The New Nation - Internet Edition

M.T. Hussain

The changes and modification brought about in some places to make an icon of a person in particular school textbook contents effective from the school academic year 2008 have logically and reasonably called into question the political party neutrality of the Caretaker Government (CG) of Bangladesh now led by Dr Fakhruddin Ahmad. The changes have further created controversy if the CG had not overstepped beyond constitutional jurisdiction (58D-1), as well, for taking recourse to facts having no substance with reality at all. One must wonder, in addition, if the changes and modification brought about by the CG would be retained during the administration of the next elected government of either persuasion that is likely to take on in a matter of months by the end of year 2008.

It is not untrue that in the last decades following Independence of Bangladesh in 1971, there had been no changes in contents in textbooks as the one made recently but done one after another in turn with changes of government of opposite persuasions. All such changes were, however, done not in any case by the CG but by the political party governments. In fact, in modern democratic newly independent states, such changes are not unusual for government in power more often than not seeks in the process to project their own image and specifically for particular leader/s of the ruling party. Thus, we had changes to project one or the other in turn of events and in changed political scenario in the past decades.

Educational curricula by its inherent own demand for updating need may be changed and modified from time to time for inclusion of relevant authentic facts of knowledge. Unfortunately, the changes made in 2008 have no factual basis for events of 1971. The events of 1971 are not factually well known to the new progeny as those are in memory of all like me had been conscious onlookers and painful sufferers, as well.

The month of March 1971 until the 25th had not only been uncertainly agonising but extremely fearful too in near anarchic situation that took still another vicious form from about the midnight of the 25th for we lived in the capital city of Dhaka with family members and young children.

Since the first day of March when the newly elected National Assembly session scheduled to sit in Dhaka was suddenly postponed, we began to experience anarchy all over the city. Agitating students of the Dhaka University took the lead ahead of the politicians, even ahead of the leader of the majority party elected leader so much so that they declared Independence of Bangladesh through raising the proposed flag of the country on the 3rd March.

In this backdrop when the leader announced the programme of his public meeting at the then Ramna Race Course for the 7th March, many people including myself expected that he would make the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI). But the lakhs of people who attended the public meeting including myself wondered that the leader did not make the UDI.

Then went on continuing agonising moments and days between 15th March to the 25th, people expecting arriving at compromising formula between the President of Pakistan and the East Pakistan majority party elected leader for power transfer to the elected representatives of the people, but all appeared to come to vain on the night of the 25th March midnight in fearful scenario of firing and shells overflying as I saw in case of my four-storey government quarters located at the Tejgaon Industrial Area along with announcement of curfew imposed in the Dhaka city that continued the next day without any interruption.

Later on we knew that the leader did ask his close comrades who stayed until about 10 or 11 that 25th March night to enforce the 27th March Hartal, and immediately afterwards he himself surrendered like a good guy without the slightest resistance, much less went on hiding, to the federal army men who took him away from his home at the Dhanmondi Road No. 32 (Old). Had he made the UDI, he would have either go underground or went away to lead the impending war. Curiously enough before giving himself up, he did not make anything verbal or written statement that could have been taken as the UDI. Thus the people were in utter confusion as to what they should do. An unknown army major of the federal army but a native of this land posted nearly 300 kms away in the port city of Chittagong rightly in the confusion declared not only the Independence of Bangladesh on the 26th March but also himself the President of the newly created republic, as we knew in Dhaka afterwards.

That soon after the 1971 war ended in December and the leader returned to Dhaka from detention in prison from Islamabad to take on the administration of Independent Bangladesh, a leaflet was circulated that claimed that the leader had made the UDI before his arrest on the 25th March, but very few people believed that. Even so, people lived with the mystery for some time.

The mystery started to unfold sometime later on as the leader's fury started to fall on Tajuddin Ahmad, the Prime Minister of the 1971 Government in Exile and the real architect of 1971 Independence. Many cynics naturally interpreted the sword on Tajuddin as disapproval of the way issues had been handled and sorted out by bringing in Indian armed interference. The cynics proved not wrong in facts of Tajuddin not only soon being sacked from the Ministry by the leader but also ended up in the Dhaka Central Prison.

Soon other events like famine deaths in thousands, emergency, banning of all political parties except the leaders own one (slightly changed nomenclature), proscribing newspapers etc. followed by the 1975 August coup and the 7th November uprising and changes of the government that brought further in prints about the issue of Declaration of Independence on the 26th and 27th March having had nothing of any direct nod, much less any written, neither typed nor handwritten paper from the leader. The fact about the leader's no consent whatsoever became clearer some time later on. For example, I had had one information directly in London in the fortnightly Impact International that quoted the renowned lawyer and the main Counsel in the famous treason case of 1971 against the leader A.K. Brohi stating that the leader did not want to break Pakistan (28th September, 1987, P.19), the other one in Stanley Wolpert's Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan wherein the leader stood for 'Confederation' (1993, OUP. P.175), still another in Sarder M. Choudhury's The Ultimate Crime therein noted from his first hand information that the leader had had a very close understanding with President Yahya Khan since as early as March 1969 (Lahore, 1999, P. 98). All these not incredible facts should suffice to show that the big party leader of 1971 did not only go to make the UDI for Bangladesh but also opposed the break up of Pakistan. Like many, I personally clearly recall another fact of pre-1971 tragedy when the leader refused with all force at his command to be labeled as the 'secessionist'. If the facts cited in these documents and evidence are to be repudiated, one must put up credible documents for the leader in the matter of UDI in support of the changes and modification made in the school textbooks. Otherwise, it would not only be misrepresenting of facts in school textbooks but also be obvious feeding of falsehoods to our younger generation.

The fact remains though that no matter whatever had been the real intention of the leader and substance in the UDI, many in their good faith fought for the Independence of Bangladesh in 1971 for passion of charisma of the leader. But such passion in no way proves anything that the leader went duly to make the UDI on the 26th March 1971.

Should we not ponder a bit in depth that when our society is flooded with erosion of moral values almost at all levels and so we need to put up efforts to raise the moral standard of the next progeny through inclusion of truth and truth alone in learning contents in schools, inclusion of factitious or baseless contents about national leader/s can do no good but only add further to erosion of moral values ?

The fictitious changes thus made in 2008 in the contents of the relevant school textbooks should immediately be dropped by the CG.