Trivialising the heroes
THERE is no denying the fact that Bangabandhu is the founding father of Bangladesh. Leaving aside occasional sophistry, it was also he who proclaimed the country's independence on March 26, 1971. A hostile BNP perversely fought a losing battle to disprove the historical truth for decades. A High Court ruling on June 22 upheld the truth that it was Bangabandhu who had been the proclaimer of our independence. In spite of the irony of its being settled through a court ruling the truth is vindicated at long last, and the victory belongs to what is historical truth.
There are indications in the BNP's reaction to the court ruling that it will continue to muddy the water in this regard to garner some political mileage, even if the great names involved are further denigrated. The great sons of the nation are indeed great in their particular context, even if they are irrelevant elsewhere. The BNP seldom understood the point and unnecessarily dragged Ziaur Rahman, a war hero and later a politician and founder of BNP as well as the president of the republic, to an area where he had no relevance.
The proclamation of independence and its acceptance both by the people as well as international community is the function of political leadership, which was firmly in the hands of Bangabandhu whose Awami League spearheaded the independence war with an overwhelming public mandate given in December '70. In the fog of the war that had already ensued, any utterance by anyone would lack international acceptance. Ziaur Rahman also could have made a proclamation in the name of Bangabandhu out of sheer patriotism to boost the morale of those who joined the war of liberation.
But by doing politics over it, the BNP only belittled his stature as a patriotic war hero who later, as a politician, also paved the way for Bangladesh to become a modern nation-state. He earned a niche in the nation's history as the architect of a forward-looking Bangladesh after it was frozen in time during the AL's anachronistic rule after independence.
It can thus be seen that both Bangabandhu and Zia played crucial historical roles in their respective places. It ought to be understood by the BNP enthusiasts that, in spite of the greatness bestowed on both, history has placed Bangabandhu in a position at the apex, and that they can by no means knock him off his pedestal to catapult another person to that place. The BNP has inadvertently been doing exactly the same, only to smear Zia's name with more and more controversies.
Notwithstanding the great contribution by Zia in the war of independence, he couldn't have been its proclaimer as it is understood in the lexicon of politics. The more they insist on it the more will the spurious claim fly in their face. The BNP oversold some of Zia's noble attributes like his personal integrity while championing in reckless corruption -- thus trivialising his greatness. So much so that an agonised Zia must be turning in his grave and his tormented soul may be cursing his pseudo-admirers who spare no lie to make him great.
Likewise the Awami League also found Bangabandhu's name convenient to take every step of way. Its votaries shed crocodiles tears in parliament and public meetings while eulogising his greatness in a way that the great leader would have been embarrassed had he been alive to witness the macabre display. Even if he was spared that embarrassment the slain hero couldn't but be tormented even in the grave by the sycophants' refined art form while drifting away from his dream.
The AL has turned Bangabandhu into a superman -- not quite recognisable to the masses who passionately loved and followed him. He was a fallible human being but was full of compassion for his people. There are scores of regional and local institutions named after him, and more are on cards to be given the stamp of Bangabandhu's name. Bangabandhu is, today, more of a brand name for material gain, and little of the dream that once stirred up a people, a nation and a country is any more there.
There is another tragedy in the making, as newspapers report the possible enactment of a "Father of the nation's family's security Act 2009"a repeat play of an Act that was enacted during the previous regime of Awami League. Apart from full-time SSF cover, it entitled Sheikh Hasina the ownership of the Gano Bhaban and Sheikh Rehana a house in Dhanmondi. The Act died a natural death when, on 21 June 2001, the BNP-Jamaat government scrapped it.
Even before that Sheikh Hasina, who was living in Gono Bhaban as prime minister, quietly left the sprawling house -- perhaps after reading the writing on the wall. Sheikh Hasina must be given the credit for rightly reading the public mood at that time. Why should the AL be repeating the same mistake? Is Bangabandhu's name something to be bartered for gaining mundane personal advantage, which can be scrapped again if the AL fails to return to power? And the security? Everyone, including the Bangabandhu's family, is secure if we together ensure the country's security.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments