People spontaneously accepted him

Ataus Samad (AS): There are few factors behind it to my understanding. First when Zia was alive, he was the main political capital of BNP, but when he was not there, Begum Zia had to rebuild the party with his name. Secondly those who were and are in BNP felt that there had to be a parallel force in favour of the party, mainly because of Sheikh Mujib's charismatic appeal, he was the undisputed leader of the country once. They wanted to go to people and tell them that they had a leader like him. And now they want to prove that he was superior to Sheikh Mujib.

And lastly Begum Zia and by and large what remained of BNP after Zia was assassinated, were looked down upon by the Awami League, they were not taken seriously politically. But after winning the 1991 election BNP perhaps wanted political acceptance by Awami League. And they could only do it by establishing Zia in the political history of the country which Awami League didn't like. Therefore the unfortunate hatred created between the two parties culminated in the present situation. I personally feel that whatever Begum Zia may say in public now, she probably knows that when she is not there, people are not going to talk about Zia as the person who announced the independence. At some point of time, they will say Zia's announcement was crucial to the extent that people heard it, but he himself revised the announcement and said that 'on behalf of our great leader Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman…..' and that's the announcement most of us heard.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

DS: Setting aside that kind of situation, why should Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's name be talked about in a negative tone?

AS: Well, Sheikh Mujib was a very assertive person in his political conduct. He sort of came from behind. He was very active, he was a follower of Hosseyn Shahid Sohrawardy. When some of the top level leaders of Bengal Muslim League became disenchanted with the main party after the British had left, he was still an activist, at most an active student leader. Sheikh Mujib managed to capture the imagination of those who supported Awami League, he worked very hard to organise the party and therefore he became a real strength of the party. He was a real politician and he bid for power. So a time came when when he brushed aside the seniors of the party and took over the leadership. And Ayub Khan identified Sheikh Mujib as the person who could organise the biggest party in the then East Pakistan, who had the largest support of the Bengalis.

Sheikh Mujib understood, unlike the leftists, that the struggle was not only for food and shelter, the movement was also for securing an identity of the Bengalis. The other young leaders of Awami League also realised it too and they began to support him.

He was seen as a political threat by the Pakistani rulers, he was perceived as threat to senior Bengali leaders, he was seen as a rival who couldn't be beaten by his peers. Such a man would definitely be at the centre of controversies. But all his subsequent actions till the election of 1970 made him the most bravest, charismatic and undisputed political leader of the country.

DS: If that's true, why is there the tendency not to unanimously recognise him as 'the undisputed leader' of the Bengalis?

AS: I don't know about others, but whenever I write I say he was the undisputed leader of the Bengalis in 1971. Even Moulana Bhasani had said that. I have no doubt that people of Bangladesh would readily agree with that.

DS: Then I return to my earlier question why there is so much negativity when it comes to discussing Sheikh Mujib?

AS: The negativity started with the return of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman from Delhi on January 10, 1972. I was accompanying him as a reporter in the plane and I told him that other political parties had also taken part in the freedom struggle and there should be an effort to find out their contributions, meet them and recognise their contribution. But he didn't do that. I don't know why, I never asked him either. He didn't recognise the sufferings of those who were not directly involved with Awami league but nevertheless fought the war.

Therefore from the very beginning people became very skeptic. There were political forces that wanted an independent Bangladesh but were not with Awami League at that time. Obviously there were many opinions on how the country should be ruled, how the economy should be run etc. Most people wanted democracy. Sheikh Mujib was appreciated and congratulated for having the Constitution drafted and adopting it so quickly. But other parties demanded to have their roles in building the country. When that was also denied, armed frictions followed. Many on both sides were killed. Then came Bksal -- the one party rule.

Obviously intolerance grew within Awami League too. I personally feel that no one would have backed Col. Rashid or Col. Fariq had Khandoker Mushtak not backed them. So there was division within his own party. Somehow or the other he failed to identify these divisions. Or even if he did notice them, he failed to unite the people or satisfy the majority of the people.

DS: Are you saying that his actions after the independence created an atmosphere where he was not seen as the leader people had known?

AS: Definitely. Bksal was against everything that people of Bangladesh fought for, it was major blow for them who fought the war, who inspired others to fight the war, who gradually created a situation where a war of liberation was inevitable if there was no peaceful agreement. Their dream of democracy was gone. I was in Delhi at that time and faced a lot of questions -- why did Sheikh Mujib do this? He was a great democrat, how could he do it -- they asked? He had his loyal group of supporters even if they hadn't supported his actions but there was disenchantment within and outside the party. So those who wanted to remove him from the scene took advantage of it. When they came to power by an assassination they played up the emotion against him.

DS: But this attitude or feeling towards him could have continued for say 5, 10 years after his assassnation. Why after almost 30 years of his death we bring up these issues while talking about him? Why can't we treat him as a leader of the nation above all the faults he had?

AS: I would say that his own party is to be blamed for this. Awami League is not willing to listen a single negative word against Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. It is not prepared to see him as anything less than a demi-god. They don't want to tolerate any question against any action of Sheikh Mujib.

DS: But can that be the sole reason for not being able to separate Sheikh Mujibur Rahman from his party?

AS: If Awami League stops capitalising on Sheikh Mujib from today, you will see a different attitude.

DS: Why shouldn't they capitalise on Sheikh Mujib? He was their leader?

AS: Because while doing it, they also claim the war of liberation as their property. I am now going to an extreme. But whenever I think about the war, whenever I think about post-war situation, I can't support them. When Awami League capitalises on their leader, I also want to see him in a different light. I also want to say that he was not faultless.

DS: Why did the subsequent governments after his assassination try to completely erase his name from the political scene?

AS: What were the governments like after his assassination? First the group of military officers who went with Col Rashid and others. There were several factions of military officers in army. It was not really a united army.

Those who took power by killing him would obviously like to demonise him. Then they were ousted, not by Awami League or a mass movement, by a countercoup followed by another countercoup. The man who comes to power through that -- Ziaur Rahman wanted to be in power and remain alive. His first job was to keep the armed forces together. After he came to power and gradually civilianised himself, he himself was not seen as criticising Sheikh Mujibur Rahman directly.

DS: But he didn't proclaim his respect for Sheikh Mujib in public, did he?

AS: He did not say that he was the father of the nation, but he knew that there were a lot of people within the army who did not like Sheikh Mujib and he did not dare praise him. I distinctly remember a report where he was asked about Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. He said to the reporter that nobody will be able to reach the position Bangabandhu had in our history, and he also said that he was sitting on top of a volcano, which could erupt anytime.

DS: Then the obvious question is why does not his party BNP admit that now?

AS: Well, some leaders of BNP who were freedom fighters, openly say that we fought with the name of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, that the slogan 'Joy Bangla' still has a hair-rising effect on us. What I mean to say is that there are leaders in BNP who still respect him as the leader of Bangladesh who led the country to liberation. But then again it boils down to the mutual hatred between the two parties. Now I don't know why this hatred continues. We have been telling them to put it aside.

DS: Taking a cue from that, after almost thirty five years of independence, don't you think all the controversies or negativity regarding Sheikh Mujibur Rahman should also be put aside?

AS: The division between the two parties has deepened over a long period of time; it will take an equal amount of time to heal. I think BNP has definitely made a mistake when they changed text books or don't want to call him the leader who led the country to liberation. And they should also recognise that people of Bangladesh accepted him as the leader of the nation when he came back. He was the President during the war, though he wasn't physically present. And it was not forced upon people, they spontaneously accepted him. These are the political realities BNP ought to see, but at the same time Awami League ought to see that we are not an idolatrous nation.

Kaushik Sankar Das is Assistant Editor of The Daily Star.