"Finale to the trial will heal a sore"

Mujibul Haque(MH): This is a very delicate question and you can't really pinpoint them by one answer. It's a multifaceted question, you have to look at the background of the time. Bangladesh had just bathed in blood in order to be free, war of liberation had just ended, Bangabandhu was in the prison, then he came back to take up the reigns of government. He had been at the vanguard of the struggle for emancipation right from the days of the six-point movement. By the time, the liberation war began, he had become the unique leader of the Bengali people. The political aspirations in particular found an expression through him. And then the genocide started, military crackdown began and the history thereafter is well known.

Why Bangabandhu got arrested and didn't go over to another country or why he didn't stay here and take up arms or didn't take up the leadership of the actual fight for freedom is a question which has raised lots of controversies. We could go into it or not. Suffice it to say though that Bangabandhu, to the extent that I knew his mind from personal relationship with him, was a politician of old times, he was a disciple of HusSain Shahid Suhrawardy; he followed the tradition of Fazlul Huq, Moulana Bhasani. He was not a revolutionary leader, he always fought for constitutional democracy. So that was a very delicate time for him. My own idea is that this conflict within him prevented him from joining the armed struggle and leading the revolution physically, he chose to be arrested.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

DS: After the independence, when he came back and became the Prime Minister of the country, these traits you have just mentioned, like his being a non-revolutionary leader etc, were they instrumental for the situation that prevailed in the country at that time?

MH: Yes, to a great extent, in my view what you have said is correct. The fact is a bloody revolution had taken place, a full-fledged freedom fight had taken place, it all happened under the banner of his name, but he was languishing in a jail. He did not give this leadership himself in the actual battlefield of Bangladesh. And that could remain a weak spot for any leader, even if he was the father of the nation, a complete leader. He did not take up arms, he did not participate actively, his followers took up arms -- that void remained in him. But he was a dedicated sacrificing leader, he was a people's leader, he was a revolutionary leader without arms. He could lead thousands of people, but he wouldn't fire a shot himself. That was the kind of politician he was.

DS: But what led to his unexpected and brutal end of life?

MH: When he came back from West Pakistan, he tried to weld this nation into a politically and economically viable country. He had the loyalty of the freedom fighters and ordinary people alike. But he failed to secure assistance of right people. Besides, America, China and others were against the liberation of Bangladesh. These factors and economic conditions put together made his task exceedingly difficult. And then the political dissatisfaction within his own party, among the so-called leftists of those days all these made for an uneasy political and economic situation in the country.

DS: But why could a leader of his stature and experience not rise to the expectation?

MH: That is a 64 million dollar question. The fact is Bangladesh's potential was very limited at that time. There was food shortage, all the non-Bengali industry owners had left, industrial units became abandoned properties. Any leader would have found it extremely difficult to bring order in such circumstances. Therefore I would say that Bangabandhu was very frustrated. In this frustrating situation, he did not know what to do. You can say that it was his failure to deliver goods. Then suddenly a group of advisers, I wouldn't know who they were advised him to adopt an East European model to run the country. Therefore I remember at one stage Bangabandhu clearly said in a public speech that he was thinking of cooperatives to be developed.

Whether they were practical or not then was immaterial, he was looking for something where he could get an answer. His mind was toying with ideas presented to him by various groups of people. And he created for BKSAL. That to my mind, was very crucial stage in his career, reputation and personal life and for what he was and what he was not. It mentally alienated him from the people of Bangladesh by and large. I could be wrong but people of Bangladesh could not identify with this concept. They were used to democratic parliamentary administration, not a socialistic concept of running a government.

DS: But why and how did the armed forces get involved?

MH: In the kind of situation that I was describing, this was probably considered as the best time for some adventurist youngsters in the army. How much they understood and made an assessment of the situation I don't know, but this was probably the time they chose, which might be a coincidence. I say it hesitatingly that those who struck and assassinated him probably thought it would be chivalrous.

DS: What kind of influence or implications did the assassination have on the administration immediately afterwards?

MH: The astounding thing is after the assassination of Bangabandhu, the beloved leader of people who might have done something not approved or liked by many, that nothing very conspicuous happened after his assassination. The nation was shocked undoubtedly, but it will remain a puzzle why not a single section of the people didn't rise up. It's a mystery why some die-hard Awami Leaguers who were freedom fighters, who took up arms in his name and were very much loyal to him, didn't come out.

DS: Could it be that they were afraid to come out because of the nature of the assassination?

MH: It was not very clear at that time whether the entire army was behind the assassination. So it would be difficult to say whether they were really scared or not to rise against the assassination.

DS: How did the subsequent military governments perceive the assassination into their way of thinking?

MH: We know that there were coups and counter coups in the following few months, but starting from the day of the assassination August 15 till November 7, uncertainty prevailed. One never knew what one was doing, those who were doing these things themselves, even those who assassinated him were uncertain. They had no future plans. The governance was running on a day to day basis. All of us were in a puzzle. After November 7, General Ziaur Rahman gradually, rather haltingly, came to power and felt comfortable with it and consolidated his position.

There was not one opinion nor were there total views of things. People had different views within the government. They dropped the issue of the assassination like a hot brick. They thought there was no point in raising the issue any longer. They put the issue under the carpet.

DS: But why?

MH: Because within the government, the issue was not allowed to be raised since it portended controversy. Everyone pushed it under the rug. There was no question of the assassination of Bangabandhu being a topic of the day. It basically ceased to be topic within the government that was led by General Ziaur Rahman. He became busy reorganising the government in his own way.

DS: In the 33 years of Bangladesh, martial law administrators ruled almost half of it. Did the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman contribute to the long history of martial law in the country?

MH: Partly yes. The assassination as I said earlier was an adventurism. Those who did it probably thought that they would bring in martial law to rule the roost. But they couldn't because General Zia had an upper hand and he ousted them. And they failed to govern the country themselves. General Zia, who was a freedom fighter and a successful military officer, did want to become a national leader and he made his best efforts to become one. To what extent he has been able to achieve that position only history will say.

One thing is for certain, if Bangabandhu would not have been assassinated, there would have been no need of martial law in the country. It would have been like an East European society. Whether it would have brought us more democracy, better governance, better life that I don't know.

DS: Lastly, the Bangabandhu murder trial that's been continuing for quite a few years now, what kind of need is there to see a conclusion of this trial in terms of our in terms of our political and social culture?

MH: Firstly, there is an emotional feeling for Bangabandhu in the country, secondly a mighty party like Awami League has special interest in seeing the conclusion of this trial. So if the case is not solved and remains hanging for a long time, the chasm between the ruling BNP and Awami League will remain as big as ever. It can only be overcome with the conclusion of the trial. One could have a concluding finale if the judicial stage is hastened and it should be accelerated. At least a past sore will be healed and new grounds will emerge for the two parties.

I would like to stress here that the case can be solved and closed only when there is a final judgement declared by the court in the best judicial tradition and principles of which we are often so proud. At the same time both parties should come forward realising that not keeping this issue alive is in the best interest of both of them.

Interviewer is an Assistant Editor, The Daily Star.