Monirul Islam :
Hazrat Adam (Pbuh) had two sons. One killed the other. Jesus Christ’s (Pbuh) close associates were involved in his crucifixion. Three of the four Caliphs of Islam were murdered. Nabab Sirajuddoula was defeated and murdered as a result of conspiracy of his own army chief, courtiers and relatives. President Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and President Kennedy were assassinated. So were India’s father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi, Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi, Rajeeb Gandhi and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Liakat Ali Khan. These are a few of the most henious murders known in the history and widely discussed across the world.
A brief look at the history reveals that the history of murder is as old as the history of mankind. One can even say, man started his journey with murder and fratricide. There is hardly any society in the world where murder is unknown – neither is our part of the globe. Sadly, our attitudes towards the killers is rather non-descriptive. The societies mentioned here do never say that one of Adam’s (Pbuh) sons killed his other son i.e. one brother killed the other, close companions crucified the Prophet Jesus (Pbuh), compatriots killed the Caliphs, Nabab Sirajuddoula’s own men killed him, fellow countrymen murdered the statesmen and great ones in the US, India and Pakistan. We rather use these excuses as alibis to be blind or indifferent to, let alone, justify these killings, indemnify them and even reward the killers otherwise. Simply, we do not call a killer a killer. It is as simple as that. And that is the tragedy.
We do not term and regard the killers as killers. We rather say the killers are his partymen, his followers or a lot of such things to justify the killings and avoid trying the killers. Surprisingly, enough, nobody asks the very simple question: why are we then trying a father who kills his son or vice versa? Why do we hate Mirzafar? Can’t we rather say that the killers were Nabab’s relative and army chief and refrain from hating them? We’ve no clear answers to these questions because we try to deceive even our conscience. Does it carry any sense when we speak of democracy, rule of law, fundamental human rights and such other good things and compare ourselves with those societies? Do we have the moral right to demand justice when someone is killed? Let me put the question more directly. What should we call the killing of Bangabandhu? How should we treat it? Why the killers were covered under indemnity law? To straighten the history, the nation has the right to get answers to these very vital questions.
But why was he killed? Neither the killers nor their mentors, patrons and beneficieries among us have ever answered this question, though they openly extended and tried to justify the killing. The answers are easily readable in books of history, if one turns the pages.
He is a man born and brought up in the mud and water of one the remotest villages of this soil. He was a true son of the soil. As a boy he was named Khoka, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. But as he grew up his comrades, companions and people at large called him Mujib Bhai, Sheikh Shaheb, Bangabandhu, the Architect of Independence and Father of the Nation etc. – all terms of endearment in recognition of his life-time struggle. As a schoolboy he found his land and people under the alien rule. The rulers not only ruled but changed the name of the land and its people like that of Kinta Kunte. So, as it transpired later, he made it a mission of his life to free his land and the people in their own identity.
He lodged an endured struggle. He successfully reached his target after crossing so many ordeals ignoring risks on his own life on more than one occasion. So, our independence is the outcome of his life-long struggle. But, consequent upon the mindless killing of Bangabandhu, the new power what that might be; brought/effected an u-turn changes in the body politick of the state affairs. The guiding principles – democracy, distributive social justice and well-being, rule of law and Bengali nationalism – were somehow compromised most radically. The country experienced long military or quasi-democratic rule for long years.
Learned and wise people these days put forward various suggestive opinions for our national life. Sometimes, those seem really funny, if not be fooling. They tell us a lot about our problems which are mostly consequences of our problems related to the creation and existence of our republic: problems we thought we solved once and for all at the cost of lives, blood and dignity of millions. They try to by-pass the events of 1971 and 1975 willfully. These wise and learned ones both at home and abroad are always advising us to resolve our present problems through dialogue. Whereas, they hardly say about the most heinous crime committed in our history. They either remained silent or even sided with the killers. My humble opinion is – that neither dialogue nor even Decalogue will solve our problems until and unless we come to a unanimous agreement over the fundamental state issues and over the historical past.
As already mentioned, we’ve founded this Republic through a bloodbath one. In order to bring the country back to its own track this u-turn should have been reversed. Some of our wise and learned persons raised a lot of questions and said, considering the long way we’ve traversed, we need to devise new ways of national unification. They often suggest for an all inclusive national reconciliation. But my questions to those wise people on whose terms such reconciliation to be effected in our national history?
Should it be with those who still cannot rectify themselves and place them in line with the national goals and ideologies?
That cannot be as we could not compromise with the blood of our freedom fighters at any cost and at the top of all, the killers of Bangabandgu cannot be spared. They must feel the music.
So it is my firm conviction that once, be it today, tomorrow or day after tomorrow, the whole nation will have to stand face to face with our own conscience, confess our mistakes, repent and condemn the killings and stick firmly to the values, songs and slogans established by our martyrs, mothers and winning heroes instead of dishonouring them.
We should never forget that the greatest ever unity formed in ’71 in the history of this nation was based on core values. That unity can alone be the starting point leading us forward to a comprehensive national reconciliation and redeem us of the curse. The sooner we sincerely acknowledge this simple fact and act accordingly, the better. Failure or indifference will take us who knows where.
