Thu 16 Aug 2007
-By Shahpar Selim
“This daybreak, pockmarked-
this morning, night-bitten.
Surely it is not the morning we’d longed for
in whose eager quest all comrades
had set out, hoping that somewhere
in the wilderness of the - sky
would appear the ultimate destination of stars.
Somewhere the wave of the slow night will meet the shore
and somewhere will anchor the boat of the heart’s grief. . ”
– faiz ahmed faiz, freedom’s dawn, 1947
For the past few weeks, London has been in the middle of the “India Now” festival and the BBC TV channel has been showing programmes about India and Pakistan, to celebrate the 60th year of our independence. There are special features about Indian food, Pakistani politics, and even Shahrukh Khan had his new movie premiere in London as part of this mela of all things Indian and Pakistani — the two great nations that were born on the stroke of midnight, as the clock hands joined to salute the two countries together for a split second before they went their separate ways to search for their own destinies.
But on this great day when we celebrate the free identity of the subcontinent…whither art thou, Bangladesh? Didn’t we also get independence from the British?
If you look at the list of special programmes on the BBC TV and radio channels for the India-Pakistan season, you won’t find anything that even covers the region that became Bangladesh.
Bangladeshi writer Tahmima Anam’s article in the BBC gave a good review of the history of Bangladeshi democracy on the eve of our 60th birthday. That too, barely touches on what 1947 must have been like for my homeland (then transitioning from being East Bengal to East Pakistan).
Standing here and now, what do we have in common with our siblings, India and Pakistan? Plenty, for sure! I can stand shoulder to shoulder with my Pakistani and Indian friends and feel tremendous pride at sharing a common heritage and being citizens of free countries. I can read Faiz’s poem about partition and I can share the pain he feels over a traumatic division of India along lines that tore apart families, friends, made promises that were not kept and made enmities that will last forever. I can identify with all of these feelings, but when the flags are being hoisted today, which one are Bangladeshis supposed to gaze at and feel pride? Obviously not India. And certainly never Pakistan. So how do we fit into the history of 1947? Has 1971 erased our name from the roster of those born 60 years ago, today? These were the questions that bothered me — It is also *our* independence day, so why doesn’t the world recognise that? Why do I feel like the sick cousin who has to stay home when the rest of the family is having a picnic? Why no special programmes on the region that became East Pakistan and then Bangladesh? It cant be simple “historical technicality”. Are we just so damn irrelevant? Whose fault is that? They say that the victor writes history. If India and Pakistan are the stars of the history of today (by that I mean August 14/15th), then what does it say about the “also borns”? So wait a minute, before I ponder about the rest of the world, I must ask myself — why don’t we recognise that? It is our independence from the British rulers, and that’s something to recognise, isn’t it?
When I speak to my mother’s side of the family from Assam, I hear a lot of anecdotes about the men and women taking part in the Quit India Movement. But when I talk to my father’s side of the family, conflict-history begins with West vs. East Pakistan. The narrative of what happened in Bangladesh before we became East Pakistan is so hard to come by for the common Bangladeshi layperson, without getting into advanced academic research. Why is that? It can’t be because there are no stories worth telling. I don’t believe that the people of Bangladesh didn’t take part in satyagraha or the khilafat movement. I don’t believe that the people were only passionate about the heinous Hindu-Muslim riots and killings around the mid 1940s that bathed Kolkata, Noakhali, etc. (that prompted Gandhiji to come to Noakhali in 1946 on a peace mission). Lets go even further back – what about the great Titu Mir’s influence in Faridpur? What about Kazi Najrul Islam? Most of the resistance to the British Raj in Bengal may have come from the heartland of Kolkata, and the areas under Bangladesh may not have been a political hub, but surely we had our share of freedom fighters to fought against the British. I refuse to believe there weren’t freedom fighters in Dhaka, Borisal, Rajshahi, Sylhet, Chittagong, Mymensingh etc. who were inspired by the songs of Tagore and Nazrul in the struggle against the British Raj. I refuse to believe we passively “accepted” a prize that our brothers and sisters actively “won”.
Going back to my previous point about the victors writing history: I wonder what it says about Bangladeshis when we deny the freedom struggles in our region in the 1800s and 1900s. When Bengal was first partitioned in 1905, the Muslim leaders in East Bengal thought it was a good economic opportunity for the Muslims, and they supported Lord Curzon’s devious move to divide and conquer. The Hindu majority West Bengalis rightfully protested dividing the nationalist movement along lines of class and religion, and Bengal was reunited in 1912, but the Hindu Muslim tensions remained, and we forever struggled to explain to the world that we are Bengalis and Muslims, not either/or. We are not lesser Muslims (like the West Pakistanis made us feel) and we are not lesser Bengalis (like the West Bengalis made us feel). It is a complex identity that we have and yes, at one time we choose political strategies that privileged the Muslims. It may have been ill judged, but there is no denying it, or looking away from it. Do Bangladeshis deny our political heritage just out of embarrassment of having once been supportive of state formation based on religion (an idea that admittedly blew up in our face and we paid for that mistake in 1971)? Are we not politically mature enough to acknowledge that our Muslim Bengali identity has changed between 1905 to 1947 to 1971? Why are we pretending that our history begins at 1971?
Celebrating August 14/15th is about celebrating the end of our oppression from the British. Now it is true, that we went from one oppressor to the next on August 14th, and we can choose to look at it as the birthday of a horrible mistake, or we can choose to look at it as the day we got independence from the British who ruled us for centuries. In the midnight of August 14th and 15th, when India and Pakistan were created out of the same fabric, we Bangladeshis were also part of that fabric. We may have had another name, but we were not still born. There is blood, history and identity in these veins – and that blood of our forefathers who gave their lives to get rid of the British demand the respect of this generation — to stand up and be counted. If we Bangladeshis don’t recognise that first, the world will not recognise it either.
August 17th, 2007 at 4:31 am
Very well written article with persuasive arguments. Really enjoyed it.
Cheers
August 17th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Shahpar:
Good article although you may have forgotten Mastarda Surjo Sen in your lament (”I refuse to believe there weren’t freedom fighters in Dhaka, Borisal, Rajshahi, Sylhet, Chittagong, Mymensingh etc…”). There were more, many more.
In my opinion, by all rights our feelings about this date SHOULD be bittersweet: we got the British off our back but their parting gift (partition) did cause a lot of pain, and that legacy (the extent may be debatable, but the existence is not) of pain remains.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Shahed Aziz, I agree. This is what I mean by ‘mixed feelings’, nothing more, nothing less.
By the way, let’s not forget Pritilota Warder and Bhaga Jatin of Chittagong, both disciples of Mastarda. The former committed suicide to avoid torture by the British.
Farhad
August 17th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
A thought provoking article. Couple of thoughts.
1. Niaz Zaman of Chittagong University (I think) wrote a book on partition in the literature of the three countries. In Bangladeshi (ie post partition Dhaka) literature, she found that partition is viewed as a new dawn, if not always the dawn jar protikkha chhilo (to use Faiz’s words). In the literature of the 1950s, when the disillusionment with Pakistan hadn’t yet set in, the new dawn was really one of life and freedom. But even when the experience with Pakistan soured, or even after the idea of Bangladesh gathered pace, partition was seen as a dawn of resolve.
2. One thing we often fail to recognise is that at least in Bengal, partition had some popular support. Perhaps not in the form in which it happened, and perhaps not overwhelming popular support, but large enough sections of Hindus and Muslims supported partition. Muslims, or the 10% of them with voting right, overwhelmingly rejected the notion of Bengal being a part of India. And according to Joya Chaterjee, most Hindus with voting rights thought that Bengal should be partitioned even if both halves joined India.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Shahpar,
Re freedom fighters from Bangladesh: East Bengal was actually one of the hotbeds of revolution in the decades prior to 1947. Especially in terms of nashokota-mulok karjokolap, the boys from Bangla were quite hyperactive. Around the turn of the century, you had groups like the Anushilan Samiti, whose Dhaka branch was way ahead of the Calcutta branch in terms of revolutionary - or what the British liked to call terrorist - activities. The Barisal Conspiracy Case of 1913 showed that there were hundreds of Samiti revolutionaries in Barisal alone, and dozens of chapters throughout the country. The leaders of the Samiti were deshi boys like Troilokyonath Chokroborty (from Mymensingh) and Protul Ganguly (from Narayanganj). Both spent years, sometimes decades, in jail or in exile in the Andamans when the British managed to catch up with them. Even more famous were Bagha Jotin from Kushtia, Profullo Chaki from Bogura. Pulin Das from Wari has a street named after him in Calcutta called Biplobi Pulin Das Street. And you know BBD Bagh in Calcutta named after Binoy Badol Dinesh - all three of them are from Munshigonj jela in Bikrampur (amar desher bari :o)
You can check out Peter Heehs’s writings, he’s written tons on the subject. He’s an American, runs the Sri Aurobindo archives in Pondicherry. Try out his book The Bomb in Bengal - some of his articles are also online, or you can find him with an Athens account. He’s got extensive bibliographies as well, there’s quite a lot of Bangla material on Bangali biplobis. Many revolutionaries wrote their memoirs in old age. This link below shows just how many prominent ones were from Bangladesh. http://www.muktadhara.net/antibritish.html
August 17th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
It is interesting how the Bangals always took the rebellious route, rather than their other national counterparts who choose a more peaceful, pacifist, politically savvy strategy. In the end the later won as did our British masters. It was a win–win situation nobody could deny.
August 17th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
A very nice article.
Why Bangladesh couldn’t join the festivities, though she produced so many vigorous children who fought against the British colonialists and then the British empire, is a good question. Perhaps because it doesn’t matter to us since we had been colonized almost immediately after the partition. Perhaps it doesn’t matter to us that one of the leeches left and another of them started sucking our blood.
I personally am vocal against the democide of 3 Million of my own people, but I too have not said anything against the mismanagement by British Officials that led to the death of 3 Million people of Bengal during the Famine of 1943.
Bengal possesses a glorious history of struggle against the British rule. People from Bengal led the struggle and fight against the opressions during the first 3 decades of the past century, and most of them from the present Bangladesh.
The fact is, we shook the British “Betaal” off our shoulders, but it’s also a fact that we became split, because of some silly decisions and some greedy politicians backed by the Business tycoons. We fought against the British but we killed our own people. 1947 is not our victory to full extent. It’s like wining a fight, and being declared victor after having your own limb chopped off.
August 17th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Farhadbhai,
this is completely wrong - if you meant ghotis (or at least Bangalis living in the Western part) then what about Netaji, Aurobindo, Khudiram Bose? You can add to your list of ‘national counterparts’ who took up arms, the Marathi, Punjabi and South Indian freedom fighters - the list is just endless so here it is for the perusal of anyone who wants to reclaim that history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fighters_of_India
Also, what do you mean by ‘politically savvy strategy’?? Non-violence is a very powerful strategy (successfully taken up by Martin Luther King and those fighting apartheid in South Africa) and I do not think it allowed the Brits the easy ‘win’ you think they got.
Shahpar,
maybe the silence in Bangladesh about 1947 also has to do with the fact that even though the freedom fighters Zubaer mentions were Bangals they were not Muslim. How many, of the Bangal freedom fighters who survived, felt comfortable enough to stay on in East Pakistan? Let’s not go down that route - some issues are maybe best left silent..
Also, Jyoti,
thanks for pointing out Joya Chatterji’s point - a very important one. Especially for those of us who come from WB and who are taught that Bangali Muslims wanted Partition. The points she raises about the Hindu bhadrolok finding itself in the minority after census-taking was introduced (for the first time in 1871 – realisation to their shock horror that there are more Muslim Bangalis than Hindu Bangalis!)
MacDonald’s Communal Award of 1932 dramatically altered the balance of power in Bengal. The Communal Award allotted Hindus fewer seats in the new provincial Legislative Assembly than even their numbers warranted and reduced them to a minority. ‘The Award put paid to any hopes that the bhadrolok may still have had of real political power when Bengal won provincial autonomy, and gave them the prospect of perpetual subordination to the Muslims. The Poona Pact that followed close on the heels of the Award further reduced high-caste Hindus to a small minority in a house which had always expected to dominate’ (Chatterji 1994: 15).
The Hindu bhadralok instantly denied that Bengal had a caste problem so that they could represent a single Hindu community and keep power in the Legislature. Yet, by the Commissioner’s own assessment there were then more than 6 million persons classified as ‘untouchables’. ‘These were the chhotolok: the ‘small people’ who workled in the fields and homes of the bhadrolok but who lived beyond the boundaries of bhadra society. For the first time in Bengal’s history, the Award and the Poona Pact hinted at the possibility that the closed world of institutional politics, so long dominated by bhadrolok groups, might be opened to include the chottolok.’ (Chatterji, 1994: 37)
What started worrying the bhadrolok is that Namasudra (of the ‘untouchable’ category in case you did not know) share-croppers joined together with their Muslim neighbours against the caste Hindu landlords. In Feb 1928, for example, Muslim and Namasudra bargadars of Jessore went on strike against high caste Hindu landlords. The fear was that if the Namasudras and Rajbansis (more or less similar social standing as Namasudras) were elected to the new Assembly they might ally with their Muslim brethren and not with the caste Hindu bhadrolok. It was at this point that the Hindu bhadrolok became increasingly vocal for Partition.
If anybody is interested to know what happened to some of these Namasudras who had stayed back in East Pakistan and Bangladesh and only migrated in the 1970s and how they were not even allowed to settle in WB and sent off to refugee camps in Central India do read ‘Dwelling on Morichjhanpi: When tigers became citizens, refugees tiger-food’. Especially on the celebrations of South Asia’s Independence from the Brits – let’s remember these completely forgotten people. Whatever their religion, those who got the rawest deal out of it all were the socio-economically downtrodden.
August 17th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Annu,
I used the term ‘Bangal’ not in the traditional sense, but for want of a better term than ‘Bengali’ which incorporates both the Eastern and the Western parts. You probably did not read my earlier comments in Shaper’s note about Netaji. You yourself were struggling with an ‘appropriate’ term in an earlier post in this blog and suggested ‘Bangla’ (not to be confused with the Deshi wine) just doesn’t sound right. I playfully suggested ‘Bingo’ which I don’t think anybody supported (thank God!).
Can we finally do without this East-West, Muslim-Hindu, India-Pakistan-Bangladesh divide as far as our common history is concerned ? Agreed we hold different passports, which makes it all the more colorful, but as you quite rightly pointed out in one your earlier comments, are we not, in fact, one people ?
Farhad
August 17th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Other points:
1. ‘Non-violence is a very powerful strategy’. There is nothing that says a ‘politically savvy strategy’ cannot be a ‘powerful strategy’. It only works due to political savvyness of the strategy, not due to the benevolence of the oppressor. In the instance we are talking about, it had disastrous consequences. A powerful and proud India was broken in two. Your only option in receiving alms is to accept it.
2. ‘Non-violence was taken up by those fighting apartheid in South Africa’. I am not a history major, but ANC had nothing to do with armed rebellion ? What was it that Nelson Mendela was jailed for ?
3. Thank God we didn’t try ‘non-violence’ in fighting our Pakistani oppressors.
It is a fact that the pacifism and armed struggle will always hold divergent viewpoints, although in both cases the goal can be the same. While we can respect different viewpoints, it is a fact that often one of those views will counteract against the other. This is where the problem lies. To quote from one of the links Zubair sent:
At London’s Round Table Conference of 1931, Gandhi made it clear that if the government refused to work with him it would have the terrorists to deal with. Holding “no brief for terrorists,” Gandhi made it clear, “If you win work the Congress for all it is worth you will say good-bye to terrorism.”
What does that do to our brave freedom fighters ?
Farhad
August 17th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Excellent article Shahpar.
Let’s not forget that there were also many prominent Bengali Muslim leaders who protested partition in 1905, including those who pointed out that what may have been a class struggle was being hijacked by communalists (is a Muslim zamindar better for peasants than a Hindu one, for instance). We should recall the contributions of people like Abdur Rasul, Khan Bahadur Muhammad Yusuf, Mujibur Rahman Khan, AH Abdul Halim Ghaznavi etc. from that period.
Some from this group (eg Mujibur Rahman Khan) and others like him later (eg Kazi Nazrul Islam the poet and Com. Muzaffar Ahmed) regularly incurred the wrath of the Muslim Leaguers and fundamentalists for their stance and tcontinued participation in all-India non-communal movements.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:33 am
dear all,
thank you all SO VERY MUCH for your input. i have certainly learnt much more than i ever knew from my DP friends. this kinda illustrates my point that a “average bangladeshi” like me doesnt know enough about what contributions our forefathers made to get rid of the british.
i would like to ask for permission from all of you to use the names/references made here to enrich the article and do another draft. i hope thats ok!
thanks,
shahpar
August 18th, 2007 at 7:08 am
First off, let me commend you on an excellent writeup. It is a point of view that I have not been brought to dwell on before. Thank you.
One particular point section really got my attention.
Re: “Standing here and now, what do we have in common with our siblings, India and Pakistan? Plenty, for sure! I can stand shoulder to shoulder with my Pakistani and Indian friends and feel tremendous pride at sharing a common heritage and being citizens of free countries. I can read Faiz’s poem about partition and I can share the pain he feels over a traumatic division of India along lines that tore apart families, friends, made promises that were not kept and made enmities that will last forever.”
My first reaction was to this was: “no I don’t…”
I am in my late 20s, and have had an international education for half my life while maintaining strong ties with home. I have had Indians and Pakistanis as my friends, many close. We have discussed history often, sometimes contentiously, and while I have always appreciated the fact that we have a common past, I have never *felt* it.
I would not claim to know a lot about our common history, but I have looked into it fairly well, and I have to say, that visceral feeling of belonging or being able to relate to a segment of history is not there for pre-1971 events, unless it expressly relates to the creation of Bangladesh. For me, the emotive bits of history begin once Bangladesh is formed. Why is it that I do not *feel* the same way deep down?
Perhaps it is because for the post ‘71 generation, history is quite filtered in the official version, not least because of the incessant Mujib-Zia centric revisionism. Amusingly, I learnt of great Bengali leaders of pre-’71 much more from non-Bangladeshi writers and non-Bangladeshi sources. If we fail to pass on this significant part of our heritage, no wonder there is no celebration, or even recognition, in Dhaka, let alone London, NYC, and Sydney from the BDeshi community.
Perhaps it is because ‘47 feels incomplete. This is one point of view, but perhaps the dominant point of view - that we replaced the yoke of one colonial ruler with another. Does not a ‘rebirth’ automatically take away the lustre of the previous ‘birth’?
And perhaps it is because even ‘71 feels incomplete. Millions died, but many responsible for those deaths walk amongst us as bhodroloks, even ministers. Our people are hungry, poor, and deprived, yet their leaders - leaders they had elected - continue to milk them for every ounce of their blood and then some more, to amass fortune beyond belief, and trample on the legacy that ‘71 was supposed to have ensured for us.
Irrespective of the whys, it makes me wonder - if we were more cognizant of our hsitory as it spanned for 50, 100, 200, or 500 years, perhaps we would not keep making the same mistakes viz a viz our political leaders, failed ideologies, sycophants, trust in the quick-fix, etc.
History, after all, very probably repeats itself because we don’t learn from it.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Maybe a cliché, but the only thing we ever learn from history is that we never learn from history. Whatever may be the reason for the silence in Bangladesh about 1947, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that that even though our pre ’47 freedom fighters were Bangals they were not Muslims. Although successive governments in our country would want us to believe otherwise, Bangladesh is not an Islamic country. We are proud of our freedom fighters, whether they were Buddhist, Christians, Muslims or committed Atheists (yes, there were quite a few of those too). I grew up hearing stories about our valiant fighters from my parents and grandparents, the names of many were non-Muslim, and I know from the proud look on their face, it didn’t make any difference to them. By best friend named her daughter after Preetilota Warder.
As for how they were treated after partition, find out how we are treating our ’71 freedom fighters. Many were driven out of their homes, some are driving rickshaws at the age of 60, and too long ago a number of them (some on wheelchairs) were beaten up mercilessly by the police in a non-violent demonstration (the news was posted on this very blog). None of it had anything to do with religion.
Farhad
August 19th, 2007 at 4:07 am
It defies common sense for Bangladesh not to celebrate 14th August as independence day. Both 14th August and 16th december should be independence day for Bangladesh.
August 19th, 2007 at 5:42 am
Re: #15,
Perhaps that is taking it too far. It would be schizophrenic, not to mention historically inaccurate, to claim that Bangladesh also gained Independence (… consolidated Victory? … ) on Aug 14th. Bangladesh’s history is inexorably tied to Aug 14th, but the nation state that it is was not created till Dec 16th.
August 19th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Hasib,
Please enlighten us how and why 14th August should be independence day for Bangladesh. Most people will probably feel that we the people of Bangladesh/East Pakistan/East Bengal did not get true independence till ‘71. Our status between 1947-1971 were no deifferent from pre 47 period, only the masters were different.
August 19th, 2007 at 10:52 am
No harm in celebrating. The more celebration the better. We just need to know what we are celebrating about.
Farhad
August 19th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Hasib #15, I am curious to learn why August 14, 1947 should be celebrated as ‘independence day’ by Bangladeshis. I distinctly remember that Bangladesh declared itself independent on March 26, 1971 after the Pakistan Army started a brutal crackdown on Bangladeshi civilians known as “Operation Searchlight”.
I remember a period of apartheid between 1947 and 1971 when East Pakistanis were systemically economically exploited and politically suppressed, sometimes brutally. I see very little cause to celebrate the beginning of this oppression as ‘independence day’. I also think it is common sense as well as common knowledge that the bloody birth of Bangladesh, at a cost of up to 3 million martyrs, happened in 1971 and not in 1947.
And just to be clear, December 16 is not Bangladesh’s independence day. March 26th, 1971 is Independence Day; December 16th is Victory Day, when General Niazi signed the instrument of surrender ending 24 years of Pakistani exploitation of Bangladeshis.
August 19th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Why not celebrate 14th/15th August as the day we shed our British colonial yoke ? Farhad
August 19th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
18
Im thinking of Bangladeshis people jigging about in a crowded street party, with an awfully long banner including all the twisted knotted qualifications to such independances?
Bangladesh has its ‘own’ days, and an international mother language day to feel uniquely special and globally noticed about. So why crash the ‘others’ party with such confusion, just to feel part of it, if we aren’t all that sincere about it?
National dates are over rated.
August 19th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Re: Farhad (#20), Why not indeed. No harm in that.
Oh and.. did you say Aug 15th too?
Whole can of worms there for some. As people of the subcontinent, yes, Aug 14/15 jointly signify the ridding of the Brits. On a narrower nationalistic sense, “we” (aka the political entity that eventually gave rise to Bangladesh) got rid of the yoke on Aug 14.
Nitpicking, I know, but it only goes to show that “we” is a rather fluid concept depending on who you ask.
August 19th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Fugstar,
Don’t have to crash the ‘others’ party. We can have our own too (and invite ‘others’ ?!!).
And for good measure, we will have it on both the days, 14th and 15th.
I don’t see any ‘confusion’ in having parties. National dates are overrated, parties aren’t.
Farhad
August 20th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
suggested playlist?
August 31st, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Its a bit late in the day but came across this excellent article which anybody interested in this issue should read:
Feldman, Shelley (1999) Feminist Interruptions: The Silence of East Bengal in the Story of Partition, in ‘Interventions’, vol 1(2) pp 167-182.
Feldman looks at the exclusion of the East Bengal/East Pakistan experience in the construction of contemporary narratives of partition and at the double colonialism of East Bengal and ‘its particular location in the ethnic and religious hierarchies of the region’. Also focuses on how extant circumstances in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh contribute to the erasure of the East Bengal voice from contemporary debates on partition.
She ends by saying ‘understanding how East Bengalis actually saw themselves in the community of Bengalis, and how they have been marked as the Muslim other by Pakistanis during the struggle for Independence, and by Pakistanis and Indians during the Partition, would enrich our understanding of the presence and absence of voice, othering, and the salience of the subaltern in interpretations of the Partition. Opening the discussion in a way that focuses on these contestations would also draw attention to how Bengali, rather than Muslim, identity represented a dynamic process of identity formation’ (p. 179).