From Ekushey to Now

There is always a tendency, in the way that history is told, to encapsulate entire movements or great struggles within one or a few significant events or milestones. When we think of the American Revolution, we think of events such as the Boston Tea Party, or in the case of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement in India, we recall his long march to the sea to make salt. So too is the case with our language movement; for, in reality, it is so much more than what transpired on that 21st day of February in 1952. That day was not meant to hold such significance, and neither would it have galvanised the people of this country in the way that it did had it not been for the mindless act of aggression and barbarity of our rulers on a peaceful procession that had been brought out in demand for our right to speak in our own language. The language movement was, of course, more than a day of bloodshed, it was a long struggle to realise our right to freely express and to express in the language of our choosing.

While the right to speak in our mother tongue may have been realised through the movement that culminated in that sad February day, the larger struggle for the freedom of expression is one that we have had to wage many times over. In the five and a half decades that have passed since the language movement, our right to free expression has come under threat on numerous occasions. The state has, at different times, prior to independence and after, tried to restrain the people’s right to express themselves through different measures. It is the people’s spontaneous rejection, time and again, of the restrictions placed upon their freedom of expression, and their collective violation of those restrictions – socially, culturally and most importantly, politically – that have ultimately prevailed.

Now, Bangladesh finds herself at yet another crossroads, led by a government that was not democratically chosen and may not so easily go away. That the current state of emergency was borne out of necessity is not in dispute, and nor is the fact that this un-elected government has, within a very short period of time, given manifestation to many of the demands of the people where democratically elected governments had failed, such as in the separation of the judiciary from the executive. Because of the woeful governance delivered by successive elected governments, the people have very high expectations from this interim administration, and have been buoyed by some of the early actions of this government. At the same time, however, there are genuine fears about where this most recent foray might lead us to. Will this government deliver on its promise to clean up the political process and return the country to a democracy, or will it, once it has acquired a liking for the power that it now enjoys, try to hold on to it like so many unelected governments have and continue to do around the world? Is a complete ban on all political activity necessary at this time and under this ‘soft’ emergency, and will this ban not only act to reenergise the parties, especially the more active and unruly elements within them? Will this government continue to enforce this ‘soft’ emergency, which is easy to do when the people are with you, or will it, at some point in future when it may start to face serious criticism or even opposition, enforce a harsher emergency where the people’s fundamental rights, especially the one to free speech and expression, are once again curtailed?

In considering these questions, we need only to remind ourselves of our history, and of our long tradition of political expression and activism against any and all restrictions placed on our freedoms. The language movement was just the beginning of this tradition in East Pakistan, but was no doubt inspired and encouraged by the many popular uprisings in the past in undivided Bengal during the British colonial rule. The issue this time was simple: our rulers in the west had decided that Urdu alone would be the state language of Pakistan and our people here in the east would have none of it. What ensued thereafter was a protracted struggle that lasted four years between 1948 and 1952 and culminated in the killings of several students for violating section 144 on the day that we remember and mourn every Ekushey February. The four-year struggle took the forms of street protests and agitations, posters, pamphlets, cartoons, poems, songs, plays and of course, that simple yet powerful slogan ‘rashtra bhasha bangla chai’, just as the American Revolution began with ‘no taxation without representation’ and India’s demand for independence so aptly summarised in Gandhi’s simple message to the British to ‘quit India’.

Yet, as mentioned earlier, this struggle was not for our language alone. While the fight may have been to resist the imposition of an alien language on our people, the four-year struggle was for our rights, our right to articulate our aspirations in whatever way we chose, through our language, through our culture, and through our politics. ‘One must consider the language movement in totality, as the movement was not a fight to establish Bangla as a state language alone, but the beginning of a larger struggle to attain our social, cultural and political rights,’ says Abdullah Al Noman, a joint secretary general of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. The legacy of the language movement is, therefore, not restricted to the struggle to uphold the right to speak in our mother tongue, but a much larger and more significant one, the beginning of the struggle for our national independence, our democracy and now, for proper governance.

However, between the time of the language movement and now, the people of this country have time and again risen against repression and injustice. The imposition of martial law in 1958 by General Ayub Khan dealt a severe blow to the democratic objectives of our people and to our demands to live as equals to our west Pakistani counterparts, as state power was consolidated in the western region and people’s representation substituted with Ayub’s plan for basic democracy. Once again, the state tried to curtail the fundamental rights of the people, especially of people in East Pakistan who increasingly grew restive and demanded change. Throughout the ten years of Ayub’s autocratic regime, the people of East Pakistan refused to bow down to any form of pressure from the establishment, and instead showed tremendous courage in challenging the power base in West Pakistan through a series of political movements that received widespread support among our people. Political leaders like Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani gave voice to the demands of the common people of East Pakistan, and led hugely successful movements to unite the people behind an ultimate objective – total autonomy.

All the major movements of the 1960s, therefore, built up momentum towards that final goal. The education movement of 1962 was followed by the six-point movement of 1966 and the mass uprising of 1969, by which time the destiny of East Pakistan had all but been decided. ‘The politicians played a vital role in all the pro-people movements of the 1960s,’ says Suranjit Sengupta, presidium member of the Awami League. At times, the politicians set the agenda of the movements and led them from the front, as was the case with the six-point movement that began in 1966. At other times, the politicians simply rode the wave of popular sentiment, such as the mass uprising of 1969. Whatever the case was, it cannot be denied that it was through a long political struggle that the stage was prepared for what was to follow.

The general elections of 1970, which the Awami League swept in the east, was undoubtedly the best demonstration of the expression of people’s will through the political process, and West Pakistan’s refusal to accept the results and to convene the national assembly was yet another attempt to suppress that expression. Once again, the people of this country responded politically, responding to Sheikh Mujib’s call for non-cooperation with the west, which they hoped, would ultimately lead to the independence of Bangladesh. That the people of this country had to fight a bloody nine-month war for independence was a result of the military crackdown by West Pakistan, which left them with no choice but to respond with arms. But while independence was finally achieved through an armed conflict, it was the result of another long political struggle against the repressive regimes based in the west.

For those who had hoped that independence would bring with it a representative democracy and good governance, the years following our liberation were of huge disappointment. The turbulent years of the 1970s – that saw the suspension of democracy in favour of one-party rule, the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the imposition of martial law under Ziaur Rahman – and later the assassination of Zia in 1981 led to a second imposition of martial law under HM Ershad. Once again, the people of this country realised that they had to act, and act politically. The mass movements of the 1980s were not unlike those of the 1960s, led mainly by students against a dictatorial regime that had asphyxiated all democratic space and had curbed fundamental rights. The political parties once again played a vital role, sometimes in the forefront and leading the movement and sometimes by following the popular mood. The mass movements were not restricted to the streets this time either, and as was the case during the language movement and the liberation movement, political messages were popularised through songs and poems, depicted in cartoons, posters and plays. It took nine years to oust Ershad, but the people of this country triumphed yet again, and realised their goal of a democratic polity through the political process by challenging the establishment and its efforts to choke their voice.

Now, at this critical juncture for our nation, the observance of Ekushey provides an opportunity to reflect on our past and to contemplate on the future. Ours is a nation that has the capacity to fight for its beliefs and to endure great suffering to uphold its ideals. If those ideals are compromised, and if the people’s fundamental rights are restricted, they will respond in the way they know how: politically. According to Mujahidul Islam Selim of the Communist Party of Bangladesh, ‘the promise of Ekushey is that the people will not bow down their head to any attempt to weaken or undermine their basic fundamental rights’. However, ‘this Ekushey also provides an opportunity to get united’, says Rashed Khan Menon of the Workers Party. The hope is that we can unite for the right ideals, to usher in a new era of democratic governance that is healthy and that delivers. But that can only happen when the people are empowered to make demands of their representatives and of their governments, and are able to make governments accountable. ‘It is necessary to allow for greater freedom when democracy comes under threat, not to restrict it,’ argues Selim, ‘the country cannot attain good governance and rid itself of corruption by impounding people power.’ The challenge before this government, therefore, is to give effect to the people’s democratic aspirations by reforming the political process in a way that allows for greater transparency and accountability. If it fails to do that, or worse, if it decides to further suppress rights and deny the people their freedom, it can be certain that when the people do unite, it will be to take the country back from its clutches.

by Shameran Abed
Interviews by Shahidul Islam Chowdhury and Ofiul Hasnat

Send this to my Friends: