A poet of politics by Monaem Sarker

A poet of politics

Monaem Sarker

Though Bangabandhu was the leader of a small and poor South Asian country, it is doubtful whether any contemporary leader achieved worldwide fame quite like him.

London’s Sunday Times dubbed him “a poet of politics.” Sunday Observer wrote: “There is no other real Bangali leader like Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in terms of his physique and facial features.”

His success was hardly limited to guiding Bangalis towards their independence. The success he showed in re-building the war-devastated country within the span of only three and a half years is remarkable.

Yet one of the major criticisms is that he was just a rabble-rouser who was a failure as a statesman and administrator. This was totally wrong. If he did not return immediately after independence, it would not only be impossible to rebuild the country, but it may have been impossible to protect the country.

A friend of the world

Within three months of the war, he managed to persuade the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandi to withdraw their troops. The West European countries could not remove the American soldiers and their military establishments in 40 years.

The Pakistani army had completely destroyed the communication network of Bangladesh. Within a few months, 567 bridges including the Hardinge and Meghna Bridge were rebuilt. 1,851 rail wagons and passenger bogies were restarted. The Chittagong and Mongla sea ports were cleared of mines and export-import business were started.

Within a week of independence, it was decided for the peasants that there would be no tax for holdings under 25 bighas. Within a year, the constitution was drafted and implemented. Pakistan did not manage to make a constitution in eight years.

Bangladesh gained membership of the UN in a few years.

Within a very short period of independence, nearly 200 countries recognised Bangladesh. This is no mean feat of Bangabandhu. Even Pakistan recognised Bangladesh and invited Bangabandhu to visit in 1974.

All these were possible because of Bangabandhu’s powerful personality, charisma, and his role befitting a statesman. The World Peace Council awarded him the prestigious Julio Curie Peace Medal because of his contributions, and dubbed him as “The Friend of the World.”

The rights and wrongs

When Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated, George Bernard Shaw said: “It is too dangerous to be too good.” This applies to Bangabandhu as well.

Bangabandhu never hesitated to embrace even his sworn enemies. However, at times, he failed to recognise his true friends. Bangabandhu’s weaknesses can be analysed in this way.

When there was a leadership crisis in AL’s two strong fronts, Chhatra League and Sramik League, he did not become strong enough to end the crisis. This widened the gulf between the two fronts.

Bangabandhu did not think much of the conspiracy of the Moshtaq group within the party and did not give much recognition to the conspiracy of a highly ambitious General Ziaur Rahman in the army.

From various intelligence sources, he was aware of Zia’s controversial role as a sector commander during Liberation War.

Similarly, businessmen who opposed socialism and nationalisation of banks and industries showed interest in joining the opposition camp. And it hardly needs emphasising that the defeated communal and fundamentalist forces of 1971 also rallied around them.

It is now known to all what role Bhutto government of Pakistan and Kissinger administration of the US played to create the famine of 1974 to make the Mujibur government unpopular. This also created the backdrop of the 1975 killing of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family.

Winning hearts

Now the question is, was Bangabandhu wrong in trying to win the hearts of his enemies?

Having had the opportunity to watch Bangabandhu from close quarters, I feel that there was a blend of both revolution and orderliness in his character. He gave leadership in a revolution to obtain independence.

But he did not want to govern with the spirit of revolution. Rather, he thought of using his power and charisma to reach the goal of attaining democracy and socialism in a peaceful manner.

The counter-revolutionaries seized this opportunity to strike and destroy both Bangabandhu and his newly created Bangladesh.

Democracy for all

In his speech, Bangabandhu said: “This time it is the fight for independence, this time is the fight for freedom.” But why did he mention freedom separately?

According to Bangabandhu: “A nation may not get freedom, though it may attain independence. Even after the ouster of foreign rulers from a country, the masses may not become free from hunger, poverty, exploitation, illiteracy, disease, and repression. It is my wish that I would start a second revolution to free the people from discrimination, inequality, and poverty.

“Independence might have returned democracy to us, but this is not the democracy of those exploited. It is the democracy of the gentlemen, educated, and rich. This democracy gives gentlemen the right to say some words about democracy from the books.

“But it does not arrange food for the poor, nor does it bring back smiles in the face of the poor. Once the democracy of the gentlemen settles down, I would start my work for the establishment of democracy for the poor to end exploitation.”

Giving emphasis on secularism in the constitution, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman wanted to free the country from the grips of communalism and fundamentalism. By including socialism in the constitution, he had made provisions for building a future socialist Bangladesh.

I have no doubt that if the assassination of August 15 had not taken place, Bangladesh would not have been so miserable in every sector.

If Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia could brush aside the brow-beating of the imperialists, then Bangabandhu could have definitely built a prosperous Bangladesh.