In a heated national discourse, Bangladesh finds itself at a crossroads of historical interpretation, with political leaders and scholars fiercely debating the significance of the 1971 Liberation War and the recent 2024 mass uprising. The controversy centres on the precise moment of independence and the comparative importance of these pivotal moments in the nation's history.
Major Ziaur Rahman's declaration of independence on the night of 25 March 1971 remains a cornerstone of Bangladesh's foundational narrative. Historical documents, including accounts by Major General KM Shafiullah and President Zia's own writings, confirm that Zia was the first to announce the country's independence over radio. His declaration came during the brutal Operation Searchlight by Pakistani forces, a moment that galvanised freedom fighters and instilled hope among a population suffering under immense oppression.
The current political landscape has become a battleground of competing narratives. Youth and Sports Advisor Asif Mahmud Bhuiyan emphatically stated, "1971 gave us independence; 2024 protected it," highlighting the perceived continuum of the nation's struggle. Conversely, BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir argued that the two events are fundamentally different, claiming that 1971 brought independence through war, while 2024 represents a fight for democracy.
Political tensions have manifested in various controversies, including significant changes to historical commemorative spaces. The Suhrawardy Udyan project, initially launched in 2018 to preserve Liberation War history, has undergone radical alterations under the interim government. Planned sculptures of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the Pakistani surrender monument have been removed, replacing them with historical plaques featuring revised inscriptions.
Divergent perspectives have emerged from different political quarters. Mia Ghulam Parwar of Jamaat-e-Islami controversially claimed that Bangladesh's "true independence" was not achieved in 1971, suggesting that political leaders had "signed agreements to sell out the country's interests." BNP's Standing Committee member Mirza Abbas added a definitive stance, declaring, "Independence Day will prove that there is no such thing as a second independence in Bangladesh," a statement he made after paying tribute to martyrs at the National Memorial in Savar. In contrast, Nahid Islam, convenor of Jatiya Nagorik Party, argued that the 2024 uprising revives the spirit of 1971, emphasising historical continuity.
Local governance has not been immune to these tensions. A notable incident involved assistant commissioner (Land), Sirajum Munira Kaysan, in Sarail, Brahmanbaria of Chittagong, who was removed from her position following a Facebook post claiming Mujib as the "declarer of independence." The subsequent investigation and her reassignment underscore the sensitivity surrounding historical narratives.
Amidst the controversy, voices of moderation have emerged. Chittagong City Corporation Mayor Dr. Shahadat Hossain called for unity, stating, "We have been dreaming of a discrimination-free, corruption-free, prosperous Bangladesh for a long time." He emphasised that both 1971 and 2024 should have their distinct places in historical memory.
The debate extends to academic circles, with Dhaka University vice-chancellor Professor Dr. Niaz Ahmed Khan cautioning against direct comparisons between different historical moments. "Each of these events is a milestone in our national history," he remarked, highlighting the complexity of interpreting national struggles.
The new textbook has reintroduced the topic of the declaration of independence. In the fifth-grade book, under the chapter titled Pakistani Army's Genocide, it states, "On March 26, Major Ziaur Rahman declared Bangladesh's independence from the Kalurghat Radio Station in Chittagong. Later, on March 27, he declared independence again on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, marking the beginning of the liberation war."
As Bangladesh commemorates its Independence Day, the nation finds itself wrestling with competing interpretations of its past and present. The ongoing discourse reflects not just a historical debate, but a profound national dialogue about identity, struggle, and the meaning of sovereignty.
ST
