The Uddinization of the 2007-08 Care-Taker Government and the Quagmire Politics of the Past
Dr Jalal Uddin Khan
Since the early days of 1/11, both the former army chief (Uddin 1) and the former chief adviser (Uddin 2) together with the senile, imbecile, and mentally unstable second-childhood former President (Uddin 3), let alone the other behind-the-scene player, army officer Masud (Uddin 4), seemed to have taken sides in some of their actions and statements. This taking side, politically, did not fail to invite unnecessary trouble for the nation (and now for them as well). While they had been hailed for taking some bold steps with the intention of containing the corruption and cleaning up the old mess and should have, therefore, gone on bringing the country back on track and taking the country forward on the path of development, some of their post-1/11 actions and opinions with regard to Sheikh Mujib may not have been pleasant and palatable to all across the board. There was no need for them to open more wounds and more futile debates by touching on something better left untouched. The two chiefs’ (Uddin 1 & Uddin 2) prescription of “recognition” of Sheikh Mujib as the father of the nation could not be a corrective/unifying measure towards national unity and the cure of the corrosive abysmal national disease of corruption and intolerance they thought it would be. If they wanted to please some by such politically-charged and politically-biased statements, sell their own self-seeking agenda and keep the transitional government going, they were utterly wrong. The Uddins should not have alienated others and should not have risked losing the balancing, neutral character of such care-taker government.
If the two Uddins were personally enthusiastic about Sheikh Mujib’s father-of-the-nation status, they should not have risked losing the neutrality of the caretaker government by making such personal enthusiasm public. Ironically, the two chiefs rose to the height of their career through the favors they received from those who, for political as well as ideological reasons, had been opposed to granting such status to Sheikh Mujib. Such betrayals are not uncommon in the history of Bangladesh—Sheikh Mujib was betrayed by his own inner circle and Ziaur Rahman was betrayed by his fellow freedom fighters in the army and his own army chief Hussein Ershad (popularly known as Dictator Ershad). Awami League alleges that they were betrayed by Justice Shahabuddin and now the case of BNP being betrayed by all these three top Uddins. The Uddin # 1, while still the army chief, one day (on Channel I Trityo Matra) defended his passionate personal declaration of Sheikh Mujib as the father of the nation as his right as a citizen of Bangladesh, claiming he was just exercising his right to self-expression and his personal views as a Bangladesh citizen.
Unfortunately, the Uddin’s argument was mistaken and misplaced. If all public servants and state officials took sides in the name of their right as citizens of Bangladesh just as the former (“Shabek”) army chief did, one can imagine what pandemonium the Republic would be. It is a general regulation that while in active service, government officials are not supposed to take political sides, at least not openly. If they do, one can imagine the extent of factional and partisan politics that would eat into the vitals of the government. As an army chief and the mainstay behind the caretaker government, General Uddin ( with his Generalship being a big question mark) should have held his politically sensitive views in check. Instead of uniting the country on balanced and neutral grounds, the pro-Sheikh Mujib stance of both top Uddins (M. Uddin and F. Uddin) had the potential of plunging the nation into further trouble—more violent, more militant, more confrontational. Thanks to the state of emergency, though in some cases forcibly used in favor of the Uddins’ self-promotion!
Moreover, you would not and cannot prove your neutrality by visiting the graves of both Mujib and Zia on their death anniversaries; you would do so by doing the other way around—firmly and quietly staying away. Of course, doing the “ziarah” could prove your Islamic piety and humanity, but certainly it was not Islamic “ziarah,” far from that. It was an opportunist politically-motivated visit on shallow political grounds out of mean political interest. You did not have to prove your piety and humanity by being involved in such politically charged matters when your moves could be easily misconstrued and misunderstood by the vigilant and discerning public. There must have been and there would be a plenty of opportunity for you to visit both graves, if you wanted to, before you came to such state positions of prominence and when you would be private citizens, out of government, in the near future. But you hardly did and may never do.
Since there are no panacea for certain diseases, it is perhaps wiser not to prescribe one and more so not to impose one on such a disease, which should be left on its own, to run its own course and find a slow and gradual remedy, if any, over the course of time. To reiterate, sometimes it is better to leave something to itself and to its natural course of evolution, not to be interfered with, especially by those who need to profess themselves, at least publicly, to be non-partisan, neutral and fair to all sides. Let such matters be rather prudently resolved politically through an elected parliament on the basis of a bi- or multi-partisan consensus.
Bangladesh is painfully fraught with so many politically divisive issues. One of them is who the two leaders were, what their respective roles had been and what their fitting titles should have been. This has to do with: one, who the father of the nation is; two, whether there has to be and ought to be a father regardless of how fragmented and contradictory his role, vision and philosophy might have been and regardless of how his leadership and statesmanship were viewed to have fallen short of the wide and deep national appeal both before and after the independence going a long way towards forging unity in the war-torn country and, three, whether it is better to have a controversial father than not to have any father at all (on the basis of the old traditional formula of something is better than nothing, “nai mamar cheye kana mama bhalo”). The issue is also related to who first declared the independence of the country and in what form and style, whether one should respectfully utter the title of “Bangobandhu” every time one utters the name of Sheikh Mujib and do the same by adding “Shaheed President” before the name of Ziaur Rahman.
Such divisive issues would also include whether the current two female leaders need to be distinguished by their separate yet similar and synonymous appellations—“Desh-Netri” Khaleda and “Jono-Netri” Hasina, whether we should be known as “Bangalee” (according to the post-independence constitution) or “Bangladeshi” (according to the 5th amendment to the constitution), whether we should raise the slogan of “Joy Bangla” or “Bangladesh Zindabad,” call it “Bangladesh Betar” or “Radio Bangladesh” and, more importantly, whether we should continue to have the existing national anthem—highly lyrical and emotionally charged, true, but considered rationally and logically, untenable, non-consensus and disuniting—as our national anthem, let alone the recent controversies over the role of RAB, Anti-Corruption Commission, Election Commission, Care-Taker Government and the inclusion of Jamat in the proposed reform dialogue.
The above issues, across the historical political divide, quite thorny as they tenaciously proved themselves to be, have never been so easy as to be worked out politically with a view to injecting and fostering the spirit of tolerance and understanding in the political culture of Bangladesh, long dominated by intolerance, cynical distrust, cyclical conflict, and power struggle. For instance, the dispute over the status and contribution of both Sheikh Mujib and Ziaur Rahman in the history of Bangladesh could never have been permanently solved with an open, objective and dispassionate mind. While we should not turn a blind eye to the role of Sheikh Mujib as a very bold, inspiring, arousing, charismatic pre-and-pro-independence leader, we cannot help taking into consideration the element of confusion and controversy left, first, in the events leading up to his call for the independence of Bangladesh according to his historic March 7 speech; second, in his chance, as ill (or good) luck would have it, either carefully orchestrated or thrust upon him, to stay away from the bloody war of independence in (the so-called safe haven of) Pakistani jail, who, following his release, reportedly did not want to fly back home to his new-born Bangladesh straight away and instead sought the opportunity of using the Pakistan Radio to form a certain public opinion targeting the new nation but failed to obtain the approval of the Bhutto government to do so; third, in his life-long alliance with India and the perceived lack of close association with Islam and Muslims at home, and, most importantly, fourth, his highly controversial and deeply disuniting three-and-a-half-year rule with people suffering immensely from the beginning so that they took to the streets in joy upon hearing the news of his assassination.
On the other hand, the role of General Ziaur Rahman had all along been bright and glorious so much so that the entire nation deeply mourned the tragic loss of their beloved president. his assassination. He most heroically took the risk of his life not only to make the most crucial and most direct announcement of independence (of course on behalf of “Bangobandhu” Sheikh Mujib) over the radio in the most timely fashion on the night of March 26, 1971 but also to organize the historic armed struggle to rise to the need of the hour and who thus most courageously and successfully took part in the war of independence, let alone the much-needed leadership and statesmanship he provided in tiding over the political crisis in which the country had been plunged in 1975. However, his career also was not without alleged blemishes when one were to ponder over his distant or indirect role, if any, in the summary military trials during his six years of rule.
The semantic issues, however, are not a problem in (and by) themselves and would not have been a problem had they not openly reflected the disrupting political partisanship sweeping across the nation. If the people of all groups across the political spectrum and the public in general loved to show their respect for both Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman as “Bangobandhu” and “Shaheed President” respectively and Khaleda and Hasina as “Deshnetri” and “Jononetri” respectively, without any hesitation and discrimination, it would not only have promoted tolerance and understanding but also have helped solve many problems facing the country by paving the way for political dialogue between the feuding parties. Unfortunately, those symbolic titles are limited to the respective followers only. With a few exceptions, generally, if you are a follower of Awami League, you do admiringly use “Bangobandhu” before the name of Sheikh Mujib; if you are a supporter of BNP, you do use “Shaheed President” before the name of Ziaur Rahman, thus clearly associating the terms with your party affiliations and thus widening the differences between the two sides. The same is true about “Deshnetri” and “Jononetri” and other similar issues, which, however, may not be as serious as others but which still deeply color, even determine the divide. Ideally, both sides should call their leaders the way they would like them to be called. This certainly would have contributed to creating an atmosphere of harmony and tolerance auguring well for the country.
Since it all continues to be divisive, widening the gap and breeding contempt among the opponents, why not put all those merely decorative and ornamental titles out of use and instead simply make note of them on rare occasions and in the history books? I do not know of any such practice in the world in which people make it a constant and hackneyed fashion to use home-coined or self-styled titles before the names of their national leaders in various fields including politics, literature and science. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Winston Churchill, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tsetung, De Gaulle, Margaret Thatcher, Francois Mitterand, Fidel Castro, Lee Kuan Yew, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, William Shakespeare, John Milton, William Butler Yeats, Johann Goethe, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilee, Albert Einstein—all are known to the world by their simple proper names without any earned or honorary titles before their names. With Mahatma Gandhi, Netaji Subhash Bose, Kobiguru/Viswakobi Rabindranath Thakur, Kaed-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Bidrohi Kobi Nazrul, Pollikobi Jasimuddin, Bangobandhu Sheikh Mujib, and Shaheed Zia, including the long titles before the names of many religious saints, South Asia is an exception for no good reason except the fact that it has been notoriously developing a personality cult by devout fanatical devotees.
Such superficial love of titles with the attendant slavish and sycophant mentality and the lurking hero-worship sentiment have seriously affected the area of journalism too in South and South East Asia. For example, in Bangladesh, no press coverage or TV broadcast is complete without mentioning at least half a dozen titles before every name every time it is mentioned—from “[Manonyo] Prime Minister, [Manonyo] Parliament Leader and [Manonyo] Awami League President Bangabandhu Kannya Bangabandhu Tanaya Jono-Netri” Sheikh Hasina to “Former Prime Minister and BNP Chairperson” Begum Khaleda Zia to “Former President and Former Army Chief and Jatiyo Party President and Pollibandhu General Hussein Ershad” to “Former Minster” to “Former Deputy Minister” to “Former State Minister” to “Former…Former…Former…,” (“Shabek…Shabek…Shabek”), as if nobody would know Sheikh Mujib, Ziaur Rahman, Khaleda Zia, Sheikh Hasina or Hussain Ershad by their proper names only or as if it was an unpardonable offence not to use those honorary titles/designations every time their names were mentioned in the media or as if it became an ambition for every one to become a permanent “Former” (a permanent “Shabek”) rather than a temporary “Current/Present/Sitting” something. Since one could not be a “Shabek” before becoming an incumbent/a “Current,” one had no choice but to aspire to become a “Current” first. Bangladesh media with their young and inexperienced journalists have helped thousands of politicians, young and old, to find a peculiar way of establishing themselves in the permanent position of “Shabek” and thereby bringing undying social prestige and prominence to themselves so that their sons and daughters and grandchildren also could feel proud to be the sons and daughters and grandchildren of “Shabeks” rather than “Currents.”
With funny page-long titles before and after the names of royalties and the royally conferred long titles on the dignitaries to make them happy and thereby silence them politically and ensure their blind loyalty in some South East Asian Muslim countries, those countries also are another exception for no good reason except that of continuing the bogus tradition of colonial master-slave mentality, decadent pomp and splendor syndrome, inferiority complex and outlandish royal trappings. In this 21st century such remains should better be buried or wiped out for the sake of democratic equality and unity and true human rights and dignity. In the West, the standard bearer of democracy and democratic openness, such practices are viewed with mocking laughter, if not disgust and distemper.
Finally, today’s major political parties should not remain mired in the problem of “remembrance of things past” in their stream of consciousness. Such a technique is hurting them as well as the country both of which continue to pay a price from their backward-looking politics. They are deeply engulfed in the politics of the past with no agenda for the future and for real economic development of the country. The only agenda is how to bring the government down and get to power by creating unrest and instability. It seems Awami League is the biggest abuser of democracy in the name of ’71, ’72, and ’75, always preoccupied with the idea of looking to the past only as if it has nothing else to claim as an achievement or as a comprehensive program for the future of the country.
God knows how many times a day Sheikh Mujib’s name is invoked in the political meetings, speeches and rallies in the mornings, afternoons, and evenings. By contrast, how many times a year, let alone a day or a month or even months, Americans or the British invoke or even remember the names of their great political predecessors or founding fathers? Hardly any. Great presidents such as Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy were assassinated but their death anniversaries come and go without notice. They met their tragic fate but their respective parties, while remaining loyal to their legacies and without letting them fade or die down, moved forward campaigning, taking their agenda to the public and taking the country to newer and newer heights without regressively falling back or solely banking upon the memory of their long-lost leaders. Too much praise or attention to a dead leader in the worldly or political sense is a hindrance, an obstruction to the creation of new leadership with a new vision and statesmanship. Successful Western democracies know that the best way to honor their dead is to serve the country well and they are therefore busy talking about their current and future programs, to be debated, reviewed and implemented. Awami League’s ’71-and-’75-centric politics is a counterproductive boomerang, almost a menace, a nuisance, an anathema to the public. While it is a civilizing virtue to cultivate a sense of history, it is absolutely dull to remain stagnant and bogged down in history. Politics is a continuing living process, an ever evolving process. Political parties must therefore map out and follow a future-oriented, realistic yet dynamic, patriotic yet tough, popular yet determined, flexible yet principled course of action, not just to survive but renew, replenish and succeed and serve the country ever better with belief in better tomorrows.
To resolve the issue of the status of the national leaders, let it be done by consensus through an elected parliament in a spirit of mutual tolerance and understanding and compromise and sacrifice. No care-taker/interim government, let alone an army chief, both of whom should remain above such political fray by all means, should impose any forced solution to such an issue of far-reaching national significance and deep-seated symbolism.
Writer: Professor of English, email: jukhan@gmail.com
I read with very much interest the long story written by another uddin which appeared to me one sided.The writer blamed wrongly Uddin-1 and Uddin-2 for declaring Sheikh Mujib as father of the nation.The writer should know that Bangabandhu never need to be declared by Gen.Moin to be the father of the nation.He is so since the independence of the country.When sheikh Mujib after giving the leadership in the war of independence Zia was simply a major or a sector commander like many others say 12 to 15 like hime.The writer vainly tried to put Zia in the same scale with leader like Sheikh Mujib.He wrote many things about the actors of 1/11 but never mentoioned the very background of the 1/11 change over.Why 1/11 came,who were mainly responsible for such a situation.There should be a neutral and impartial soul-searching and then we can blame.
2608
৩
abidbahar@yahoo.com থেকে abid bahar লিখেছেন,
২১ অগাস্ট ২০০৯; সকাল ১১:০১
Several things about what Mr. Hira’s comments:
(1) Contrary to what you said, Sheikh needed to be declared by the Generals or his daughter and the followers because the latter was never accepted as the father of the nation by the nation; even at his death people didn’t cry; why he was the killer of democracy in Bangladesh.
(2) You said “When sheikh Mujib after giving the leadership in the war of independence Zia was simply a major or a sector commander like many others say 12 to 15 like hime.†Not true Sheikh never gave leadership in the liberation war. He was negotiating with the Pak army until his surrender. During the war he was in Pakistan. Where did you hear Sheikh gave leadership during the war? Zia both declared the independence and was leading the war.True, to the dieheard Mujib supporters, Zia never changed from the post of Major while to them the Sheikh became the father of the nation. This type of understanding is similar to the hero-worshipping tendency, an importanr feature of Fascism.
3078
৪
Abudhabi থেকে sarwar chowdhury লিখেছেন,
২৫ অগাস্ট ২০০৯; রাত ০২:৫৫
some points mentioned here very important.
personality-cult in our politics need to be rooted out for the betterment of our dear homeland and society!
3135
বাংলা (ইউনিকোডে) অথবা ইংরেজীতে আপনার মন্তব্য লিখুন:
USA থেকে Reza লিখেছেন,
