Cooking history and booking a berth!

Of late, the ruling BNP-Jamaat alliance government has reprinted the documents of the liberation war. We see no harm in a reprint provided the demands for the documents exceed the supply.

Readers should be aware of the fact that it was late President Ziaur Rahman who constituted a committee to collect the available documents on the liberation war. Late lamented poet Hasan Hafizur Rahman headed the editorial board and submitted the documents in 15 volumes. From an independent angle, the editorial board worked hard to present the actual happenings heavily drawn from actual stories of that time. As far as we know, there were no complaints lodged against the volumes for two decades or so, not even during the period BNP ruled the country -- 1991-1996.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

On a fine morning, this time during the BNP-Jamaat coalition government, the nation finds that in the name of reprint of the documents on liberation war, certain modifications/alterations were made to suit the will of the parties in power. And that is to show that the independence of Bangladesh was declared first by the late president Ziaur Rahman.

Those who have read carefully Loshak's "Pakistan Crisis", Robert Pane's "The Massacre" and Siddiq Sale's "Witness to Surrender" -- written on the basis of eye witnesses and personal interviews at that time -- should immediately discover the 'devilish' drive towards the attempts to downsize the contributions of the greatest Bengali of all times -- the Great Sheikh. The US state department documents of that time, and now released for public consumption, also show the same by repeatedly mentioning Sheikh Mujib as the villain of peace for Pakistan. For long 25 years he was in jail in punishment for his protests against the oppressions inflicted by Pakistanis on his fellow Bengalis. The fact that Sheikh Mujib declared independence has been clearly acknowledged by the speeches of Pakistani leaders at that time.

The committee seems to have solely banked on points provided by the party in power. Our suspicions loom large on the heels of an absence of interviews, broadcasts, documents and other indicators as depicted in international platforms of that time. Since America and China were aggressively engaged in the whole game, submissions from the respective foreign ministries and departments should have been on board to clear the fog.

When President Ziaur Rahman was alive, we hardly heard about this new history. We also heard his voice on the air saying "I on behalf of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman hereby….". Major General Mir Shawkat Ali -- a freedom fighter -- also reported recently to have heard the voice of Hannan first. Eminent historian Professor Muntasir Mamun gave an eloquent exposition of how the so-called intellectuals shifted their positions over time.

It appears that a major portion of sector commanders and freedom fighters rejected the reprint on the plea that history was heinously distorted. The parties in power now have two types of commanders. Coming from two extreme poles during the liberation war, it is not surprising that we shall now have a 'cocktail' history of our liberation struggle with contributions of both the groups in the 'fight' for a 'free' Bangladesh.

But as is well known, history has its own course. We think even president Ziaur Rahman would have reacted to downsizing the role of a leader that he himself placed on the pinnacle of prominence during his tenure.

Outside the power politics, there are a number of "history writers" who propagate the false fact that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman -- in their views -- "surrendered" to the Pakistan Army on the eve of the liberation struggle. Therefore, this group tends to hold that, the declaration came from others. The 'surrender' hypothesis is seriously subjected to several questions. First, if he (Bangabandhu) had surrendered to the Pakistan army, why the then government of Pakistan or the media in the US and China had not broadcast it to subdue the movement? Second, if he had surrendered, then why the people should fight for their freedom in the name of a person that left them in crisis? Third, if he had surrendered, why did he not surrender with a post of the Prime Minister or any other position to further his fortunes? And finally, if he had surrendered, why do the documents of that time ascribe him as arrested?

Thus when the 'surrender' hypothesis was mercilessly rejected by history, attempts started to gear up surrounding the "declaration of independence" hypothesis. But by the brutal law of history that takes time and contemporary tales into due consideration, both the hypotheses have been rejected. Just to establish a rejected fact by the brute force of power would not be able to stop history from singing its own song of truth. There is an adage: you can fool some people for some time, but not all people for all times. So long Bangladesh exists, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman will exist as its founding father. He made history for us and hopefully history will protect him from pernicious propaganda. Cooking history might book a berth but possibly in the dust bins.

Abdul Bayes is a Professor of Economics at Jahangirnagar University.