Dr. Rahman said: ".....Did Sheikh Mujibur Rahman do anything to rectify the situation? Did he reign in his corrupt nephews and other relations? Did he stop importing new cars and divert the money to import basic food products? No, No, No, No. His solution was to ditch the only democratic institution that existed at that time - the multiparty system - and replace it with a single party dictatorial system (BAKSAL)...."
I am not sure if you were there, but I was. In order to judge the existing political condition at the time, you have to be there, because much of the history has been distorted in the aftermath of 1975. Your comments indicate that you subscribe to the distorted facts. You seem to support killings of most decorated leaders of the country, which made Bangladesh orphan and leaderless. The country is still leaderless, Dr. Rahman.
You said Sheikh Mujib killed democracy by creating one political party. Obviously - democracy is preferable to one party rule, but - was democracy a right system for Bangladesh at the time? Let's analyze.
Bangladesh did not have a functioning economy after the independence; on top of that - a devastating flood engulfed Bangladesh right after the independence. USA delayed committed shipment of grains and humanitarian aid, probably because - Bangladesh was in the Soviet-bloc at the time. Delayed shipment of grains created a food scarcity, which resulted famine and mass starvation. Your notion that - Sheikh Mujib did nothing to mitigate the food crisis - was just incorrect.
Mujib was not happy with such food-politics, and he was also very unhappy with the corrupt people (Chamchas) around him. In many occasions, he said – "Whatever I bring by begging abroad are sucked out by the corrupt Chamchas." So, he decided to consolidate all powers in his hand. His goal was to make Bangladesh self-sufficient in food as fast as possible. He wanted to empower down-trodden people, instead of Chamchas. That was the idea behind the creation of Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League (BAKSAL). I was not a supporter of Awami League, but his decision made sense to me at the time. It was obviously a socialist system, which had a chance to succeed in Bangladesh. It was an appropriate social system for a newly independent country, engulfed in famine. Organizing farmers to encourage collective farming and sharing national wealth among citizens were panaceas to move the famine stricken newly independent country forward. A benevolent nationalist dictatorship in the earlier stage could have been a much better system for Bangladesh, and Sheikh Mujib was that nationalist benevolent dictator the country needed at that time. But, international conspiracy against Bangladesh won.
You can decry for democracy, but that's just a political rhetoric. Democracy cannot work in a country with vastly uneducated ignorant population. You need peoples' constructive input in the democratic system; you are not getting that from the people of Bangladesh. As a result - rampant corruption by politicians can flourish. Political corruption breeds in an environment when people do not know how to hold politicians accountable for their misdeeds. In Bangladesh, only corrupt politicians can succeed. Just look around and see if this assumption is correct or not.
Here we are enjoying democracy for 38 years after Mujib-assassination; what did we get? Bangladesh is at the top of the list of most corrupt countries in the world. Wishing for something that we cannot handle could be detrimental to our interest. You need to be practical - if you want to get out of the mess - that was created after the assassination of Shekh Mujib. They got rid of all leaders, and Bangladesh is now leaderless country. I am not sure how you can defend such acts.
Yes, Dr. Rahman, you are right, no one protested at the time assassination of Sheikh Mujib, his family, and other leaders. I had that question in my mind at that time, and I scratched my head to find an answer to this question. The answer I found was convincing enough for me. I thought – country just witnessed the most unthinkable horrific terror with total shock and awe. Sheikh Mujib appeared to be invincible and almighty at that time; such a personality could face such a horrible destiny is beyond anyone's comprehension. Such thought sucked courage out of the people to protest against these atrocities. The utter silence on the part of the people, in no way can be translated into a tacit support for the perpetrators of such heinous acts. You said, foreign embassy took off the portrait of Sheikh Mujib to show their support for the assassination. It is a wrong assumption as well. They did so - out of panic and fear of reprisal.
Excuse me for such lengthy reply.
Jiten Roy