Those leaders and intellectuals who left for India overnight in 1971 defying Bangabandhu’s clear and unambiguous instruction to fight the Pakistan army with the people from within the country have a lot to explain. They did not disagree with the leader then that they would not build fortress of resistance against Pakistan army and run for India. They claim so much credit for the liberation war happened more than 45 years ago that even now they cannot think of any other achievement.
Once again this question came to the minds of those who heard the interview of Dr Anisuzzaman on Ekattor Tv last Wednesday night taken by Mithila Farzana. He has been a highly respectable teacher for his role in the cause of democracy and people’s rights. His position against military dictator General Ershad was especially strong and persistent. Like many others, he also went to India and came back to be a freedom fighter.
But in his recent interview on the television he revealed himself as a different man barely recognisable. Many of his admirers are sadly disappointed. He was not asked but it was necessary for him to explain the reason for his going to India when neither Bangabandhu nor his family members had shown any eagerness to join them in India. Enjoyment of freedom has become so much complicated for Indian leadership in freeing Bangladesh.
Dr Anisuzzaman has expressed no regret that the denial of the democratic rights to the people began so soon after creation of Bangladesh. He finds development of the country worth praising. He does not see how politically sponsored corruption had flooded the country. Corruption entails not money alone but abuse of power.
As a renowned teacher all his life he does not see ruination of education in the country as subversive for nation building. He is concerned about the changes in the textbooks for the Islamic bias. He was not recognising that corruption and absence of democratic accountability cannot be the way for good governance and economic development.
Bangladesh was not born to be a socialist autocracy for the benefit of the few and yet, that is the fighting contradiction between the people’s idea of liberation war and the liberation war won by India. Both democratic leadership of Awami League and democracy lost.
He deservedly praised the girls for doing well as students. But he should have also pointed out how our young boys are used as political thugs and extortionists by diverting their minds away from education. One feels sorry to see such boys are protected as ‘criminals’. The young ones are becoming addicted to drugs out of frustration. They do not see job prospects within the country. The drug lords are also the creation of money-making politics. The girls could not be used as muscle power so they are finding time for studies.
He should have emphasised as an outstanding academic, that political leadership is not needed for wasting huge public money on mega unproductive construction projects for involving more corruption dependent elements as followers of the government. Financial institutions have been impeded from functioning for the good of the country’s economy. Stock Exchange and the banking sector have been systematically crippled to be helpful for economic growth. Bank looters are among the richest ones in the country enjoying government protection. The government had to borrow money to save the banks. The government is against loan defaulter businessmen who need help to revive their business for the good of the economy. But outright bank looters are safe.
Luckily, the country’s economy has not collapsed altogether for the private garment sector and migrant workers toiling in foreign countries under inhuman conditions. Despite serious objection, women workers were sent to Saudi Arabia to be exploited sexually and tortured physically. They have come back empty handed and the government is not helping them even to go from Dhaka to their relations. No people’s government could remain indifferent to their suffering and our humiliation.
The political leadership takes pride in human development and preserving human values to build a better society. For infrastructural development the bureaucrats are more efficient. The safety and quality of the people’s lives are the most important considerations to a true political leadership. The public life is a shameful example of lies, deceit, abuse of police power and corruption as if integrity of leaders is not important for developing a country.
Our people did not accept General Ayub’s development politics of constructing buildings and bridges for the financial gain to his supporters while suppressing democracy and human rights as an autocrat.
Perhaps it will not be much of an exaggeration to say that serving the people and providing services to the people are of little concern to the government because the democratic system of public accountability has been banished.
The people are so helpless as never before. They are not counted for free election. Under parliamentary system nowhere the elected government continues in power without dissolving the parliament. If one was politically honest and pro-people one could cite the example of how the general elections are held in India. To have a smaller election time elected government is a bluff and contrary to constitutional change made by the government itself. Under the present form of the Constitution there is no scope for election time government.
We have no major democratic party believing in practicing democracy. So mere election will not ensure democracy. The political parties are all like family business. The people’s fight for saving democratic institutions will have to continue. The sanctity of the independent judiciary and the rule of law must be secured. Tolerance for free speech and the free press has to be made meaningful. Sycophancy, as destroyer of pro-people leadership must be condemned and driven out of politics.
But free election is free people’s sovereign right to form a people’s government responsible to people. The vital principle of freedom cannot be a matter of compromise. Let Awami League face free election under the observation of the United Nations and forget to be in charge of the election time government.
Dr Anisuzzaman’s exalted position in the powerful circles both in India and Bangladesh is remarkable but he has changed so much that he is not what he was popularly known to be.
It is worrying for those who are for the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution because independence of the judiciary as protector of the Constitution is under a serious attack. The independence that was allowed to the judiciary by the last military backed caretaker government in terms of the requirement of the Constitution has been audaciously taken away. He expressed no anxiety that in free Bangladesh the people live in agony and fear. They can be killed without trial although legal protection of life is a constitutional guarantee.
Dr Anisuzzaman appears unhappy that Bangladesh is growing into as a Muslim country. According to him the Pakistani elements are still working in Bangladesh under the cover of Islamic parties. Had he not been safe in India during the liberation war and stayed with us, he would have known that it is madness to be pro-Pakistan after what Pakistan army did to us. Besides, Pakistani elements have no future in Bangladesh. The genuine anxiety persists among the people about outside interference from other countries.
He knows well that India was partitioned on the basis of religion. That was not communalism but national identity. Bangladesh is known as a Muslim country for its distinct and separate identity. Those who are not happy with our separate and distinct identity have to explain more clearly where their loyalty lies.
The people’s liberation war was for democracy and those who want to force on our people some idea foreign to our people — autocracy of socialism—they are the real suspects. They have a risky mission to complete. But that should mean betrayal with our people and values they hold high.
Denying the people their sovereign right of free election to choose their government is not liberation of the people.
When Dr Anisuzzaman and his associates honestly believe that the government has much to its credit, then they should have no difficulty in honestly advising the government not to fear free election.
When Dr Anisuzzaman and his associates honestly believe that the government has much to its credit, then they should have no difficulty in honestly advising the government not to fear free election.
