Salute to the father of the nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

- Dr. S. A. Malek

Bangabandhu was not a Prime Minister or a President in an ordinary sense, he was the leader of a national revolution, the aim of which was to emancipate the oppressed people of Bangladesh i.e. the landless peasants, the working people and the like who had little to support themselves. Mujib being a common man could exactly feel their sorrows and sufferings. He had all his feelings for the neglected class of the society. He fought for their cause throughout his life. He was a leader who represented the interest of all excepting the exploiter. Immediately after independence, there was the emergence of a class which wanted to consolidate the grains of independence. his class desired to be the substitutes for the Pakistani exploiters. All that this exclusive group wanted was to grow rice within the shortest possible time. People of this privileged group resorted to all sorts of corruption to achieve their objective.

Bangabandhu stood in their way. He sat the country's economy in such a way that unlimited wealth could not be accumulated in the hands of a few. Rather socio-economic arrangements were made for a comprehensive social security. He limited capital for investment in individual enterprises. He lowered down the scale of salary of the high paid government officials and made it more equitable removing a lot of disparity. He seized lands from 'Zotdars' (big land holders) and distributed it free to the landless. He curtailed many privileges of the bureaucracy. His land reform could not please the 'Zotdars'. He wanted to introduce such type of co-operatives in which the interest of the landless laborers could be protected. He nationalized the key industries, the banks, insurance and other institutions of national importance. The idea was to establish a planned economy, an accountable and participatory state machinery. He decentralized administration and made arrangements for people's participation in it. It was during his regime that the elected representatives were given a dignified status in the state. It was his industrial policy that enabled laborers to participate in management. He made the university autonomous and the primary education was made free and almost compulsory.

His policy for jute was so rational that no other Government since independence could ensure a better price. All these revolutionary steps were taken in a democratic way. Even after armed revolution he introduced Parliamentary Democracy, arranged general election on the basis of a Democratic Constitution and formed a representative Government. The 1972 constitution glorified our tradition as a democratic nation. Bangabandhu declared general amnesty and forgave the offenders who acted against the War of Liberation only to consolidate the whole nation for an overall development.

But what happened in consequence? The enemies of independence, the reactionary forces and the fundamentalists got united for a counter revolution. They opposed every positive steps of the government. Social disturbance were created an such on alarming scale that the wheel of the Government could not roll to fulfill its aim. Law and Order situation was seriously disturbed in the name of class struggle and scientific socialism.

Twenty thousand political activists of the Ruling Party were annihibilated branding them as, class enemies. Five members of Parliament were gunned down, Banks were looted and railway trucks were disconnected, innumerable police stations were attacked and arms snatched away. Direct armed struggles were declared at places like Atrai to challenge the democratically elected Government. The residence of the Home Minister was gheraoed by armed activists. Everything was done to defame and humiliate the Government of Bangladesh both nationally and internationally. Being so circumspect, Bangabandhu had to resort to a state of emergency and other stringent administrative measures.

How could a man who led the national revolution, be a mute spectator to these counter-revolutionary activities that threatened our existence as a nation? The man in whom the whole nation reposed its confidence could neither withdraw nor allow the enemies of the people to carry on their nefarious activities. He had to accept the challenge and act in accordance with the wishes of the people. Decisions taken in abnormal situation to counteract the forces of subversion could not be democratic ones. The formation of one party and regation of fundamental rights were emergency measures that were rather taken in extraordinary circumstances. Political analysts would probably agree that the man who started implementing Parliamentary Democracy even after armed revolution, could not curb the political rights of his people after forty month in his own strength as a ruler. Whether as President or Prime Minister or a man, Sheikh Mujib had all the support of his people to run their affairs. He had no reason to be authoritarian to concentrate more power at his behest. But situation demanded of him to be more assertive in the management of state affairs, at least for a certain period of time. It could have been for such reasons and so forth that had to opt for the BAKSAL.

Today the charges of forming BAKSAL i.e. one party system is being bought against him by many of those who joined it gladly and discovered many attributes in it. Many of them induced Bangabandhu to deal with the abnormal situation in more tougher way.

The share of the Ruling authority was more charming to them than to discover the essence of truth. They do now contradict their own opinions which they expressed in the period of transition. They now blame Sheikh Mujib for introducing authoritarian, rule taking

How could a man who led the emotional revolution, be a mute spectator to these counter-revolutionaries activities that threatened our existence as a nation? The man in which, the whole nation reposed its confidence could neither withdraw nor allow the enemies of the people to carry on their nefarious activities. He had to accept the challenge and act in accordance with the wishes of the people. Decision taken in abnormal situation to counteract the forces of subversion could not be democratic ones. The formation of one party and negation of fundamental rights were emergency measures that were rather taken in extraordinary circumstance.

advantage of the present situation. They have now changed their revolutionary slogan of socialism into a timid appeal for democracy.

It is a fact that Bangabandhu was not a traditional follower of a bourgeoisie Democracy. He was also opposed to dictatorship of a particular class. He wanted to safeguard the basic interest of the exploited people in a democratic way. He adopted Constitutional measures to bring about such revolutionary changes in the social order. He did not do it through class struggle based on violence and terrorism. His concept of "Democracy for the exploited" was certainly different from the one that many of us want tot practice today. If Bangabandhu is to blame for the one party system alone then what about those political revolutionaries who took up arms to fail the established democracy. His honest, desire to run the country in a democratic way was challenged by those who got arms in the War of Liberation because of Sheikh Mujib. Unfortunately their arms were used to destablish his Government and to create a condition of anerchy.

We have now stop talking about socialism and class sruggle. But the reality is that the established Parliamentary democracy had been destroyed by our delinquent politacal aggressors. We have learnt late to reconcile and realize that a social order cannot be changed by force. Only a national, democratic politacal approach can bring about a change.