following was published in Time right after the liberation war victory. It has lots of interesting things about him about his pre-71 life which often gets lost because of the discussion on the last three years of his life. How many of you know that he was in jail for political reasons for 10 and a half years of his 55 year life?
Monday, Jan. 17, 1972
Time
Great Man or Rabble-Rouser?
THE history of the Indian subcontinent for the past half-century has been dominated by leaders who were as controversial as they were charismatic: Mahatma Gandhi, Mohammed AH Jinnah, Jawaharlal Nehru. Another name now seems likely to join that list: Sheik Mujibur (”Mujib”) Rahman, the President of Bangladesh. To his critics, Mujib is a vituperative, untrustworthy rabble-rouser. To most of the people of his new nation, he is a patriot-hero whose imprisonment by West Pakistan has only enhanced his appeal. “He was a great man before,” says one Bangladesh official, “but those bastards have made him even greater.”
Even his detractors concede that Mujib has the personal qualifications to become an extremely effective popular leader. He is gregarious, highly emotional and remarkably attuned to the needs and moods of his supporters. He has an uncanny ability to remember names and faces. Mujib is also a spellbinding orator with a simplistic message and a pungent, fervent style.
It is not yet clear whether Mujib is more profound than his stirring rhetoric. His political success so far is due largely to his ability to marshal public opinion in East Bengal by blaming all of its troubles on its former rulers in West Pakistan. He has a tendency to make extravagant promises, and to oversimplify complex economic and agricultural problems. “My brothers,” he once told a gathering of East Pakistani jute farmers, “do you know that the streets of Karachi are paved with gold, and that it is done with your money earned from exporting jute?”
Mujib’s supporters insist that he has shown a capacity for growth. He was born 51 years ago, one of six children of a middle-class family that lived on a farm in Tongipara, a village about 60 miles southwest of Dacca. At ten, Mujib displayed the first signs of a social conscience by distributing rice from the family supplies to tenant farmers who helped work the property. “They were hungry, and we have all these things,” the boy explained to his irate father, an official of the local district court.
As a youth, Mujib developed a strong antipathy to British rule. While a seventh-grader, he was jailed for six days for agitating in favor of India’s independence. A long bout with beriberi left his eyes weakened, and Mujib belatedly finished high school when he was 22.
After earning a B.A. in history and political science at Calcutta’s Islamia College—where he developed a taste for the writings of Bernard Shaw and Indian Poet Rabindranath Tagore—Mujib enrolled as a law student at Dacca University. He supported a strike by the university’s menial workers, and quickly found himself in jail once again. He indignantly rejected an offer to be set free on bail. “I did not come to the university to bow my head to injustice,” he said grandly. When he got out of jail, Mujib discovered that he had been expelled from the university. He promptly set out on a turbulent political career and spent 10½ of the next 23 years behind bars. “Prison is my other home,” he once shrugged.
Between jail terms, Mujib helped found the progressive Awami (People’s) League of East Pakistan, and in 1954 briefly served as the provincial minister in charge of industry and fighting corruption. Mujib had long been disillusioned by the exploitation of poorer East Pakistan by the more dominant western half of the divided nation. He was further disenchanted by the 1965 war with India. Like many other Bengalis, he was appalled to discover that the West Pakistanis had left the country’s eastern sector virtually undefended. The next year, Mujib propounded his now famous six points, which demanded domestic autonomy for East Pakistan within a confederation with the West. Field Marshal Mohammed Ayub Khan rejected the demands as a secessionist conspiracy, and had Mujib and other Awami League officials arrested and taken to West Pakistan. When Mujib was released for lack of evidence in 1969, more than 1,000,000 people turned out to greet him at a homecoming rally at Dacca’s Race Course. By then East and West Pakistan already were drifting toward the course that led to Mujib’s imprisonment in West Pakistan—and to last month’s war.
As was customary in East Bengali villages, Mujib was pledged to his wife in an arranged marriage when she was three and he 14. They have five children ranging from a 6-year-old son to a 25-year-old married daughter, who recently gave birth to a boy. Soon after his return to Bangladesh, Mujib will get his first look at the new grandchild, whose name, Joi, was taken from the new country’s wartime rallying cry, Joi Bangla!—Victory to Bengal!
August 15th, 2007 at 6:27 am
Despite all his inimitably great contributions, Mujib miserably failed in the test of greatness as he was engulfed by nepotism. This is why, notwithstanding his father-figure role in the history of Bangladesh, he would, most likely, lose to Zia, a military dictator with no political background, in any mass opinion poll in Bangladesh on the popularity of its all time leaders.
August 15th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Ahbab,
Is it possible to do an objective analysis without comparing him to anyone? Why do we always take this rout whenever we talk about this person? Its almost as bad like doing a critical analysis of Rabindranath’s work by comparing him with Nazrul. You can do better than this.
August 15th, 2007 at 7:26 am
I salute the Agamemnon”…Bangabandhu.
Applausing Jyoti I am incorporating the following excerpt from Shahid Anwar Pasha ( Translated by me). .
“Sheikh Mujibur Rahman– not only a name it is, as if it were the souvenir of the self dignity of the banglalees. And also of jovial life.” ….how much blood the barbarians will take? Bangabandhu has already said that as we have given blood, we’ll continue to give it. The people will be liberated of course…The voice of bangabandhu of that very 7th march- the bangalee who for just one time has heard this voice have surely turned into a new human being……” . ….. “Yes, came the thunderous voice occupier Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Did he seem to be a little bit dismal? Can it be termed as gloominess? It can not be expressed exactly by words.”……..
“If a brave General’s pledge, mother’s affection, anxiety of a conspiracy filled future is combined in a pot, his face also demonstrated that attitude……… That Mujib was the two weeks latter Mujib of 7 march, that thunder voice.. Have any bangalee ever heard a voice like this before? Perhaps they heard in Shashanka or in Hussen Shah or in Siraj -Chief Mohanlal and after that the other day in the voice of Netaji Shuvash Bosh. Netaji’s effort was in vain. But Bangabandhu! Your effort can not go without effect.”……….
“We will not let it go…. Didn’t the people have turned in a new one who joined in the Ramna Racecourse on 7 march?…..At least Sudipto was. After observing the scenario of seventh march and after the speech of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, his heart and every piece of blood has turned in to the sunflower of a firm determination. Independence desired, inflammable sunflower.”(Rifel Roti Aurat, Published by Student Ways, First Edition 1990, page. 129)
August 15th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Joi Bangla!
Bangladesh lost a great man on August 15, 1975. On that day Bangladesh committed fratricide.
Take a listen to the birth of Bangladesh:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/39133000/rm/_39133118_warwithpak1.ram
August 15th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Asif S, I did not bring up the name of Zia for the sake of any ‘comparison’. I did it only for the sake of articulating my evaluation of Mujib. Isn’t your objection a reflection of the super sensitivity of innumerable Bangladeshis vis-a-vis the two towering leaders? Does bringing up the name of one, while evaluating another, imply comparison between the two?? Is it unnatural if Zia’s role comes up while criticizing Mujib, as Nazrul, quite naturally, comes up in many discussions on Rabindranath??? I would, rather say, that any assessment of Mujib will be incomplete without mentioning Zia, as these two were the most defining personalities in the first decade of Bangladesh’s existence.
August 15th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Ahbab, #1 and #5, three comments:
First, it is not possible to do an evaluation of Mujib, nor his contributions, nor the circumstances of his downfall by just looking at 1973-75.
Second, his “losing” to Zia has nothing to do with Zia’s superiority, as you seem to imply. It’s like saying Kennedy’s assassination by Lee Harvey Oswald, who had no political background, just proves that Kennedy was not a good leader, not to even say anything about the wider forces at play.
Third, polls have been done, most recently by BBC in 2004. Just check the results to see where people have placed Mujib versus Zia.
August 15th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
oh dear, more willy waving about leaders who we are not.
Theres something about Sheikh Mujib’s voice, which i hear others from the party try to emulate but not quite pull it off. He had charisma and took decisive action to turn his back on the ideology he sweated for in his younger days to explore a pathway he beleived to be better and take people towards it, and it worked in the end. Thats very brave and an example for everyone.
He was an outswinging politician, from right to left. Most people are boring inswingers.
August 15th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
History revisited…………..
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”
Pakistan arrests opposition chiefs
One arrested for anti state activities - Corruption is charged to 5 others
By Elie Abel
Special to The New york TimesKarachi, Pakistan, October 12, 1958
Maulana Bhasani, Bearded leader of left wing National Awami (People’s) party and opponent of Bagdad pact, was thrown into prison today charged with anti-state activities.
…….
…….
At the same time the new martial-law regime, headed by president Mirza and Gen. Mohammad Ayub Khan, rounded up five prominent politicians and three civil servants on charges of corruption.
Among those were four leading feagures in East Pakistan’s Awami league, a separate party led by former prime minister Hossein Suhrwardy. They were Mujiburrahman, general secretary of awami league; Abul Monsoor, former minister of Commererce and Industry; Mohammad Abdul Khaleq, former labor minister, and Nuruddin Ahmad.
The regime also arrested Hamidul Huq chowdhury, former foreign minister, who belongs to the Krishak Shramic (Peasants and Workers) party.
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40614FD3C5F117B93C1A8178BD95F4C8585F9
August 15th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
One more report………
Was it any different then?
History in Bangladesh repeats itself….
********************************************
Pakistan still faces deep-seated problems
Economic needs and lack of unity remain in the wake of army coup
By Elie Abel
Special to the New York Times
New Delhi, India, Oct, 18, 1958
…………..
…………..
At the moment corruption has first priorityand the jails are filling up rapidly with civil servants, former ministers, shady merchants, amugglers and black marketeers.
Little Grubling
There is little grumbling at this stage about the program of the regime. In fact, it has won a broad measure of public support among the masses, if one may judge by the comments of waiters, taxi drivers, sweepers, and road workers.
………….
………….
As General Ayub Khan expressed it: ” The biggest weapon of a politician is his tongue, which we have controlled, I think things are going to be quiet for a while.”
……………
…………..
********************************************
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70B1FFA3C59127A93CBA8178BD95F4C8585F9
August 15th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Jalal,
First, ‘it is not possible to do an evaluation of Mujib, nor his contributions, nor the circumstances of his downfall by’ overlooking his role in the post-independence period. It is much easier to be popular as an opposition leader than as a ruling one. If I had overlooked his pre-independence role, could I acknowledge his great contributions as well?
Second, I did not make any attempt to project Zia as ‘superior’ or inferior to Mujib. I just brought up his name as no assessment of Mujib is complete, I believe, without considering his legacy, of which Zia is an integral part as one of the two most defining individuals of the first decade of independent Bangladesh.
Third, how can you take the BBC polls, as credible, which placed Golam Azam in the top 30 or so???
August 16th, 2007 at 12:17 am
I would like to raise an issue which may be quite controversial.
The history of how we became a nation really started with the partition of India. It was Mohammed Ali Jinnah who actually led the campaign for an independent homeland for the muslims of British India which gave the Muslim Bengalis their own homeland.
Should we not then recognize Mr. Jinnah as one of the founding fathers of our nation?
August 16th, 2007 at 12:18 am
It was a good read. Irrespective of his post independence contribution both plus and minus, he will always be remembered as one who could bring all under one umbrella in pre-independence era and gave us courage to stand against the oppressing regime of erstwhile west Pakistan. In no way, our history of independence can ever be complete without giving him due honour - that he has earned.
I am happy that CTG came out with a bold step to recognize him as a great leader of the nation. It is even better for the future that such proclamation came from a non-political government, and specifically from non-AL platform, as this will ensure that there is no debate of politicizing such recognition.
I guess this is one of the most significant step taken by CTG to ensure that nation is not divisive any more on matters of such importance. Congratulation.
Thanks
August 16th, 2007 at 3:09 am
boishakhi at #9, you think Jinnah should be recognized as a founding father of BANGLAdesh? Jinnah who declared that Urdu alone should be the national language of Pakistan; Jinnah who declared that Bangla was a language of the Hindus?
I guess the most you could say is that he was a deadbeat “dad” or a “dad” who beat and abused his “children”, and whose other pure (Pak) children raped his Bengali “daughters”.
Your raising of the issue is not “controversial” - that would be giving it too much credit. It is at best misinformed.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:21 am
#9,
Jinnah missed his opportunity with his “Urdu and only Urdu” moment. Just IMHO. Valid point, glad you raised it.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:23 am
I like to tickle people and their neurosis, this is why I take this pen name Khilji. If it was not for him and the later turkic rulers who patronised the uncouth Bangla, the language of the untouchable masses, then I am not sure if there would be great state called Bengal and Subah Bangala. So yes I am the 800 year old ghost come back to haunt you.
History did not start in 1971 or in 1947, it is like the flow of a river. Sometimes intellectuals tend to forget.
There are always two sides to every story, lets not be sorry about the past mistakes such as the partition or 1975, whatever Allah does is for the best, lets move on and march towards the future. Lets gather our horses, feel the talwar and the bow at our side and charge head first to the future.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:22 am
M.A. Jinnah can’t be regarded as a founding father of our country because he would never have endorsed such a country existing, especially from the shards of his beloved Pakistan.
As an analogy, according Jinnah “Founder” status would be akin to the Iran declaring President Eisenhower the father of their Islamic revolution, since it was only through his intervention that the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown and the Shah came to power, thus paving the way for the eventual accession of the 1979 Revolution.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:01 am
I credit Moulana Moududi far more than Nehru, Gandhi and Jinnah because the was more visionary than the latter three. Moududi could envisage how the people of the subcontinent would take the toll of division in the name of two-nation
theory, the wammy bait of shrewd British, was very cunnigly gulped by the mega daddies like Ghandi, Nehru and Jinnah.
For thier mistake the whole have been witnessing unfathomable suffering since 1947.
Likewise, I believe, Golam Azam was more farsighted leader than Sheik Mujib. Sheik Mujib for sure, didn’t want Independence at the time when it did. He wanted the power and autonomy so that the people can get their demcratic rights and economic justice eliminating the alleged disparity. But Golam was visionary, and cautioned the then East Pakistani electorate that the way the country had been heading towards under leadership of Sheik Mujib was sure to secede
oneday. Sheik Mujib had to refute that charge by swearing by the name of Almeighty Allah in his every 1970’s election campaign speeches. If Sheik Mujib had desired Independence of Bangladesh he had lied to the nation and cheated his Lord. But I’m sure, he never did this, he bragged that though after independence. Sheik lacked vision and san that vision one can’t be a graet stateman. And that’s why he failed to surmise his saddened
August 16th, 2007 at 6:26 am
#13,
I couldn’t agree with you more that history doesn’t start in 1947. Does it start with Khilji only 800 years ago then?:)
August 16th, 2007 at 7:43 am
Hmmm. Muslim Bengali Nation, fathered by Jinnah? This particular nation must be terribly thinned down, leaving only some boishakhis to carry his torch.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Good point AsifY, but Khilji did start Muslim rule in Bengal region that led to the eventual Islamization of Bengal, the legacy of which is Bangladesh. Bengals Islamization is a quirk of history and a puzzle, so much so that it was a subject of research:
http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft067n99v9&brand=eschol
Now going back further, Abbasid Caliphates use of steppe nomadic turkic slave warriors began the spread of Islam in Turkic Central Asia and much closer to home, just north of Afghanistan and Kashmir, in todays Xinjiang, in the city of Kashgar, the first ever Turkic prince, Satuk Bugra Khan accepted Islam and took the name Sultan Abdel Karim in the year 934. This forever changed Turkic Central Asia, as all nomadic and non-nomadic turks became Muslims in course of time. The result of Turkish expansionism under the banner of Islam was a 800 year long process and it controlled a good part of the Islamic world since then, Bengal was simply its eastern and southern most frontier in this continent wide movement. Mongols put a temporary damper to the process, but eventually they joined the Turks, as much of Central Asian population became a Turko Mongol mix since pax Mongolica, so it was really a Turko Mongol Islamic expansion since then.
Many of our words are loan words, such as Dostarkhan, Tamasha, Gosht and Dost to mention a few and some of these words are not found in Persian. As I was traveling in Central Asia, I found many such words, of non-arabic origin that we use. But then much of Central Asian culture is much influenced by old pesian empires such as the Achemenids, Nowruj festival there is as important as Eid, many persian words are in common use, specially in names, such as Guljan.
Hope all this is not off topic. The father of nation of Bangladesh which made this region majority Muslim are the countless preachers that came to this region from different parts of the Muslim world back then, a good part from Turkic central asia, such as Shah Jalal, Khan Jahan Ali (Ulugh Khan) et al. There are many such dervish and pirs whose majars dot our country side and whose blood are carried by almost 80-90% of our educated middle class. How do I know this, because I have studied faces and features of our people since birth and only in Central Asia, I found the source of such features, of course it is much mixed with local indigenous population, so it is not the same, but it still can be traced. Not that this has any practical bearing on anything, it was just my personal curiosity as an amateur anthropologist and ethnologist. Why did the indigenous majority not able to shape the destiny and minimize the influence of Islam, because they were a deprived lot as recent converts from Buddhism to Hinduism under Sena Kingdom, the Brahmanic civilizations reach was not very strong in the marshy interior of East Bengal. The Mughals sponsored the clear cutting of dense forests in East Bengal to promote wet rice cultivation and this was largely responsible for the creation of the village community of much of todays East Bengal. The details are in the above ebook that can be downloaded. I would encourage readers to study this, as I found it more informative than the history books I studied during high school years in Bangladesh. There is a common misconception in our country that the Muslim immigrants are Persians. While there were some farsi speaking Tajik, majority were Turkic Central Asians and some Afghans. This is why Indian muslims are Hanafi along with Afghanistan, Tajikistan and all of Turkic world.
The making of a country is a complex process, Sheikh Mujib played his role, because he was the right person at the right time to play this role. But I also believe that individuals create historical turning points, so it is possible that we would still be part of Pakistan if he was not on the scene, so in that sense, I can say that his role in creating this new nation state was not small, but I doubt he intended it to turn out this way when he started out as a leader. So I would say he had lack of foresight and vision, which he proved after 1971.
Whether it was better to be with Pakistan or not, I am not sure, the Punjabi’s with their Jat Aryan pride are definitely a nasty lot and very hard to deal with and its immaterial and pointless to discuss this as it has already happened. There definitely was no need for what they did it in 1971, and this shame will remain attached with Pakistan as Holocaust will remain a cause of shame for Germans.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:19 am
The mindless eulogizing of Mujib by Awami partisans is as off-putting as the malicious denigration of his memory by BNP-Jamaati fanatics. Mujib delivered an independent nation, plain and simple. No amount of parrotting the “shadhinota’r ghoshok Shohid Zia” line can detract from that achievement. Although some people will keep trying, most sensible people know that there wouldn’t be a Bangladesh in December 1971 without Mujib.
However, the qualities that make a fiery revolutionary leader are not necessarily the same qualities that make a good day-to-day manager. In this Mujib was not alone. Quite a few leaders of the decolonization era of the 1960s and 1970s failed similarly, in Asia and in Africa. Delivering independence to their nations and earning the “Father of the Nation” tag, they tended to take the title quite literally. They viewed their newly-independent countries as personal fiefdoms or family possessions (as Sheikh Hasina and all her spawn seem to view Bangladesh to this day). This came out in the leader’s arrogance and nepotism, which soon gave way to outright megalomania, corruption and repression. Mismanagement was rife - yet in Awami eulogies of Mujib, you will find no end of excuses for all the ills of the nation pre-1975. There is little mention of the 1974 famine that may have killed as many as a million people. No mention of Rafiq Azad’s furious cry - Bhaat de haramjada, noile maanchitro khabo. More on that famine here: http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/F_0015.htm
Any fair assessment of Mujib must take into account all the mis-steps and lost lives. The buck must stop somewhere. Then again, in some aspects of his economic management, he was merely following the fashion of the 1970s - mass nationalization, espousing socialism, etc etc. I suspect if he had led the charge to an independent Bangladesh today, his post-victory economic policies at least would have been vastly different.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:23 am
bitterboy, Gandhi, Badshah Khan, Abul Kalam Azad wanted to keep India undivided and did not believe in the two nation theory, but the majority in Congress led by Neheru and Sardar Ballavbhai Patel and the Muslim league led by Jinnah went for Partition. It was ironic that Gandhi worked so hard for independence and when he finally reached the goal, the partition became inevitable and it broke his heart. Gandhi grew up in South Africa and London and he knew the nature of European’s intimately. I can much sympathize with this man, I think he was truly a visionary leader, not just because of his non-violence theory, but because he understood the European mind well and he understood the forces of history and knew what would be good for the future of Indians. Unfortunately he did not understand his own native Indians mind well enough and because of this he could not prevent the partition.
Now to compare the likes of Moududi and Golam Azam, both of whom are from the same flock, to someone like Gandhi, is really unfair.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:39 am
A must read by all… this passionate piece. One of the best written pieces I have seen on him in a long time.
http://dhakashohor.blogspot.com/2007/08/ekti-mujiburer-thekey.html
August 16th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
#17 wrote “Golam Azam was more farsighted leader than Sheik Mujib..”
!@#$%^& ???
I nearly threw up ….
Reminded me once again why I stopped checking this blog. I should have stuck with my
August 16th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
#13/14
Your missing the point. I am talking about the partition of British India and not post partition history.
Mr. Jinnah did lead the movement for self rule of the Muslims of British India.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
It is not about the time you start counting back your nationalised history, more about what you look for and who you beleive yourself to be. …..1757, 1857, 1905, 1911, 1940, 1947, 1948, 1952, 1970, 1971, -your birth year- 1991, 2007.
Double independance events are hard to analyse simultaneously, especially with the taboos and political monoculture of today.
Sheikh Mujib’s families near annihilation, Indian and Pakistani Independance happening on similar dates really blows my mind. To millions, it is not a double independance, but a TRIPLE one. The only solution i see for this is for us to adopt the Hijri Calender.
The Muslim league in early independant east bengal was not a monolithic entity. In those days we didnt read ’secularist’ into ‘left’. There were those who leant to the left(Suhrawardhi and Abul Hashem) and those who leant to the right (Maulana Akram and the Nawabs), there were those from Assam who were coming from a different setup and those arriving from Calcutta. The Dhaka Group, to my knowledge were parochial as pie and unaccomodating.
Jinnah, like any All-India Standard leader had virtues, he was professional and effective. I mourn the split between the Muslim Leagures and the cream of the religous scholars. The qualitative growth of Islamic scholarship and institution was dealt a great blow and deep education experiments were abandoned in a totally different country.
Hailing from the other armpit of South Asia it would be wrong to blame QAMAJ:-) for not being a great proponent of Bangali Nationalism. However died a hero to most of our grandmothers and fathers. He came to desh to give the bengal regiment the flag, in a small plane that had to stop 4 times in between. The objective of the trip was not language hegemony, but the university visit/ballsup meant that it became like that. Some are of the opinion that the east bengal muslim league (that would be the entrenched dhaka group) misfed him information.
Anyway the language issue was seized and exploited to great symbolic political effect escalating with time, oppression, assistance and finally downright murderousness.
If Sheik Mujib didnt exist, or became an accountant(are these questions even useful?) im sure that there would have been someone else. Bhashani’s NAP would have shown its moves.
Despite the honour, new scoping, BCS jobs and power that comes from having our own country and a leadership swapping system, there are somethings which we have lost and need to recover somehow. Bangladesh (younger generations between 0 and say 45) lacks a certain cosmopolitan quality, regional competetiveness (esp HE institutions) and memory of what it means to be ‘Indian’.
Before Independance QAMAJ was warm to the idea of an united bengal, it was the wily Gandhi that scuppered it(he did not want to lose another chunk of india).
Our guys showed initiative here. Muslims of Bengal offered to sacrifice their human majority 55:45 for parity in parliament and Bengal unity. At that time Dhaka was extremely underdeveloped and Calcutta was an integral part of economic life. Bengal Congress had just about accepted the idea before Gandhi jumped on a train from Dehli to Kolkata to convince them otherwise. They were convinced, except the Bose group, and we know what Gandhi did to Bose.
I would like to find out more positive things about Sheik Mujibs early political career. At present I dont get the impression that he was in fact a major figure in the beginning. To me the Big Three. Fazlul Haq and Suhrawardi and Bhashani fill out the picture more meaningfully, however less practically evident.
There are incidents that dont taly with the greatest Bengali ever tag, that some of us decide that we have the power to bestow through bbc polling. Conduct in halls, refusal to commission Bengali typewriters, smashing a chair over somebodies head(senior politician who later died), need clearing up.
Im not even delving into the 72-5 years and brutal death matters here.
Anyway, Allah accept his good deeds and keep his followers balanced in their flatterology!
August 16th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
#25,
Just like we don’t evaluate Mujib without taking into account his post-’71 deeds, we cannot evaluate Jinnah without taking into account post-partition actions. Even more so if you have the welfare of Bangalis in mind.
Yes, Jinnah gave Muslims self-rule, but how far did that benefit Bangali Muslims, or their Hindu brothers to whom Jinnah promised equal rights?
Let’s quote the man in question himself:
“dukkher bishoy aaj dkkher shaathey boltey hoy, 23 bochorer korun itihash, Banglar ottacharer, Banglar manusher rokter itihash…
1952 shaaley rokto diyechi.
1954 shaaley nirbachoney joy laabh koreo amra godite boshtey paari nai
1958 shaaley Ayub Khan martial law jaari korey 10 bochor amader golaam korey rekhechey”
Straight from the horse’s mouth. The horse being someone who had received an overwhelming mandate to speak on behalf of his people. That too is Jinnah’s legacy, the alienation of the majority population of Pakistan. Do you know of ANY other country whose MAJORITY seceded? Jinnah founded such a country.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
#20,
Khilji, thank you for the mini-history lesson. I was aware of the turkish military class, although “Pax” Mongolica sounds like an oxymoron to my ears.
Look our Islamization has lots of theories, but political power isn’t one of them. I’ll check out the link you sent me and I urge you to check out other sources on it as well. My favourite being richard eaton’s “rise of islam and the bengal frontier”.
My question, to be more specific, was why isn’t the pre-Khilhi history of Bangladesh, with non-Muslim kings not part of our history too? Just because Egyptians are currently Muslim doesn’t mean they’ve destroyed the pyramids or forsaken them as part of their history. Why then are we counting our history from 800 years, and not 2000 years ago?
August 16th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Thank you Asif bhai. Glad you liked the piece.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
#17 -
Bitter Boy:
Great At least you show your true color. Now
My question to admin only
” Is this thread created to insult father of the Nation like that. ” I am surprised how
Moududi is taking highest post and I am not surprised in near future if we will be busy to establish War criminal Monsters Nizami or Golam Azom because Guy like Moudidi is compared today with Pandit Neheru, Mahatma and Banga Bandhu
May be this is the Neutral policy of yours.
I am not belongs to intellectual elite class of Dhaka and I like to have so called middle class mentality. But My subconscious&
unconscious mind never accept such type of comparison. Now I am feeling Bongo Bondhu
has done biggest mistake of his life to forgive these war criminals.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Its interesting how a thread about Sheikh Mujib has turned into a thread about Jinnah and Golam Azam.
Fugstar’s dismissal of Sheikh Mujib while using the formulation QAMAJ for Jinnah (that is, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah) is most enlightening. I didn’t know Bangladeshis referred to Jinnah using the urdu phrase Quaid-e-Azam - I guess I learn something everyday.
These deniers and revisionists have tried their best to turn back the clock on the liberation of Bangladesh. They will fail. Like Zafa above, I have this sudden urge to hurl. Sheikh Mujib’s role in bringing about the liberation of Bangladesh is undisputed and well documented, in spite of Fugstar and others attempts to rewrite history to minimize his impact.
The there is this from Fugstar:
Who are these “millions” who celebrate Sheikh Mujib’s murder as independence? What a sick bunch of people.
AsifY’s passionate post about how we trash the legacy of the father of the nation is worth reading. I especially like this part:
August 16th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
While I’m all for counter-arguments, I don’t really think one’s bodily functions count as such (comments 31 and 24). If you have rational arguments, please share them with us, but please be aware that “this made me cry” and “that made my hair turn green” does not qualify as such.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Tacit, I believe I said I wanted to hurl, not cry
My argument on #31 and earlier had a bit more substance than my bodily functions. I am sorry the comment seems frivolous to you but I thought the idea of someone claiming that millions of people celebrate the murder of Mujib as independence day was a bit of a stomach turner. I am not sure there is a “counter-argument” to that claim other than what I posted above.
I’d say the onus is on the one trying to make the argument that Jinnah should be considered a founding father of Bangladesh, given the past 60 years of history and Jinnah’s well-known views on the Bengali language and the Bengali culture. It is curious that these arguments always pop up simultaneously with trying to deny Mujib’s rather immense contribution to the independence of Bangladesh. Every time Mujib’s name is mentioned on this blog or the issue of the genocide of 1971 is raised, the usual suspects are there to spin history. It also comes from the same commenter who thinks that we should adopt the Hijri calendar because of a rather bizarre rationale.
But don’t worry, I have one of those air sickness bags handy.
August 16th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
If Jinnah is easy to take down, Moududi is even easier and Golam Azam is no competition at all. Just that I’ve decided since last week not to respond to the author of those comments, so I’ll refrain. If anyone else wants to even give that ridiculous statement more credence, they’re more than welcome to respond.
fugstar, fugstar, fugstar,
This is getting tiresome and very easy. Mash has already caught you out on the triple independence. If I remember correctly, your verdict on Ghatak Dalal Nirmul Committee was “populism gone out of control”. Suddenly you’re a huge fan of populism when it comes to Mujib’s barbaric murder? Tsk tsk. I expected better my friend.
“There were those who leant to the left(Suhrawardhi and Abul Hashem) and those who leant to the right (Maulana Akram and the Nawabs), there were those from Assam who were coming from a different setup and those arriving from Calcutta. The Dhaka Group, to my knowledge were parochial as pie and unaccomodating.”
Do I really need to point out to someone - who argues regularly that all our knowledge is limited by Western hegemony - that YOUR very definition of them as “parochial” and “unaccomodating” shows how your knowledge is limited by the dominant narrative from Islamabad?
Unaccomodating? To what? To whom? To our people, or some Urdu-speaking elite 1000 miles away?
Parochial? That is Jinnah’s legacy - that is the curse he bestowed on East Bengal when he came here, calling our LEGITIMATE demands “provincialism”. Provincialism? 54% of your population is the country, not a province! Yet, Punjab’s domination was “Pakistan” and Bengal’s demands were “provincialism”.
Parochialism is in the eyes of the beholder. And whatever people here say about Mujib’s performance post-’71, he did not disenfranchise 54% of his people. Jinnah did. And yet we have Mujib’s self-hating people here talking trash about him, and being understanding about Jinnah’s shortcomings.
What is wrong with us? Is the truth really that hard to see?
Lastly, fugstar, please, please stop being an apologist for Jinnah. It makes NO sense whatsoever. At once Jinnah is “professional and effective” and at the same time “the east bengal muslim league (that would be the entrenched dhaka group) misfed him information”. The second point hardly points to a professional, and even less to a leader.
And oh, his intention was good, so we should forget about his Urdu and only Urdu mistake? Hey, I hear Bush wants good things for Iraqis. I also heard something about Robert Clive wanting to civilise Indians. Too bad things don’t always work out the way you planned.
“Before Independance QAMAJ was warm to the idea of an united bengal, it was the wily Gandhi that scuppered it” - Damn that Gandhi! The man who opposed partition gave away Bengal!! And the man who called Bengalis “Hinduised” and “Provincial”… he wanted a United Bengal. Damn brother, black is white and white is black.
August 16th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Tanoy,
If you think his legacy is so weak that a blog comment by one bitter boy will insult him, then you are insulting Bongobondhu’s legacy. You are using the same logic for censorship that the Taslima haters in Hyderabad are using to shut her up. Where is the difference? However, do know that the people who are doing this are only hurting their own credibility by doing it. One fugstar or a bitterboy’s comment about Aug 15th celebration only makes them look small and not Bangabandhu. You can tell how seriously people will take their comment in the future.
Tacit,
Certain comments are too ludicrous to be taken seriously and hence Mash’s description of physical discomfort.
If someone says Golam Azam was a greater leader than Bongobondhu for Bangladeshis, then you can be certain that the writer is not looking for an honest debate but some desperate attention. He is trying to push some button — sort of taslima syndrome, if i may. Also, if you are not aware of Golam Azam’s contribution to Bangladesh, then I suggest the following read up.
http://www.nybangla.com/Muktijoddho/G_Azam/Golam-Azam_1971.pdf
Cheers,
August 17th, 2007 at 1:51 am
#20 AsifY, you are most welcome, I have noticed that I can easily make people fall asleep when I start talking about history.
About Pax Mongolica, you can find more here:
http://www.silk-road.com/artl/paxmongolica.shtml
I didn’t quite understand your statement:
“political power isn’t one of them”
Please clarify.
You may not need to check out the link, because it is your favorite Richard Eaton’s work, sorry I have not mentioned his name.
I never said that pre-Khilji history of Bangladesh, with non-Muslim kings are not part of our history - they are very much part of our history. I did not bring them up here, because I think they are not relevant for the topic of discussion here.
When we talk about why we have a country called Bangladesh and there is talk about a father of this nation state, then obviously we have to go back to Partition and why we seperated from India, the chief reason being the Islamization of Bengal and Muslims numerical majority in Eastern Bengal. There were Islamic preachers arriving in Bengal even earlier than Khilji era, but the watershed moment is Khilji’s arrival on the scene. This is why I talked about Islamization of Bengal which really started in earnest after Khilji’s arrival.
You are asserting that I am attempting to destroy pre-Islamic history of Bangladesh and not recognizing history of Bangladesh before 800 years, that would be a very unfair claim as I have never made such attempts to my knowledge. I am a sucker for historical continuity and its positive effects on society, if anything I am kind of sorry about Islams arrival in the sub-continent and the subsequent disruptions, because it really screwed up the earlier continuity. But Central Asian Muslims were not the first invaders in India, Greeks, Shaka, Huns and Kushanas arrived from Central Asia not so long ago. The Vedic Aryans arrived (allegedly) a little earlier.
Not that it matters, but in hind sight, it seems that accepting Islam and going for partition as a result was a cause for great misfortune for the population of East Bengal. This is because we have a country called Bangladesh and to make it into a prosperous viable entity seems to be very difficult. Only the future will tell, how it will actually turn out.
But instead of lamenting on our misfortune, it would be wise for us to accept what we have and what we are and make the best of our current situation.
In Bangladesh, I believe we do have a policy of protecting and preserving our antiquities, a Taliban like situation of blowing up statue of Buddha is unthinkable in Bangladesh.
Before you make a claim that I am trying the strip Bengali’s of their pre-Islamic history, I would appreciate if you could tell us your reasons behind such an opinion.
#26 Fugstar, history is made by individuals, though time and place do matter, but without the right individuals who know how to take advantage of a situation, things do not happen. So it can be safely said that without Mujib there would be no Bangladesh, Bhashani or anyone else might not have caused the split of the country - does that mean Mujib has done great, I will not go into it. I do not have much respect for this individual or his family. I think our misfortune happened in 1947 and whatever happened after that were of not much consequence. Either way, whether we were part of Pakistan or not we would be doomed like we are today.
I could give you countless examples, but just look around in your personal life among family, friends and acquaintances, you will see that changes happen because of individuals.
Bengal remaining as one entity with all of North East, was not a bad option as this would give us a decent size country to work with, but accepting the small area for East Pakistan and agreeing to join West Pakistan to form a country was a blunder for Muslims of Bengal, a classic case of lack of vision and foresight of leaders that dooms the lot of the masses.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:58 am
Khilji,
Just shows I should check out the links before I comment!:) In my defense, I did try, but was on a really slow connection. Will post more about Eaton tomorrow. You may want to check out addafication for blog posts on him, and I’ve been meaning to do one on him for the longest time.
I never accused you of attempting to erase/re-write our history. I was genuinely asking that question to know your views. I’m glad to know them now.
The problem with historical continuity is this: we can find all sorts of events that lead from one to another. If we now ask the US to nominate Henry VIII as the father of their nation, we’ll get laughed at. Yet it was his split from the Vatican that resulted in the Church of England, that resulted in Puritan Emigration to the American colonies, and thus to the founding of America. That was all I was all I had meant to say originally, and at the same time note that American history did not begin with the immigration of Europeans.
August 17th, 2007 at 3:04 am
I feel like you misunderstood this line: “Why then are we counting our history from 800 years, and not 2000 years ago?”
I used “we” deliberately. Two, three years ago I came across an old Dhaka University textbook that divided our history into Hindu and Muslim periods, which in my view is rather simple-minded. Once again, I did not accuse you personally of anything.
August 17th, 2007 at 3:43 am
Thanks Aisf, for practicing patience and getting maturity in thinking. That’s why it’s said experience makes a man perfect. Hope Tonoy will understand the power of patience and stop childish soliciting of administrator for using censorship razor. The mentality of gaging people’s voice doesn’t behold a civililty, democracy and freedom speech. What I do try, is to tell the truth. People learn by mistake, and can unlearn mistakenly learned bad stuffs if they can appreciate the importance of self-criticism. Otherwise, stay blind stupid the life all through.
I told so many times I was a teen-age organizer of liberation war. I had such mentality at that time that if Golam Azam had been in my catch in 1971 I would have killed him rightaway even by throttling if I hadn’t any weapon with me to kill him. Thanks God. it didn’t happen.
Now, I believe all wars specially the liberation is the most hated war. In the name of liberation and independence,in most cases people just mercileesly kill each other. By independence people cheat themselves and curtail the real independence, the freedom of mobility, the freedom of work and settlement anywhere on the planet they like to.
I didn’t say Golam was a popular leader like Sheik Mujib. But it can’t be denied what Golam and other anti-Awami group predicting about the outcome of Sheik’s 6-point based poliitics had come to true. And, on the otherhand, what happened in 1971 and there after sheik utterely failed to envisage. He said many times, as his blindrs claims, Bangalee can’t or won’t kill him but he was killed by. He dreamed of Bangldesh, a Switzerland of the East, but in fact made up mess of the nation.
As a nation we are very emotional, effiminate [huzzogi]. We shy away the truth. But we can’t twist nature’s arm when it takes its course on trengressors.
All’s well that ends well. His [Sheik’s} end doesn’t testify he was a as great as we try to think of him and sell out. he was the most popular leader before 1971 but not after due to lack of vision and statemanship.
Thanks.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:55 am
Khilji, take me to Nadia without a visa please.
-Bakhtiarudin Khilji taking on Bengal with a dozen or so horsemen dressed as traders.
-Shah Jalal and the 360 awliya.
Great men. not rabble rousers.
If we were to turn our history (non racialy parochially restrospective) into one of those silly card games, we would be holding out for those cards. What if we were playing Risk?
The territorial thing is what happens when one is in a weaker bargaining position, and then rouses oneself to further weaken that position. Yes we are stuck with ‘the swampy bit’, with rivers that slash our settlement culture like knives, with precious little basic commodities like stone, a public engineering culture that retires its best experienced personell at 57 and a ctg thats thinking of lowering it to 55 to solve our unemployment problem.
Jinnah did negotiate the hill tracts instead of some well equipped fort town in the west, but i guess that team didnt plan for succession of the east.
I think there are a few simultaneous differential equations that need to be solved for now.
Do you not ‘get’ your grandfather’s wisdom by virtue of the fact that he knew first hand what treatment to expect from a hegemonic Indian castocracy? They could not have foreseen how stupid and illdisciplined their children would be in their wasting of such opportunity.
When we conclude that 1947 was misfortunate from the point of view of the hear and now, and forever more. Where then from then?
August 17th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
“Do you not ‘get’ your grandfather’s wisdom by virtue of the fact that he knew first hand what treatment to expect from a hegemonic Indian castocracy? They could not have foreseen how stupid and illdisciplined their children would be in their wasting of such opportunity.”
I’m glad someone brought my grandfather up. The man fled Calcutta in ‘47 and to this day calls Jinnah QA. Unfortunately for fugstar’s argument, this man also loves Mujib with a vengeance. History came to an end for him on August 15th.
It seems that people simply cannot break themselves free of 1947. If anyone else has read Sajjad Husain’s “the wastes of time”, one can note a similar argument. Talking against Jinnah is speaking for “Brahman supremacy”.
People like Sajjad Husain and fugstar above refuse to understand that it was Jinnah’s words and precedence, and his beloved Westies who destroyed Pakistan, not our fathers and grandfathers as fugstar implies above.
Pakistani intellectuals (?) might lay the blame on Mujib (and our people might lap it up as being Islamic/genuine), but deep inside everyone knows who set in motion the large systemic forces that eventually led to the break up of erstwhile united Pakistan. And yes, I am thinking west of delhi.
last note: just because I criticise Jinnah doesn’t mean I opposed Partition. It means I think that he failed to deliver for the Bangalis of the East when we were counting on him.
August 17th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
If one can dismiss the contribution Jinnah made to Bangladesh’s history by citing his insistance on making Urdu (one of the main reason cited) the official language of all of Pakistan then one can also cite shortcomings of our post liberation leaders like Ershad, Khaleda, Hasina and refuse to recognize them as one time leaders (Bangabandhu and Zia’s name left out intentionally to avoid more controversy). Mr. Ershad is a convicted felon who served jail term, but it does not change the fact that at one time he was our leader. Khaleda zia and BNP recently tried to hijack our democracy by holding a sham election and cheat the whole nation – so does it mean that she is now disqualified from being recognized as a past leader!!
Prior to partition Kolkata in West Bengal was the economic and cultural centre of all Bengal an it is an undisputed fact that Hindus dominated the affairs of undivided Bengal in every respect. Therefore after the partition many members of East Pakistan’s affluent civil society like doctors, teachers, traders who were predominantly Hindu left for West Bengal, this resulted in East Bengal becoming a hopeless bit of territory so much so that even after independence from Pakistan, Bangladesh was labelled a “basket case” by Henry Kissinger (which I don’t appreciate but that’s how the world saw us).
In 1947 majority of the non-bengali Muslims of India opted to migrate to West Pakistan and there is a reason for that - which is a no brainer, bengalis were preceived to be lesser muslims and backward by non-bengali Muslims of British India. East Bengali population lacked in education and economic activity and most of the population were subsistance farmers, which remains true to this day. Muslim leaders who led the movement for Muslim self governace came predominantly from present day Pakistan or India like Jinnah, Maulana Muhammad Ali, Allama Iqbal, Titumir etc. Even now we struggle to find a credible leader who can lead the nation and free us from the tyranny of Hasina and Khaleda; leaders are not easy to come by in Bangladesh. Even Dr. Yunus washed his hands off us Bangladeshis.
There is a difference between patriotic analysis of history and analysis which is based on facts. There is no doubt that Bangladeshis were exploited by Pakistani rulers after partition, mainly because West Pakistanis regarded themselves as the “natural” leader of the union as most of the affluent mulsim population of British India migrated to West Pakistan and paid a relatively high price compared to the population of East Bengal.
Any federation of nations must adopt certain practices to govern and to carry our state activities. Language is one of the most important factors when it comes to discharging matter of the state. Take today’s India for example, the Indian state uses English as it’s subsidiary official language and it is used in education, government, media - the three imporant aspects of any country’s culture. English is the defacto offical language of modern India and they don’t really make a fuss about it. It actually contributes to their economic development and the quality of their educational institutions.
In British India Urdu was the defacto language of intellectual Muslims and the community leaders and Bengali was the language of Bengal with its centre in Kolkata, West Bengal; with a predominantly Hindu population. Technically speaking Bengali is based on the Eastern Nagari Script and is derived from the Brahmic family of scripts. Hindu Ramayana and Mahabaratha were written using versions of the Eastern Nagari script, therefore Jinnah’s statement that Bengali is the language of Hindus, while may hurt our Bengali sentiments is not entirely baseless. Therefore I don’t find it surprising at all that Pakistan which was founded on the basis of religion would insist that Urdu written in the arabic dialect and the language of Muslim Aristrocacies of British India, should become the official language of all of Pakistan.
I am no way trying to advocate that independece from Pakistan was wrong, to the contrary I think we have benefitted immensely from independence and it has allowed us the opportunity to pursue economic and development activities which were not a priority for the then government based in West Pakistan. But this does not mean that we should be indifferent to real history and triviliase things by trying to go back 800 years. I was not discussing 800 old history but the movement led by Jinnah for an independent homeland for the Muslims of India which gave us the borders of Bangladesh as we know it TODAY.
In the end I would just like to state that I am proud to be a Bangladeshi and think our separation from Pakistan was inevitable and unavoidable and I am glad that we have our own country.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:25 am
37 & 38 AsifY: Thanks for the clarifications, perhaps I misunderstood your questions.
The concept of historical continuity is not about designating father of nations, it is more about health and resiliency of a society. A good example is Japan that was never successfully invaded in last 1400 years. It adapted very quickly to adopt modern technology in a matter of a few decades in the late 1800’s. Even after a devastating defeat in WWII, it is still competing well and winning in many areas against the Western world. In case of the sub-continent, the colonization and the partition broke the historical continuity and created all sorts of problems that will affect its population for the foreseeable future.
39 bitterboy: I congratulate you on your metamorphosis and changes of opinions and outlook.
40 fugstar: You have a good understanding of the pain of our masses, but Jinnah was not our prophet and Indian castocracy is something we have lived with for many thousands of years. 1947 have created a Hindu superpower, a monster at our door, instead of having an opportunity to check the growth of this monster in its home territory, we are now forced to become its victim outside its border. But victim we will become not, because India is not the only monster in town. Eventually we will learn how to deal with this monster and create a place for our people in the global stage, but it will not be easy, certainly not with the clueless lot we have as our leaders.
42 boishakhi: I agree with most of your analysis and have similar opinions about the effects of the partition. Having Urdu as the national language was not really that big of a deal, but a more logical demand would have been to add Arabic script for Bengali in addition to Nagari, while keeping our language intact. Most Muslim countries traditionally have or had Arabic alphabet, ours was an anomaly, a testament to the liberal outlook of early Turkic Sultans even though their own Turkic languages up until recently were using Arabic letters. Punjabi and Sindhi use both Indian and Arabic alphabets, while Pashto uses only Arabic letters. Also, Bengali is not the only language that is shared by Hindu’s and Muslims, Punjabi is the other major Indian language, shared by Muslims, Hindu and Sikh.
I agree that Jinnah could be called grand-father
if not father of Bangladesh, because without him there would be no Pakistan.
Your pride and happiness about having your own country is nice, but then we could not blame Sylheti’s and Chittagonian’s to demand to have their own country and to be happy about it.
Hope you do not misunderstand the above comment, Pakistan was an unnatural union between the East and West wing and it was proven in a few decades, so I am not for or against creation of Bangladesh, as I believe its fate was sealed not in 1971, but in 1947. But having your own of everything does not solve worlds problems.
My chief objection is about 1947 and the people that caused the partition, the British and the Indian leaders Hindu and Muslim that played a role to bring it about. Frankly I am disgusted about this father nation business, I would rather call Gandhi, Neheru and Jinnah the fathers of grand misery, who dismembered the sub-continent, all of them could be called fine, noble, brilliant idiots (yes I am really angry with all of them).
For more about Jinnah, please try the following links:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/a/ahmed-jinnah.html
(Jinnah as a person)
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2218/stories/20050909001107800.htm
(Jinnah’s role in Partition)
http://ayesha.wordpress.com/2006/09/12/on-jinnah-and-partition/
(analysis of above article)
http://www.sawnet.org/news/jalal.html
(This is the closest to my own personal opinion)
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2005/01-15July05-Print-Edition/011507200550.htm
(comparison of Advani and Jinnah)
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=68323
(Pakistani writer blaming congress for the Partition)
http://www.echarcha.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-21265.html
(last but not the least, Britain used Jinnah to cause the Partition for geopolitics - now this is something that needs a lot of research)
August 18th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
#42 Boishakhi:
“In 1947 majority of the non-bengali Muslims of India opted to migrate to West Pakistan and there is a reason for that - which is a no brainer”
Not sure this is accurate (unless you are including those Muslims who found themselves in West Pakistan and chose not to leave for India in what you mean by “Muslims of India”), at least as far as measuring the Muslims who found themselves in post 1947 India.
By all accounts, India today has more Muslims (even if you exclude for comparisons sake all the Indian Bengali and Indian Assamese Muslims) than Pakistan. Where did they come from? Presumably those who stayed on in India after 1947 and their descendents. And, it is a statistical fact that the vast majority of Muslims “left behind” in what became West Bengal and Assam in 1947 also chose to stay.
Not quite sure it was such a “no brainer” - even if it was just a choice for those right at the bottom between begging in one country and begging in another.
Also, “undisputed fact that Hindus dominated the affairs of undivided Bengal in every respect”. The governments of undivided Bengal in the late 30s and 40s were led by Muslims (eg Fazlul Huq, Suhrawardy). Is it correct to say that Hindus dominated “in every respect”?
August 19th, 2007 at 5:41 am
Khilji,
what makes you so confident that united India would have been much rosier for us, today’s Bangladeshis? If you look at the muslim indians’ disadvantaged status and their dismal records of success as a community and not to mention the major anti-muslim progroms every few years, I think we are far better off having our own homeland. If it means thanking Jinnah for muslims’ partition, so be it. Dominated by the caste system of India, distant location from Delhi and ,off course, being muslim majority regions could have easily resulted in our lives between ULFAs and Shorboharas and, oh yes, Communist party of Bengal. Just look at eastern provinces of Assam, tripura… are they better off than BD?
Selfpity of having being born causes major identity crisis. Its that identity crisis takes many different shapes and forms as it permeates throughout the society. Seen in many threads in this blog - on how we (NRBs) treat BD & some of comments on why we or anybody shouldn’t go back, our media always takes pride in focusing on the negative headlines of country, we have perfected the art of begging through NGOs and govt (see related thread on BD image ),yes…there are those writing reports and portraying how BD is about become next Taliban country. Suffering from chronic anti-islamic allergy, some of these guys are taking things to the next level and wonders why did we become muslims in the first place and ( damn that dude … shah jalal!!! ).
Basically, Sheik Mujib was a leader who was fortunate that time and opportunity demanded something that he could do best and he did so to the best of his abilities. We, as a nation, must be thankful for that without any ifs or buts. In post-liberation, we saw the side of Sheik Mujib on which he was not good - his administrative skills. He ended up putting the country on a track which COULD have easily turned him into - Robert Mugabe (another hero turned pariah and a demagogue).But, he died before that.
August 19th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
khilji bhai,
After having heard your thoughts on history, I would like to hear your thoughts on historiography: ie. how we learn/write history. I say this because it is my belief that Bangladeshis do not hold the narrative power in the subcontinent. The dominant narratives come from Delhi and Islamabad and we simply lap it up.
How else can I explain comment #42:
“In British India Urdu was the defacto language of intellectual Muslims and the community leaders and Bengali was the language of Bengal with its centre in Kolkata, West Bengal; with a predominantly Hindu population. Technically speaking Bengali is based on the Eastern Nagari Script and is derived from the Brahmic family of scripts. Hindu Ramayana and Mahabaratha were written using versions of the Eastern Nagari script, therefore Jinnah’s statement that Bengali is the language of Hindus, while may hurt our Bengali sentiments is not entirely baseless”
Two kinds of people like to believe in Urdu as a “Muslim”/”Islamic” language: Shiv Sena types and Jinnah-types. Why do Bangalis like Boishakhi lap it up?
August 19th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
All interesting viewpoints, though we have veered away from the question posed in the original thread regarding Mujib.
As a non-Bangladeshi Bengali, it is difficult for me (and probably for most of the 90 million plus non-Bangladeshi Bengalis) to wholeheartedly buy into the “shorbokaler sreshtho bangali” type view (even though it is obviously not a universally held view in BD either). Maybe we should take a leaf out of Zia’s and the BNP’s book, and call him “shorobkaler sreshtho Bangladeshi” and “Bangladeshi jatir pita”
Would that help bridge the faultline?
Though I have to say, irrespective of what happened in 1947 and whatever Mujib did before or after 1971, even as a non-Bangladeshi, I cannot listen to that speech of 7th March without shivers running down my spine and the occasional tear in my eye. On the basis of that alone, and his role (even if only as an icon) for millions during 1971, whether or not he is the greatest Bengali or Bangladeshi or whatever, whether or not Jinnah or whoever else is great (the answer to that independent of SMR), Mujib has to be a “Great Man” as asked by the thread.
August 19th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Mister Jinnah was father of ‘that’ nation (if we are to persist with this whole sireing culture), AK Fazlul Haq is a better spatial and logical fit for ‘dada/nana’.
There’s a greater volume of information that needs to be assessed when looking at the first years after 47 and the run up. Its apels and komolas.
This mid august generated a discursive space whereby trick of the solar year, even valentine’s day marketeers end up pondering over national truths. Just like the mourning of Plassey forced some chap to come up with the idea ‘we need not fret over plassey because they werent bangali’.
To raise Sheikh Mujib (see 7 or just believe whatever it is you fancy) one doesnt need to pull everybody else down. Unless thats really what you want to do.
Theres a chronology of movements in south asia, not all succesfull. Congress had decades of plans and acumen, the All India Muslim leagues programme was not really firm till late in the day and was divisive. Dinia ( http://www.shelleys.demon.co.uk/dinia.htm
August 19th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
This is what I mean by narratives of power.
Whenever we start discussing Mujib, we can’t stick to him, his good/bad points. Someone has to bring up Zia or Jinnah or Gandhi or Jesus….. This thread is the supreme example.
How many discussions of Jinnah degenerate into a discussion of Mujib? To my knowledge, none.
And then we have someone or the other come by and mistake a defense of Mujib as “pulling everyone else down” to glorify Mujib. There’s a difference. I do the former, AL-affiliated intellectuals like Syed Badrul Ahsan do the latter.
August 20th, 2007 at 8:49 am
45 Banglarman:
The results of Partition:
- in 1947 1/2 to One million dead and 14.5 million crossed borders
- Current percentage of Hindu’s in Pakistan 2% and Bangladesh 10.5% (came down from a high of 22% in 1950)
- Kashmir problem
- Neuclear and conventional arms race within the sub-continent taking precious resources away from economic development
- disruption of trade within the sub-continent and with outside neighboring regions such as ASEAN, Central Asia, Iran and China
- Farakka and its environmental effect
- River linking project in India and its future effect
- China’s Brahmaputra diversion project in Tibet and a lack of regional water management effort
- rising sea water may displace 20-30 million people in low lying areas of Bangladesh, they have no other place to move to, in a already overcrowded country
- Both Xinjiang and Tibet were occupied by China in 1949 and 1950, a united India could have prevented this
- the buffer state between undivided British India and Soviet Union was invaded in 1979 starting a cascade of events, funding of Mujahideen by CIA and private groups in Mid-east, rise of extremist Islam - an undivided India could see a different set of events unfold
- current semi failed states in Bangladesh and Pakistan and completely failed states in Afghanistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka, because of regional instability
- three wars fought between India and Pakistan and in 1971 upto 3 million people got killed in East wing of then Pakistan
- rise and strengthening of RSS/VHP in India and fundamentalist forces in Pakistan and to a lesser extent in Bangladesh
I maintain that the architects of partition and the people that agreed to it have unleashed forces the full effect of which we still have not comprehended fully.
The rationale was that Muslims would be oppressed under Hindu majority rule and that there would be a civil war. How many people would have died? We do not know, would it be more than the millions killed ever since, it is hard to tell. Today there are close to 450-550 million (Muslims in India are 150-250 million, accurate estimate is not available) Muslims in the subcontinent and 800 million Hindus, so from a 3 to 1 majority, it is not even a 2 to 1, perhaps more like 60/40 majority. Perhaps Jinnah did not know about Muslim fertility rates.
It is my humble opinion that whatever the cost was, it was better to keep India undivided, for India and for the sake of the planet at large.
But that said, the above is a pointless thought exercise, because the irrevocable and irreversible event has happened and to go back to the point of 1947 is not possible. It is best to contain and minimize the damages and try to deal with current reality and the future that is ahead of us.
The anti-muslim pogroms, the dismal state of Indian Muslims, caste Hindu domination, ULFA, sorboharas, Communist party of Bengal, bad situations in Assam and Tripura, all reasons against partitions you have stated are exactly some of the results of partition which I have not mentioned above, if you think about them a little deeper.
About selfpity and identity crisis, it is better to talk about them, instead of keeping them bottled up. Bangladesh will not become Afghanistan or even Pakistan, lets work towards that end to make sure that it does not go in that direction.
About “Damn that dude Shah Jalal” or Khan Jahan Ali :), I proposed all such Pirs and dervishes should be declared our real fathers of the nation. About why we become muslims in the first place, because we did not want to live as Shudras and other low caste Hindus, we wanted to become a part of the burgeoning and prospering Muslim world as it existed then. The comment I made that why we became muslims, was a lament that it seemed to have created so much complications for our current situation specially after we made a bad choice over partition, it is not my place to say why an entire community accepted a certain faith over hundreds of years and that too happened hundreds of years ago.
About Sheikh Mujib, I can say this much that he loved his people and they loved him back.
46 AsifY:
I am not an expert or professional historian, it is just that I get fascinated with past events and how they affect our present. Histriography is the study of historical interpretations and methods of writing history. It is the study of how history is actually written in different times. It is a thorny issue, because history to some extent shapes identity and identity itself is a big issue. They say that it is not what we are (genetically or spiritually or otherwise) that is important, but what we perceive ourselves to be.
Urdu (Orda/Ordu means army camp in Turkic) has a special status among Indian languages, as it was the language that evolved mainly in Delhi from Chaghtai Turkic, Persian, Arabic and local Delhi Hindustani dialects, during Muslim rule from early Sultanate period to later Mughal era.
Before the Mughal period, Bengal had independent Sultans and Bangla developed as a language in this period. Much of the Hindu blame of Bangla comes from the more recent high profile Bengali renaissance that made Kolkata’s literature and art flourishing and famous from late 1700s. This has reshaped entire Bengali culture and outlook since that time. Probably this is the source of confusion. Also, as the eastern most frontier region, the effect of Islamic cultural influence was not as strong as western regions, such as Sindh or Punjab, areas that saw a much earlier Islamic rule.
Here is an excerpt from Banglapedia:
http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/B_0137.htm
“Hindus and Muslims differ in their ways of using the language, and even West Bengalis and Bangladeshis differ somewhat in their practices. The Muslim rule in Bengal prior to the British rule led to an extensive development of Bangla and a plentiful influx of Arabic, Persian and Turkish vocabulary. Towards the end of the 18th century, even high-caste Hindus used to cultivate the court language, Persian, allowing their Bangla to be influenced by it. Even today over 2,000 Arabic and Persian words relating to war, taxation, legal and cultural matters, and crafts are in use in Bangla. Such words and their impact increased substantially in the language of the Muslim rural masses of East Bengal prior to the partition of India in 1947. A major difference exists in the language used by Hindus and Muslims in respect of words that refer to relatives or food. Hindus use Sanskrit and Bangla words, while Muslims use Urdu and Arabic words, eg kaka/chacha (uncle), ma/amma (mother), baba/abba (father), didi/bubu (sister), dada/bhaiya (brother), jal/pani (water) mangsa/gosht. At the same time, it should be noted that Muslims in the Jessore area also use the so-called ‘Hindu terms’ of didi and dada. Although the written language of West Bengal and Bangladesh is more or less similar, spoken Bangla differs widely. There are also many regional Bangla dialects. Some dialects, such as those of Sylhet, Noakhali and Chittagong, differ so greatly from each other and standard Bangla, that people of one region can hardly communicate with people of the other.”
47 Udayan:
Mujib is widely loved by Bangladeshi’s and many consider him as the father of nation. Zia was not in the picture when Mujib started his political career. So there is no faultline to bridge in this issue. Mujib fought and won Bangladesh, whereas Zia was the announcer of independence and later led a sector in Mukti-Bahini. In management of the country and some international affairs, Zia showed himself to be a more able statesman.
48 Fugstar:
I agree with you that Congress and Muslim League both worked hard for decades for India’s independence, but in the end they failed to keep India undivided, of course for some people it was a success. Thanks for the Dinia link, Rahmat Ali’s manifesto looks suspiciously similar to ISI’s agenda today, now I know where they are getting their inspiration from. Also, I noticed that Rahmat Ali’s Pakistan name had no mention of Bengal.
Europeans fought each other for hundreds of years, yet now they are getting together in a EU. A group or a larger unit always has advantages than going alone. But unity is a very hard thing to come by for human beings. Todays large countries of Russia and China are legacy of Mongol rulers. Indian unity was also the result of Islamic Turko Mongol rule. It is very difficult to build something, but very easy to break. China and Russia not only kept the Mongol gift, but expanded on it, we could not keep ours.
August 20th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Janab Khilji,
dude, i think we came under bangistan! and at the end of the day it is some law student goofing around, as it turned out he was pretty heart broken over what the project turned into. Please expand on isi agenda, people keep hinting that anything islamically impassioned is isi or islamabadi.
Here’s a recent development on Madani’s composite nationalism ideas, for the uk context. http://www.yahyabirt.com/files/Birt_BetweenNationandUmma.pdf
Are you linking Partition to climate change induced sea level rise, or stating ’some things which happened after 1947′.Either way you blow my mind.
AsifY,
there was a lot more to my last post, but it didnt get through.
Conversations about jinnah that get diverted to mujib. I remember quite a few, do you speak to old people about these things? Also try the bangla lefty generation ‘68 turned islamic.
August 20th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Honorable fugstar, I saw Bangistan in the map, so this means that he was proposing separate country for each of these separate areas. I was pointing out the fact that the name of Pakistan did not include Bengal’s B for example, probably because Bengal was not part of the original plan or idea for Pakistan.
I am stating some things that happened after partition that may or may not have happened differently. The climate changes obviously were not caused by partition, but we would be better prepared to cope with the results of the climate change, I believe, if the partition did not happen.
About Madani’s idea of Muslims living under composite nationalism and the Yahya Birts article on it, Muslims have been living in states with other non-muslims from the beginning of the Ummah, the only difference is that most of these states were muslim ruled and hence they could set the tone for these states. Since European Renaissance and colonization, the table had turned and now Muslims found themselves as minority and not in a dominant position in many states. In many Muslim majority states, we find ourselves under secular dictatorship or secular democracies. The idea of Shariah as the constitution of a state has become unacceptable in todays world (perhaps because of past excesses or just plain fear of Islam) and is fought against with every means possible. The future of our faith based nation or the Ummah will depend on how well we adapt to our changed situations and how pragmatic we are in our approach to improve our well being, while keeping and maintaining our faith based identity intact. My hypothetical point about partition is such a pragmatic step, a tactical retreat for the greater long term good.
In this respect, I find it fascinating and interesting that the Jewish nation bannished from their land 2000 years ago and scattered around the world are still able to function as a nation and help each other, and even find (or steal) a land of their own, whereas we Muslims as almost 1/4th of humanity, have so many ethnicities, so much land and resources, but we are still divided and fighting with each other instead of uniting and helping each other, as the prophet(pbuh) had commanded.
Sorry if this off topic.
August 21st, 2007 at 1:20 am
RE: #49
AsifY, I do admit that I am guilty of deviating from the orginial topic. But I really wanted to find out what you all thought about Jinnah.
I do not have the slightest first hand knowledge of Pakistan and always have and will be proud of my country and my Bengali (and sylheti
) heritage. My father who was born and raised in a Sylheti village prospered after independence. He started with nothing and died having several properties in Dhaka with two in Gulshan. So I am a direct benefactor of our independence.
I do recognize Bangabandhu to be the father of our nation and no amount of BNP/Jamaat propaganda can change that fact.
I have recently done lot of reading on the subject of 1947 partition,
August 21st, 2007 at 1:24 am
please delect the last line :
“I have recently done lot of reading on the subject of 1947 partition from my post # 53″
Thanks
August 21st, 2007 at 2:07 am
fugstar,
There was a lot to all my posts as well and none of it seems to have gotten through either. Perhaps we are playing out the Bangladeshi tragedy of talking past each other.
boishakhi,
I never doubted your patriotism (which matters to me) or your belief in Mujib as FoN (which I regard him to be, but matters little to me). I’m not the kind of person to scream out “unpatriotic” or “rajakar” to genuine questions and assertions.
It’s not your “guilt” that was my focus. You’re by no means the only one who does this. We tend to regard as “natural” that Mujib should bring up Jinnah and 1947 as well. Yet, as I point out, discussions of Jinnah among Pakistanis do not degenerate into discussions of Mujib.
This IMHO reflects power differentials. Analogies exist of this phenomenon. For instance, discussions of women’s rights in the West talk about just that: women’s rights in the West. Discussions of women’s rights in the “3rd world” inevitably degenerate into a comparison between east and west.
This is where historiography comes in: we have to start thinking about the lines we think along.Please excuse my armchair theorising: it’s my way of distracting myself from events at DU.:)
August 21st, 2007 at 4:32 am
Khan Bahadur Khilji,
He was just experimenting with hopeful ideas!!!
AsifY,
I meant ‘got through’ in terms of data packets on this website.
Say there are 2 muslims talking about history in a uni cafe, one from pak land and another from desh, they are young. I wouldnt by default expect the run-on-the-mill pakistani to have any knowledge of mujib, but i would expect the bangladeshi to know about jinnah, nehru and gandhi, albeit through a weird set of glasses.
Its not power, its chronology. It reflects the passing of time. and the scale of the playing field.
Mujib was never an All India kinda chap. I wonder what contribution he could have had had he occupied the same time as nehru, gandhi and jinnah. I suspect very little. Its not power, its scale of relevance and accumen.
August 21st, 2007 at 6:47 am
Haven’t you just proven that it is about power? Two YOUNG pakistanis are talking. Mujib was Pakistani, and actually managed to convince 55% of Pakistan to form a new nation.
“Weird” set of lenses: further proof for my thesis. The grand narratives from Delhi and Islamabad are the “normal” lenses. Everything else is “weird”/alternative.
“I suspect very little.”: You underestimating Mujib fugstar? Gee gosh, I’m surprised- nay shocked!:)
As I said above, look at your own historiography.
August 21st, 2007 at 6:47 am
Two YOUNG Pakistanis = Two YOUNG people
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:38 am
Khilji,
You might want add Flood of 2007 and all the future floods to come be caused by partition…
why not add the past and future cyclones too
I’m sure you know that floods are largely caused by overforestation in himalayas and that happens due to population pressure. I’m sure we can find the some relation to the muslims & partition for that too…oh yes the muslims! they breed like rabbits too.
However, I agree with you on one thing , duelling over partition is just “thought exercise” .