¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

BANGLADESH’S 2024 national Victory Day (16 December) is significantly different from all such days in its past. It is an outstanding moment of national achievement and celebration; it is a critical point for political learning and truth-telling; finally, it is an occasion for nurturing wisdom, unity and courage in the face of what is happening across the borders, as I write this piece. There is little room for complacency even in the celebration of victory.

Ìý

Moment for celebration

DECEMBER this year is a time for double celebration. We are celebrating not only our independence from Pakistan in 1971, as we have done in the past 53 years; we are also rejoicing our recent freedom from Hasina’s 15-year autocratic rule which crippled the nation by outsourcing our sovereignty to the hegemonic superpower in the neighbourhood. We did have autocratic rules in the past. In fact, the very first one was introduced by the ‘father of the nation’ himself who betrayed people’s trust and established a one-party system in order for him to stay in power for life. His autocratic innovation ended the rule of democracy and curtailed people’s rights. The second autocracy spanned the decade of the 1980s enacted by General Ershad who grabbed power from elected authorities using military force.

However, none of the earlier fascist regimes compromised our independence or sovereignty; the consequences were mostly restricted to human suffering and suppression of freedom. Hasina’s autocracy, on the other hand, imperilled both people and the nation, practically and metaphorically. In the past 15 years, the Awami League emerged as a symbol of Indian hegemony as most actions of the regime were motivated by serving Indian interests. The regime also served party interests in that power was guaranteed for Hasina which also opened doors for accumulating massive wealth for herself and her people through unprecedented levels of corruption.

Overthrowing Hasina was not just a case of ending her fascist rule, but also returning to freedom from Indian hegemony and control. The freedom was the desire of every democracy- and Bangladesh-loving citizen whether they lived in Bangladesh or overseas. However, a clear path to freedom from bondage did not exist. The legitimate route of elections was cut off; any violent means was unthinkable, as Hasina effectively controlled all formal institutions and forces. More critically, she was blessed with Indian support and protection in all sorts of ways for their economic and geopolitical interests. The activism that finally brought an end to the regime took the form of a civil movement led by students who took to the streets initially demanding the cancellation of the quota system in government jobs. This non-traditional route to freedom from autocracy does not mean that it was bloodless; it was just the opposite. Students and other people had to make a huge sacrifice of their lives so freedom could be achieved. The term ‘second independence’ may be debated, but its legitimacy can be found in comparing Hasina’s autocracy with Sheikh Mujib’s and Ershad’s, as previously noted.Ìý

There is no way we can underestimate the ‘cost’ or the ‘benefit’ of the new independence. Such a cost-benefit analysis is not an exercise in economy; it’s in the realm of humanity, human loss and freedom. Those who suffered the cost will never reap the benefits. The cost is an unpayable debt on the shoulders of the beneficiaries. They don’t have to pay it back, but it is imperative that they never forget it.

The true cost of the second independence — like the first one — is incalculable. Hasina’s brutal forces not only killed or harmed students; information about casualties was also kept a secret as part of the efforts to crush the movement. The fact-finding mission initiated by the interim government may be able to establish how many people were killed or injured; however, such statistics will never be an exhaustive analysis of the ‘cost’.

Similarly, the full scope of the benefit maybe is hard to determine. All we can say is that it is colossal. People can now breathe freely at home and in public places. They feel secure that they are not going to be picked up by unidentified people and transported to crossfires or ayna ghars or across the borders. They feel confident that free expression of their views on anyone or any topic of public interest won’t risk their lives. They also believe that the level of corruption and capital flight that took place during the regime won’t be repeated. They have already regained their dignity as human beings and citizens of a free nation; they no longer see themselves as Hasina’s subjects. Most critically, they can now assert that the independence that was secured from Pindi was not to be submitted to the altar of Delhi’s interests.

Ìý

Occasion for learning, unlearning

Victory Day this year provides an epistemic avenue for correcting and rewriting our national history. Thanks to the second independence, we are now able to look at our history and national struggles in a more objective way and remove the epistemic garbage that enveloped our history. There is so much to learn and unlearn in this process. One key learning point is captured by the slogan that can be found on the walls in the city of Dhaka which reads:

Lakho shahider rakte kena/Deshta karo baper na.

[The independence won at the cost of the blood of tens of thousands

Is not the private property of any one person’s father.]

Hasina’s regime sought to construct the knowledge that Bangladesh was her own, gifted by her father, Sheikh Mujib. Victory Day this year reminds us that a nation is not anyone’s private property. Her flight from the country tells us that she was an illegal occupier of state power. Similarly, we are now able to proclaim that our 1971 independence was not the work of a single hero; it was the result of the contribution of many in many ways. Such learning is a correction to the singular narrative about the ‘father of the nation’ who was presented as a deity during the Hasina regime.

People were forced to accept him everywhere — in schools, offices, workplaces and businesses. It was impossible to perform any activity without remembering him and singing his praises. However, as we celebrate the national victory this year, the landscape has been cleared of his unbecoming presence. The so-called ‘Mujib Corners’ in schools and offices have been cleared; his statues have been gutted down; and posters and billboards about him have been removed. A heuristic opportunity has dawned to create a pluralist discourse about our independence which recognises everyone’s contribution, not just one person’s (and its beneficiaries cannot be just his family members); this is also a reminder that a human being should not be elevated to the level of a deity by force.

Victory Day this year is also a means for correcting the narrative about the role of India in our national independence. While India’s involvement in the 1971 war is understood, Sheikh Hasina reconstructed Bangladesh-India relationship in a way that was humiliating for any Bangladeshi. Bangladesh was enslaved into eternal bondage in the name of gratefulness. Moreover, India was given unrestricted access to all key infrastructures and entities in Bangladesh, risking its security and sovereignty. Finally, criticising India was turned into a criminal offence for Bangladeshis with severe — in cases fatal — consequences. The end of the regime has brought an opportunity to reassess India’s role and the reason for its ‘help’ during 1971. India’s giving shelter to Hasina who is accused of multiple mass murders proves it without doubt that it has little regard for the interests of Bangladeshis.

Ìý

Time for pledges to sustain victory

The new independence achieved at a huge cost cannot be taken for granted. In fact, if people in ‘new’ Bangladesh cannot fully enjoy the fruits of freedom, it is due to a genuine fear. It’s the apprehension that the freedom can be snatched by Hasina’s forces at home and in the neighbourhood which are lying in wait for the right time and opportunity. The existence of such forces and their potential threats is far from an exaggeration. The institutional order that was established in the country for 15 years cannot be removed in a few months. The old order has been changed only fractionally by the interim government. Worse, Hasina is inciting her followers inside Bangladesh from her hiding place in India to destabilise the new order. The billions of dollars that were siphoned off the country will be financing all sorts of activities to destabilise our country and to bring her back to power.

India has been trying to facilitate Hasina’s return to regain its hegemonic grip on Bangladesh. While the would-be superpower has many strategies in its collection, it has followed the discursive path as a precursor to any substantive action. India has emerged as the most fertile ground for spreading falsehood and misinformation and this is evidenced by the Indian media representation of Bangladesh and the interim government led by Muhammad Yunus.

A typical strategy in the discursive constitution of new Bangladesh by the Indian media is to present the Muslim-majority country as a place where the Hindu minority has been oppressed. This recurrent narrative is constructed by doctoring instances of Hindu houses and businesses being plundered and statues and images in the places of worship being damaged. Indian authorities are using fake truths to threaten the people and the government in Bangladesh. Occasionally, they remind us that protecting minorities was the responsibility of the Bangladesh government. Such moralising by a government which has attracted a global reputation for persecuting Muslim and other minority groups is nothing short of hypocrisy and double standards.

In conclusion, while we celebrate our double independence this December, we should note the true colours of the India and Awami League duo which have been traditionally represented as the only architects of our national independence. The July Revolution tells us that neither Awami League nor India can be trusted as friends of Bangladesh and Bangladeshis. We also need to consider that both are out there trying to destabilise the new order from within and outside the country. This calls for exceptional unity among Bangladeshis and a strong display of courage and commitment against forces of fascism and hegemony.

Ìý

Obaidul Hamid is an associate professor at the University of Queensland in Australia. He researches language, education and society in the developing world.