Mukti

The thick blurry line

Posted in 1971, history by jrahman on November 24, 2015

I used to think that there were two clear, fine lines to analyse people’s actions in the context of 1971 — those who fought for Bangladesh, and those who fought against.  These clear, fine lines provided markers that, I used to think, allowed for nuance.

Let me illustrate with the examples of two renowned public servants.  Both Kamal Siddiqui and MK Alamgir were junior sub-district level officials in mofussil East Pakistan when the war broke out.  Siddiqui crossed the border and participated in the war.  Clear case.  Alamgir, not so straightforward.  He did not cross the border or join the Mukti Bahini.  He stayed in his job in the East Pakistan civil administration throughout the war.

But did he fight against Bangladesh?  Alamgir is a leader of the Awami League, and is accused of all sorts of things, many of which are perfectly valid.  But I am yet to be shown any evidence that he fought against Bangladesh.

Like 65 million of his compatriots, Alamgir stayed in the occupied East Pakistan.  Maybe he was afraid of guns.  Maybe it was because he had a two month old son in March 1971.  Whatever the reason, he did not cross the border, but nor did he cross the  fight against line.

My two-clear-lines framework allowed for such shades of grey.  Or so I thought.

Then I came across the case of Major General Amjad Chowdhury.

When the general-turned-industrialist passed away earlier this year, official condolence and respect followed, as befitting the death of a noted citizen.  Then came the controversies.

For one group, the fact that he was Ahmadiyya mattered more than anything else.  It was a sign of our current ungodly apocalyptic times that an apostate like him got an Islamic funeral!  Funnily, our so-called progressives did not exactly stress the pluralism inherent in the deceased’s religious identity.

But the so-called progressive / pro-1971 types also tried hard to downplay another thing — the man’s role in 1971.  Major Amjad was stationed in Rangpur in 1971 and quite likely fought against Bangladesh.  I wouldn’t go so far as to say he was a war criminal.  I have no reason to think he killed or raped anyone or burnt anyone’s house.  But he actively fought for Pakistan against Bangladesh, this much we can reasonably surmise.

Unlike Mr Alamgir, Amjad Chowdhury was on the wrong side of the marker.  But is the marker itself reasonable?

What motivated him to take up arms against Bangladesh?  I can understand why he might not have wanted to join Ziaur Rahman or Khaled Mosharraf.  A number of Bengali officers sought transfer to West Pakistan or non-combat duties as the war approached.  But he didn’t seem to be in that camp.  Why was Major Amjad different?

Could it be because his sectarian identity was more important to him than his ethnic identity or political ideology (such as Bengali / Bangladeshi nationalism)?  After all, in 1971, the spiritual heart of the Ahmadiyya community was in Lahore.

The irony, of course, is that in the post-1971 Pakistan, ZA Bhutto fanned anti-Ahmadiyya sentiment and Zia-ul-Huq institutionalised their oppression.  The Islamic Republic of Pakistan would never have made him a major general, nor could he possibly have become a successful businessman there.  He achieved both in the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

We know he had a pretty good life in Bangladesh. And as a card-carrying neoliberal economist, I applaud his entrepreneurship, which played a non-trivial role in Bangladesh’s socioeconomic success.  These contributions were noted, but hardly anyone acknowledged that his business group Pran got its beginning because of the economic policies of President Ziaur Rahman (as well as the president’s personal intervention).  Yet another thing I hadn’t seen mentioned —Pran is one of the fewest Bangladeshi products to have made a huge inroad in India.

Where do all these leave us?  Dear reader, I no longer think my two-clear-lines are adequate.  I now think the line is thick, and blurry.  Let me quote Naeem Mohaiemen (currently a doctoral candidate in historical anthropology at Columbia University):

When I probe family history, nothing seems settled. There are no simple heroes or villains, only people who made difficult choices. The cousin who fled the house to join the rebels, narrowly evading capture by the Pakistan Army. The uncle who escaped being executed, although the rest of his engineering colleagues were mowed down by a Pakistani firing squad. Within the same family is also an uncle who remained in his university job during the war, and for that became the target of post-1971 ‘collaborator’ witch-hunts. These same pervasive witch-hunts moved Enayetullah Khan to write his famous editorial condemning the fratricidal settling of scores: ‘Sixty-five Million Collaborators’.

It is possible that no one was more discombobulated by history’s earthquakes than my maternal grandfather Syed Murtaja Ali. An Islamic historian, he was also the brother of Bengali literary figure Syed Mujtaba Ali. In 1947, Mujtaba wrote one of the first essays defending Bengali as a state language.88 Unable to punish Mujtaba, who went into semi-exile in West Bengal, the Pakistani government slowed down the civil service career of Murtaja Ali. What was Murtaja thinking in 1971? He had already paid a steep price as a Bengali in ‘united Pakistan’. But he had also ‘optioned’ for this same Pakistan in 1947, moving my mother from Assam where she was born. He had voted for Mujib, everyone had voted for him, but what did he think of the collapse of the ‘Pakistan’ dream of his youth?

Every Bangladeshi family carries many such contradictions within themselves. Contradictions of impulse, afterthought, hesitation and bravery. But how they choose to remember all this varies, ranging from exuberant myth-making to quiet soul-searching. The realities of people’s actions during war are always a combination of beautiful heroism and a liminal failure of nerve.

Sadly, it seems to me that the Bangladeshi chattering classes, old and young, are more likely to listen to Humayun Azad’s fatwa about collaborators and freedom fighters — once a colloborator, always a collaborator, but a freedom fighter can cease to be so –than Mr Mohaiemen’s reflections.  It’s perhaps the sign of the times that Azad’s conflation of the Liberation War with his French adventure is considered heroic.

Faham Abdus Salam describes the ultra-nationalism of Shahbag variety thus:

আমার ধারণা শাহবাগীরা তাদের পছন্দের একটা মেক-বিলিভ ওয়ার্ল্ডে থাকেন। এই “থাকার” একটা বিশেষত্ত্ব আছে। বাংলাদেশ সম্বন্ধে তাদের কিছু আইডিয়া, কিছু টোটেম, কিছু মাসকট, কিছু ইভেন্ট আছে যেগুলোকেই তারা বাংলাদেশ বলে মনে করেন। …..  দাড়িপাল্লার এক পাশে বাংলাদেশ, আরেক পাশে মুক্তিযুদ্ধ রাখলে তারা মুক্তিযুদ্ধ নামক “ইভেন্ট”টিকে বাংলাদেশের চাইতেও বড় মনে করবেন। …. ৭১ এর আসল ঘটনা না, মুক্তিযুদ্ধের ন্যারেটিভটাই তাদের কাছে সবচেয়ে প্রেশাস।

(My conjecture is that the Shahbagis live in a make-believe world of their liking.  And that ‘living’ has a speciality.  They think Bangladesh consists of some of ideas, totems, mascots they have about Bangladesh…. If we were to put Bangladesh on one side of the scale, and the Liberation War on the other, they would think greater of the ‘event’ called the Liberation War…. (N)ot the real events of 71, the narrative of the Liberation War is the most precious to them.

Perhaps because of my professional training, I am inclined to seek rational explanation for human behaviour.  Mr Salam goes a long way to explain the zeitgeist.  Sadly, I think this madness has a long way yet to run.

 

 

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Rubel Hossain said, on November 26, 2015 at 7:35 am

    Ultra-nationalists are good people. Some of them are crazy, and a LOT of them are simpletons, but I’ve yet to meet one that would genuinely chop off the head of someone for disagreeing with them, as long as they do so peacefully. I’m sure they are out there, I just haven’t met one in my many discourses. The same cannot be said for the rabid ultra-religionists, many of whom will chop you even at the slightest criticism of their beliefs, however guarded and circular you try to make the argument, to tame their inevitable temper. It’s a difference in ratio ▬ you can have this debate with ultra-nationalists in the first place because while they are crazy, few are crazy enough to chop you for your opinions. The ultra-religious convince people who would otherwise not turn violent that any affront to their beliefs is a life-or-death matter. In other words, break out the tear gas.

    Again, ultra-nationalists can be a stupid bunch. But I prefer them to the other side. There’s at least some hope that if they had the right set of economic ideas & scientific literacy that they wouldn’t be such a big problem. The most you’ll have to listen to is their occasional stupidity and bigotry, not aimed at you. It’s somewhat of an improvement.

    Ultimately, if I have to share a country with a bunch of deluded fools, who consider flag-waving an important part of the nationalist process, then as long as they pull all the right moves economically, in terms of scientific and technological advancement, and basic citizens rights, I can live with that. The other type of goon ▬ not so much. I can tolerate a Shahbagi much better than a Jamaati. I know many will cringe at the suggested duality, but let’s face it, it’s there. You guys are bringing it up by framing 1971 in such a manner.

  2. kgazi said, on November 28, 2015 at 8:16 am

    Everyone in BD is a PhD in the subject of 1971, but they have no clue about 2015. Bangalis love talking about 1971 in every dawat, wedding or adda – they know the names of every freedom fighter and their bhaginas by heart. But ask them about the ‘national policy of BD’ and nobody has a clue. Most likely because there aren’t any, and our ‘politicians’ love it that way. Submerge the people in ‘1971’ and they will not worry about 2015. Forget 2016, just remember 1971. And thus the country remains stagnant and intoxicated in history. There is growth but little progress, in 44 years of Name Change, Bangladesh is still living in 1971.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: