BNP leader Tarique Rahman has once again rocked the boat by bashing Bangabandhu at a recent programme in London in the name of observing the Victory Day-2014. He called Sheikh Mujib 'a Razakar' and Zia 'the declarer of Independence'. He was sure over the limit in passing comments about Mujib and other sensitive topics of our national history. Tarique's arrogance knew no bounds when he compared Mujib with the ones, who were, by all counts, polar opposite of what Mujib really was. This is highly derogatory of the founding father of a nation. Suffice it to say, it is not mere a slip of the tongue, but a crime against our national history. Tarique's slanderous remarks, however, draw angry retorts from many pro-liberation politicians, writers, intellectuals and civil society members. The distinguished writer and journalist Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury has branded Tarique as 'a lunatic'. Zia's son Tarique, the learned journalist added, would continue to remain so, and suffer the same fate, as did Miran, son of Mir Jafar, who became the Nawab of Bengal betraying Nawab Siraj-Ud-Daulah at the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
This is, however, not the first time that Tarique has launched verbal attacks on Bangabandhu. He not only tries to defame the historic image of the founding father of the country, but also belittles the importance of his role in our liberation war by highlighting the role of Zia, his dashing dad. Tarique terms Mujib 'an illegal premier' and 'a failed leader' and widely regards Zia as 'the first president of Bangladesh'. Tarique's radical reinterpretation of the history of our liberation war is nothing but a publicity stunt by way of maligning Mujib and eulogising Zia. This calculated smear campaign is a matter of serious concern to the pro-liberation people of Bangladesh, and should be glossed over. We should counteract this legally, politically and intellectually.
The Mujib-Zia debate was first raised by BNP to place its founder Zia on an equal footing with Mujib by adding extra credit to Zia's record on the liberation war and subtracting that of Mujib. It is alleged that this grotesque idea of 'plus-minus' was the brainchild of the notorious collaborator Shah Azizur Rahman, who, after the death of Zia, spun a weird tale that Zia was the real man behind the liberation war, who substituted Mujib by declaring the independence of Bangladesh. Aziz tried to make a mountain of wild fancy out of a molehill of facts, and with the passing of time, the story gained some currency. Had Zia been alive, Aziz would never have dared to do it because, he (Aziz) had made similar attempts several times during Zia's lifetime and was silenced by his stinging rebuke. Zia never staked out his claim on the declaration of independence. Rather he made an overt display of his allegiance to Mujib by writing an essay published in the weekly Bichitra, in 1972.
The Khaleda-Nizami Alliance Government (2001-2006), on their having assumed the office in 2001 had repealed the 'Father of the Nation Portraits Preservation and Display Act'. It was so unfortunate of us that some ignorant souls of this soil had sinned against the whole nation by taking official measures to belittle the image of its father.
They did not stop at that. They poked their nose into some settled matters of the history of independence. They came up with a conciliatory gesture of equalising the contribution of Mujib and Zia to our war of independence. They tried to weigh both by the same scale. They proposed to make further Acts for preserving and displaying the pictures of both the leaders side by side on the same wall in government offices. The BNP-led Government realised that they could benefit much from this process of equalisation. They knew it full well that Zia was not a person of Mujib's height. He may be as important as one of the eleven sector commanders or one of the sixty-eight Bir Uttams. But it must not be left to oblivion that Zia was the only sector commander who was later accused of rehabilitating the anti-liberation forces after the August tragedy in 1975.
Taking such a controversial person as the guiding figure, BNP thought they could not go much further. Therefore, they needed to raise his image by way of tarnishing that of Bangabandhu. Some opportunist intellectuals had joined hands with them to drum up support in their favour. They manufactured unique anecdotes on our national history without bothering much about documentations. BNP is still trotting out the same old cliché that Zia is the declarer of independence. It sounds as if everything of our independence depended on that declaration and if he had not declared it right at that moment, it would not have been achieved at all.
There is no denying the fact that Ziaur Rahman had a valuable role in the liberation war. But that should not glamourise the declaration myth. Because, before he declared independence, it had already been done by the right person at the right time. Bangabandhu proclaimed the independence of Bangladesh formally on March 26, and informally on March 7 in 1971. March 26 has been selected as our Independence Day because of Bangabandhu's proclamation. What Zia did is nothing but the reading out of a declaration note "on behalf of our great national leader Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman" from Kalurghat on March 27, 1971. He validated his declaration by categorically mentioning the name of Bangabandhu. Moreover, it was immaterial who read out the note, because the reference to the name of Bangabandhu was the only thing in the declaration that mattered. The contribution of Zia to our liberation war however, lies somewhere else. He played an important role especially between March 27 and April 17, 1971 by rising to the occasion. The then Mujibnagar Government had appreciated his role. Above all, he was given the honour 'Bir Uttam' for his contribution to the war of independence. His party-men should have been happy with Zia's being one of the eleven sector commanders and getting the medal of honour called Bir Uttam.
So far as the entire gamut of our struggle for independence is concerned, Bangabandhu plays the leading role and remains unsurpassed. In the thousand-year old history of the Bengali people, Bangabandhu is the most luminous star. Since 1952 to 1971-in the vast background of the making of a nation-state-Bangabandhu emerged as an unparallel leader with the most challenging responsibility. He is the architect of our country and the nation by all implications of the term. He was the fearless fighter of the Language Movement of 1952; the pioneer of the democratic movement of 1962; the architect of the Six-point Movement of 1966; the life force of the Mass Movement of 1969; the enviable victor of the election of 1970 and, above all, the greatest hero of the Liberation War of 1971. He is undisputedly the founder of independent Bangladesh and, therefore, the Father of the Nation. He has, upon a global survey, been rightly acclaimed as the best Bengali of all times.
Bangabandhu has thus an unrivalled position in the history of Bangladesh independence. On March 7, the whole nation was prepared to listen to nobody else's speech; on March 25, the occupation army thought of arresting nobody else; the world leaders pressurised the then Pakistan government into releasing nobody else; nobody else was made the founding president of new-born Bangladesh; on January 10, 1971, nobody else was given the historic reception; nobody else was entrusted with the responsibility of reconstructing the war-ravaged nation. It was Mujib and only Mujib who was the protagonist of the whole play. If the total credit of the liberation war had depended only on the charisma of an oral declaration, the people of Bangladesh would have given Zia all they gave Mujib. Professor Humayun Azad quite rightly made the comparison between Mujib and his political peers where lies an implied reference to Zia whose importance pales beside Mujib's. As he put it: "Compared to Mujib, his predecessors are mediocre and successors are insignificant and laughable." Professor Azad's opinion carries weight, for, he was not like the intellectuals of his generation rotten by the ugly process of politicisation. The range of Mujib's preceding and succeeding politicians, in the good professor's view, would include leaders like Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, A. K. Fazlul Huq, Mawlana Bhashani, Syed Nazrul Islam, Tazuddin Ahmed, Captain Mansur, A H M Quamruzzaman and Ziaur Rahman as on point. This is history based on the bare bones of things that really came about. Travesties of facts must be spoilt by the unrealistic contrivances!
Dr Rashid Askari writes fiction and columns, and teaches English literature at Kushtia Islamic University, Bangladesh. rashidaskari65@yahoo.com
© 2026 - All Rights with The Financial Express
