Tilottoma Saha
The evolution of the anti-discrimination student movement into a one-point demand carried only the demand for the government’s downfall. Some said the country and its people are now independent. Some said fascism has been eradicated. Some argued that this strengthened the anti-independence sentiment and that its supporters were those who gained freedom. All of these are valid. They are all political perspectives, and such opinions will always exist. But in this country, whether it’s an election, the fall of a regime, or even a win or loss in cricket, minorities become fearful. They worry for their safety, that they may be attacked.
In this country, regardless of what happens, Hindus must always remain cautious, waiting for the moment they are assaulted. After these cases of directed aggression, the usual theories that we often hear were no exception this time either. Labeling the attacks as a ‘conspiracy,’ the interim government's home advisor said that there was a conspiracy against Bangladesh. An identical statement to that of the ministers of the past government. Some claimed it was India's doing, trying to discredit the revolution of the students and the people. Others suggested that by highlighting these isolated incidents, Hindus were actually favoring the Awami League. Such talks are not new to us. Only the players have changed.
Now, let me revisit some matters of the past. The state of Pakistan was, in truth, founded by Bengali Muslims. To put it in correct terms, it must be said that the Father of the Nation in Pakistan should have been Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq because he proposed the Lahore Resolution. We all know that Pakistan was born through Muslim nationalism. However, after the creation of Pakistan, due to economic and political discrimination, nationalism gradually took on the name of ‘Bengali nationalism.’ This was because the Bengalis were becoming victims of economic and political discrimination at the hands of Punjabis and Pathans. Since everyone shared the Muslim religious identity, Bengali nationalism was forced to emerge for a brief period. The remaining Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian Bengalis who stayed in the country after the Partition misunderstood this transformation. They began to think that Pakistan's ideals had been abandoned. On the issue of ‘Bangladesh,’ the Muslim nationalist consciousness that founded Pakistan also became divided into two and fell into the same confusion. During Pakistan's final decade, it was very natural for Hindus and other communities to become confused by this. In reality, the emergence of Bangladesh was described by Abul Mansur Ahmad in his book ‘Amar Dekha Rajnitir Panchash Bachar’ (What I have seen of the 50 years of politics) as follows: “Instead of one Pakistan, there are now two Pakistans. The Indian government helped us implement the Lahore Resolution. ... The Lahore Resolution does not mention the word 'Pakistan'; it only mentions the state with a Muslim majority. This means that the name of the state was to be determined later by the people. The Western population named their state ‘Pakistan,’ while we in the East named ours ‘Bangladesh.’ There is no reason for confusion here.”
“Instead of one Pakistan, there are now two Pakistans. The Indian government helped
us implement the Lahore Resolution. ... The Lahore Resolution does not mention the
word 'Pakistan'; it only mentions the state with a Muslim majority. This means that
the name of the state was to be determined later by the people. The Western
population named their state ‘Pakistan,’
while we in the East named ours ‘Bangladesh.’ There is no reason for confusion here.”
No intellectual, writer, or politician in Bangladesh has dared to tell such a truth about the ideological identity of Bangladesh. Through the lenses of all three of these identities, Abul Mansur Ahmad wrote his book. These points were essential at the beginning of the discussion about the persecution of minorities in Bangladesh. Without them, we would never understand why those of the majority who claim to be democratic, socialist, secular, and so on play hide-and-seek with the issue of minority persecution and discrimination; why they justify the oppression of minorities by drawing communal and ethnic parallels with the fact that Muslims are also persecuted in India. India is a vast country where Hindus are a minority in many states. India has states with Muslim, Buddhist, and Christian majorities. The history of so-called low-caste Hindus being oppressed by upper-caste Hindus in India is also extensive. Even the history of Hindus facing communal attacks in India and leaving the country is well-documented. However, there is no history of Muslims becoming a minority and moving from India to Pakistan or Bangladesh. Because scholars lack strong arguments or evidence on this issue, they have resorted to the notion that Indian Muslims did not leave the country due to their ‘deep patriotism.’ This, in turn, implies that the ethnic and religious minorities in Bangladesh lack patriotism. As such, the intellectual society gave rise to victim-blaming in this regard.
Those who fought tooth and nail for Pakistan under the same nationalist umbrella became fierce political opponents. In the bloody liberation war, many heroes of the Pakistan movement became infamous as collaborators with the Razakars and Al-Badr forces. On the other hand, the young leaders of the Pakistan movement became the great heroes of the liberation war. Ignoring these histories, one can never truly understand Bangladesh. Two groups emerged over the issue of Bangladesh: one group was the ‘pro-liberation force,’ and the other was the ‘anti-liberation force.’ Although Jamaat-e-Islami had opposed the creation of Pakistan, that is a separate discussion. The main point is that politics in Bangladesh has become divided into two streams. As I have repeatedly asserted, it is the context of the 1971 Liberation War that originated this division. The Awami League broke the Muslim nation's unity by splitting Pakistan and aligning with India and the Soviet Union, which is why most Arab countries did not recognize Bangladesh as a country until after the assassination of Bangabandhu on August 15, 1975. Those who once fought for the creation of Pakistan were then called Hindus! Atheists! And so, those who realized that Bengali Muslims would never achieve their political and economic freedom in Pakistan and wanted to free Bangladesh became self-proclaimed ‘pro-liberation forces.’ There is no historical evidence that these ‘pro-liberation forces’ rejected the two-nation theory. On the contrary, it was later discovered that those who directly participated in the liberation war believed in the two-nation theory. They were also behind the assassination of Bangabandhu. They misunderstood Bangabandhu just as the Arab world did. And those who thought that with the survival of Pakistan would come to the potential of Bengali Muslims claiming their rights one day, opposed the independence of Bangladesh thinking the Muslim Ummah would weaken with Pakistan breaking up—they became anti-Awami League.
[To be continued]
The writer is a cultural activist
tilottoma2378@gmail.com
