Thanks Mr. Isha Khan
--------------------
Another interesting gift from you.....but unfortunately, I was not given a" half Ph.D " for saying similar facts in the past!
AL leadres committed blunders. AND AL chamchas made it worse by childish efforts to justify each nonsense-act
of AL govt, during 1972 - 1975.How many AL supporter we meet, who is ready to accept Al's mistakes and to understand that
such type of admission will help AL to perform better in the future.
But then...my frustration will continue to flow...as I havn't got any clue...why ordinary people, with little food, shelter
and prestige, continue to vote corrupt/inefficient bullies...to parliament!!!
Best wishes.
Khoda hafez.
dr. maqsud omar
To: zoglul@hotmail.co.uk; shahin72@gmail.com; janashah_1@yahoo.com; alfazanambd@yahoo.com; adelm@uapb.edu; hossain.khilji@yahoo.com; mbimunshi@gmail.com; rehman.mohammad@gmail.com; farhadmazhar@hotmail.com; mahmudurart@yahoo.com; kmamalik@aol.com; dhakamails@yahoogroups.com; khabor@yahoogroups.com; alochona@yahoogroups.com; bdresearchers@yahoogroups.com; bangla-vision@yahoogroups.com; mouchakaydheel@yahoo.com; odhora@yahoogroups.com; ayeshakabir@yahoo.com; sayantha15@yahoo.com; minarrashid@yahoo.com; history_islam@yahoogroups.com
From: bd_mailer@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 03:59:54 -0800
Subject: [ALOCHONA] A book, a coup, some thoughts
A book, a coup, some thoughts Is the nation bound by an illegitimate, illegal and palpably unlawful act by a legal government who had not revalidated its mandate to govern as a party under the new constitution in the newly sovereign, independent state called the People's Republic of Bangladesh? writes Syed Muhammad Hussain A beautifully produced book, Bangladesh: Failed Years —- 1972-75, by Dr. Jamshed Chowdhury is based on his thesis dissertation for his PhD from Heidelberg University. The theme of AL's failures and failure of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman have been researched over many years, but then these in most cases have been vitiated by the preconceived perceptions brought in, hindering the process of a neutral scrutiny and an unbiased focus. Dr Jamshed Chowdhury does not appear to have an axe to grind in reaching certain conclusions. As a thesis work it appears to have been a labour of love. Perhaps I did miss some nuggets. But the first reading did not reveal any definitive, or for that matter, clear verdict. The readers are left to do that on their own. Two major strains in the post-Independence political development in Bangladesh so much more attention and these are, one- While Sheikh Mujib may have realised that the overwhelming Bengali support for the cause of Independence was not so much of a total support for Awami League per se, but was an effective 'carte blanche' for his leadership of all Bengalis, this very crucial and finer point did not dawn on other AL leaders excepting possibly Tajuddin Ahmed. Or if historic verdict suffers from an element of generosity, it might opine that the rest of the AL high command chose to ignore it and deliberately in the following years, attempted to hoist AL for obvious reasons on the nation It was a monstrous hypocrisy that the nation which had united irrespective of all the past differences and then current gargantuan problems facing the country to rebuild the economy and rekindle the hopes that initiated and sustained the liberation struggle, should have been shackled with AL rule and only a short time later, imprisoned in a one-party political dispensation . The AL and its short-sighted dwarfs thought they could overturn the popular will imbued then with their sacrifices many times over, No known, well placed AL leader had suffered any personal loss in the bloody war of liberation Sheikh Mujib was safely away, his family lived safely in Dhaka, and Theatre Road in Calcutta saw the Al leaders-in-exile not exactly in the thick of the battles that our valiant, often faceless fighters were engaged in some 100-odd kilometres away in the borders. This aspect must be brought out in the open in truth and without prejudice. Because the AL's leadership claims are entrenched in these months and in those events occurring between March 1971 and December 1971. In my view, only Tajuddin had the capability and the courage to strike a different note on policy matters with Sheikh Mujib. Mansur Ali and Qamruzzaman may have had some abilities, but their sense of getting into power was more acute than any ideal or principal-based stand that ought to have been taken in the crucial years before Baksal. Tajuddin in all probability became a hostage of loyalty to Sheikh and to his comrades. Tajuddin's monumental failure to rebel and all others' huge ability to 'kiss the ground' Sheikh walked on explain the disaster that befell the nation in August 1975. The army's intervention is only a tool, not a prime mover, not even a reason. Any analysis of a historic episode will suffer from being static if there is no measurement done of the shadows cast or areas illuminated by all these events. The AL and all other parties demonstrated the identical trait of a built-in failure, when, one- there are no dissenting voices, two, if there are, these are not heard with respect and patience, and third, like the Pharaohs the leaders abandon their trusted lieutenants and plot to empower their ill-gotten, ill-prepared and totally irrelevant offspring. The 1975 – onwards scenario in Bangladesh reveal those very characteristics that negate all the democratic norms and culture of governance of a modern, dynamic, ability-led, performance-oriented state. They violate openly all the values, they themselves shout about day in and day out, again publicly. No nation can and should, suffer such insolence of power and such flagrant disregard of people's will and welfare. The second major point of constitutionality was the establishment of one-party state with Baksal Political expediency apart, it was not, and it certainly could not be, the panacea AL and Sheikh Mujib were looking for evidently to tackle the rising problems for the government of the day. In fact, a party-less (disbanding AL) national Government under Sheikh Mujib could possibly have been a wiser, albeit difficult, solution. Through I strongly believe it was AL and its failure to rise above self-a-failed leadership – that led to the irreversible process of disaster, decline and decay in Bangladesh. Instead of strengthening the democratic polity, and culture and institutions like multiparty system, cabinet form of government, freedom of press and speech, independence of judiciary, non-interference in the due conduct of administration, non-preferential treatment to AL and party activists etc., Sheikh Mujib all but wore the crown and sat on the throne as the unelected king of the country. This brings in the legitimate question whether the AL victory in 1970 elections in Pakistan framework, could have been at all be valid as mandate in Bangladesh with its own constitution, for the declaration of one-party state in 1974. We need indeed to recall and emphasise that even the 1970 mandate was given in a multiparty elections. Is the nation bound by an illegitimate, illegal and palpably unlawful act by a legal government who had not revalidated its mandate to govern as a party under the new constitution in the newly sovereign, independent state called the People's Republic of Bangladesh? One of the unexplained phenomena of all times in Bangladesh relates to the total absence, absolutely so, of any public outpouring of grief, of protests, of condemnation on the gruesome elimination of Sheikh Mujib and almost the entire family on 15 August 1975. There was no visible reaction at least worth mentioning to this horrendous event within less than four years of his rule as he came in like a conqueror from exile to the obeisance of his party men and to the adulation of the people of Bangladesh still dazed and reeling from the nightmares that began on the 25 March 1971. What had happened and what had gone so wrong? That just some army men caught up in a frenzied mood brought about such a catastrophe is too simplistic an explanation and certainly not the real or the full one. To my mind, many elements conspired right from the day one of our Independence. But was not Sheikh Mujib's then unbelievable popularity adequate to get around these long knives? While these evil forces were gathering strength, by the same token Sheikh Mujib's style of administration, his weaknesses, his pervasive guilt feeling perhaps in not really being there with the valiant forces and above all, his easy capitulation to his close advisers from the great Theatre Road sector, in not firmly announcing a national government, in giving reign to his sons and daughters' lust for immediate power along with other relatives, sideling wise and committed comrades like Dr Kamal Hossain, Kader Siddiqui and many other genuine, but out-spoken well-wishers, went on corroding the strength that could have otherwise been Sheikh Mujib's shield for physical and political survival. There were quite a few self-seeking civil servants whose counsel Sheikh Mujib listened to most of the time There were strings of sycophants, hangers-on and their cohorts who gained immensely through Sheikh Mujib's misplaced generosity and misuse of state patronage and funds. And then of course his so-called stalwarts and follower banded in an almost obscene personal security apparatus called the Rakkhi Bahini, alienated the regular Armed Forces and other law-enforcing agencies as much as it did the people at large. Such an illegitimate, personalised security arrangements did not, and never do, deliver – the 15th August massacre should be a living testimony to all. And that there were no genuine regard and affection and they disappeared like mists in the sun, when their mighty leader had a mighty fall. Even all his 'Bhayera Amaar 'across the length and breadth of the country did not come out wailing at the great fall. Why? The reasons must be embedded in the way the AL conducted itself, the way Sheikh Mujib distanced himself not only from all the pro-independence, proactive-forces, but also from the common people at large. The smoke from his most expensive brand Erin more pipe tobacco created a veil across his eyes and his senses and he could not see for himself, nor were his 'honourable' bandoliers were honest enough to keep him informed about the people and about their ever-growing problems and the rising tide of disenchantment through deprivation, neglect and unkempt promises. All these led to the growing chasm between Mujib the people's leader and Mujib the Prime Minister and then also so swiftly, the President of a one-party state, banishing freedom of speech and thereby, banishing hope. And hopeless people do not have tears left to cry for others, even for their great fallen hero! To be Sheikh Mujib alone was not enough, 'I love my people and my people love me' type simplistic belief was certainly not the solution the nation was then dying for A colossal black hole of utter disillusionment, hopelessness, and disgust had engulfed the nation. In my view, the famine of 1974 despite sufficient stocks of food was the watershed, but the charge that ignited the explosion of mayhem and the public silence, was perhaps the huge , multi-layered, cream cake that was carried through the television coverage to celebrate Sheikh Mujib's birthday. The 'cake' travelled over the dead bodies and the dying ones in the realm to mark the birth of the 'Bangabandhu'! All people do and can, suffer only so much pain, but they still had some respect for the dead and they did not take out a cake on the 15th of August 1975. The writer is a former ambassador and secretary to the Bangladesh government http://www.newagebd.com/2005/may/28/edit.html#2 |
__._,_.___