Let history resolve an unnecessary debate

If history, with its prescribed role as the teller of "naked truth" (Leopold Von Ranke), can be any judge, it would appear that both Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Shaheed Ziaur Rahman had their distinct contributions to our Liberation War, differing, however, in content, extent, and circumstances. This is plain as well as historical truth, and as such, both should be accorded their due recognition.

The only pragmatic way to accept and recognise this historical truth is to leave history to do its job without any political interference. Indeed, history and politics are two different domains that do not have anything in common. History has its right to concern itself with politics and political happenings to record the march of time, keeping, however, strictly to the limitations of historical exercises. But, politics being an altogether different kind of exercise, does not have any reason to impose itself on the domain of historical exercises. In the case of such an imposition, both history and politics get distorted; a phenomenon that produces unwelcome consequences for a nation. Bangladesh is perhaps the worst example of this.

Without denigrating the role of these two historic personalities, and, taking a broad brush sweep across history, it can be suggested that at a time when the people of Bangladesh took up arms to resist the Pakistani crackdown in the small hours of March 26, 1971, they did not wait for any declaration to do so; it was their spontaneous resistance, although ill-equipped, disorganised, and scattered.

In the background of such a spontaneous resistance, there had been a long preparation of the popular psyche, in which personalities like, Sher-e-Bangla A.K. Fazlul Huq, Husseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, Moulana Bhashani, and, in the final stage, Bangabandhu played a role unsurpassed by his peers. Shaheed Ziaur Rahman's role at a critical moment in the beginning of the resistance is also a fact of history, the significance of which cannot and should not be undermined. While Bangabandhu, preceded by his peers, had the comprehensive contribution in preparing this nation in stages through twists and turns in political evolution for the final moment of reckoning, Shaheed Zia's role at a critical moment did act as a catalyst for those who took up arms throughout the country for resisting the Pakistani occupation forces.

It would be illogical to change this simple order in the initial phase of our Liberation War history with a politicised orientation. Even the oft-attempted ranking of all these national personalities is uncalled for. We should not lose sight of the fact that the common people are the best judges of the role and performance of their leaders. They hold in high esteem both Bangabandhu and Shaheed Zia, and some enlightened ones do recall leaders like Sher-e-Bangla, Suharawardy, and Moulana Bhashani. I assert this on the basis of many an encounter I have had with common people on this issue over the years throughout the length and breadth of the country. It is, however true that an altogether different and certainly divisive opinion would emerge if we talk to persons or people with narrow political orientation.

In a humble but certainly desperate bid to put this raging and counterproductive controversy to rest, a formula is suggested by drawing an analogy with the history of independence and unification of Italy between 1859 and 1870. Italy had two problems: geographic division of the land into many city-states; and all these were under Austrian domination. So, they had the twin goals of achieving both -- independence from Austrian domination and unification as a viable state. By 1870 both of these goals were achieved. This twin-success was rendered possible by the cumulative contributions of three leaders: Mazzini, Cavour and Garibaldi, who played their roles at three different stages between 1859 and 1870, and made their distinct contributions. Mazzini was a dreamer of independence, who exhorted his people intellectually to throw off Austrian domination. Cavour was a diplomat. He tried diplomatically to weaken and isolate Austria-Hungary in the comity of European nations. Finally, it was Garibaldi the general who gave the lead in the fight to drive out the foreign forces from Italy in 1870; and thus Italy became independent and united.

Italians do not do any ranking of these three leaders of their independence; they have their own way of recognising their contributions. They regard Mazzini, Cavour, and Garibaldi as the brain, soul, and sword of independence, respectively. This is a recognition, which gives everyone his due; none is overestimated or underestimated.

Following this worthy example, a formula can be worked out which looks at our saga of liberation holistically and apportions due credit to our contributing leaders. The draft formula (not the final one) may be worked out in the following way:

Brain: Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

Soul: Sher-e-Bangla A.K. Fazlul Huq, and Moulana Bhashani.

Organiser: Tajuddin Ahmed

Sword: Shaheed Ziaur Rahman and Gen. M.A.G. Osmani.

This is an entirely tentative formula, it can be further worked on provided there is a consensus to let history be the final arbiter in this unnecessary and unending political controversy. Moreover, after all these thirty-three years of independence, it is time we as a nation demonstrated some degree of maturity by reaching a consensus to make a list of some national personalities, who should be kept above any political controversy and beyond any political wrangling.

Dr. Syed Anwar Husain is former DG of Bangla Academy