[ Today is 73rd Birth Anniversary of Late President Ziaur Rahman. When he took over the helm of Bangladesh, he was only 39 years old. This post commemorates President Zia.]
What is Ziaur Rahman’s biggest contribution to Bangladesh?
Ziaur Rahman gave our nation a clear identity. After independence, our national identity was declared as ‘Bangali’ and expectedly this created a lot of confusion. This identity ignored the non-Bangali citizens including the indigenous people of different part of Bangladesh as well as the urdu speaking citizens. Ziaur Rahman first coined the word ‘Bangladeshi’ as our national identity and successive government since then has maintained this identity. He also presented his vision of Bangladeshi nationalism and sutured together the geographic, historic, religious, cultural and political components of our nationhood. He based his politics on nationalism at a time when nationalism has not yet become a pan-global craze. In this context he can be called the father of Bangladeshi nationalism or father of our current national identity.
What was Zia’s role in our war of independence?
Ziaur Rahman is one of the most prominent, if not the most prominent general of our war of Independence. He was the leader of Z-Force and was the commander of a sector where many of the most fierce battles of 1971 took place. But we will be doing injustice to history if we try to portray him merely as another sector commander. His contribution was much much greater. His declaration of independence on behalf of the civilian leadership i.e. Bangabandhu, is the formal declaration of our war of independence. And this declaration sealed the fate of our nation. His mutiny was echoed in military garrisons all over occupied Bangladesh and Bengali military officers started revolting against the military chain of command and took up arms against Pakistani forces. This massive defection in regular military forces withing 24-48 hours of initiation of an invasion and launching of a full scale guerrilla war within weeks is unprecedented in human history. Similarly this phenomenon ( of this mass mutiny in military ranks) was beyond imagination of the planners of the West Pakistani military campaign and the west Pakistan forces never could recover from this miscalculation. Hence Bangladesh won her independence in record short nine months time.
Wasn’t Zia a military dictator and the killer of democracy and was indirectly involved in Mujib killing?
Absolutely bogus. Zia never imposed a martial law in Bangladesh and neither he conducted a coup. At a time when the total chain of command in Bangladesh armed forces was in shambles and there were coups and counter coups in a regular interval, Zia was deemed to be only general acceptable to all parties concerned to bring back chain of command in Bangladesh armed forces and lead Bangladesh. After 7th November coup by Maoist forces in Bangladesh Army, Zia was released from house arrest and asked to take over the responsibility of bringing the country back from collapse. And when Zia took over, Bangladesh was already under martial law imposed by Khandakar Mostaque and in a one party rule as a result of 4th amendment of the constitution. In sharp contrast to all the allegations regularly labeled against him by the so called progressives, Zia in fact brought multiparty democracy back to Bangladesh and withdrew martial law and get rid of his military uniform ASAP ( less than two years). When Bangabandhu died, Zia was totally powerless Deputy Army Chief. The rank, now obsolete, was totally a clout less ceremonial position. He did not have the resources to help conduct a coup. Those people who could have made a difference in this coup were the then army chief Gen Shafiullah and then Rakhkhi bahini chief Mr. Tofael Ahmed. But they did not do anything. To be frank, by their inaction, they facilitated Mujib killing. ironically, both of these two are senior Awami League leaders now.
Hasn’t Zia kill secularism and brought Bismillah to constitution?
Zia initiated changes the second paragraph of the preamble of our constitution. He inserted, “Pledging that the high ideals of absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah, nationalism, democracy and socialism meaning economic and social justice, which inspired our heroic people to dedicate themselves to, and our brave martyrs to sacrifice their lives in the war for national independence, shall be fundamental principles of the Constitution;” He based this on US national motto, In God We Trust. Although, to many (including me), it was backward step away from progressive secularism, this one single step helped Zia seal the largest ever political coalition in Bangladesh. In retrospect, I see this as pragmatism to its best. One example will prove it. Since Zia’s death, no one ever has attempted removing changes brought in By Zia. Awami League is the bastion of left-center left politics in Bangladesh. Even Awami League has never made it a priority. Awami League now has absolute majority in parliament and they easily can scratch out Zia’s inclusion of Bismillah and In Allah We trust. But I seriously doubt they will go that path. And this will seal Zia’s role as pragmatic political visionary in Bangladesh reality. If Awami League do not scratch Bismillah from constitution, will there be any ideological difference between AL and BNP and more importantly, will AL ever be able look down upon Zia as killer of secularism?
Did Zia rehabilitate Anti-Liberation Forces:
Zia opened up politics and resumed multi-party democracy. Under this program, all political parties including Awami League, NAP, Communist Party, Muslim League, Nezam e Islami party etc got reestablished and registered. Jamaat also utilized that pathway, and democratically there was little government could do to prevent it. It holds true for now. Will Awami League disband Jamaat? And politically, after 72-75 rule, there was little appetite as well as pressure for action against collaborators. The national consensus at that time was for a forward looking national reunification.
In military, those officers who could join the war got 2 years seniority plus at least two promotions. Additionally they were getting all posting in infantry or other vital sectors. Officers, most were really efficient and patriotic, who were stranded in Pakistan and could not flee, found themselves way down in their career. It created an environment not conducive to a professional army. Zia, although a freedom fighter himself, tried to unify the forces into a professional force. He did that ultimately, although at the cost of his own life.
Yes Zia worked with some razakars in his cabinet. Shah Azizur Rahman was prime example. But he brought all of them with special purpose. Shah Aziz was picked to handle the parliament. Maolana Mannan was included to keep a close watch-control over Madrassas. This was sign of an extreme foresight. In post HUJI- JMB period, we now know how vital/wise move it was on Zia’s part to keep a close eye on Madrassas. And if working with Razakars is a crime, then how Mr. A K Khondokar become the leader pro liberation values? For years, Mr Khondokar sat beside Maolana Mannan and Salahuddin Kader Chowdhury as minister of Ershad.
As a leader and ruler of Bangladesh, how did Zia do?
If one respects objectivity, nobody should have any problem with the statement that, since Independence the five years of Zia’s rule is the best period in Bangladesh history. In terms of works done, A far distant second place may go to the 1996-2001 Awami League government. Lets bullet some highlights of Zia rule,
Zia involved rural Bangladesh into his developmental politics. While Bangladesh political culture meant arranging public meetings spending crores of taka, Zia successfully changed that culture. He involved people from all walks of life in voluntary canal digging and political rallies turned into festive canal digging programs. No politician understood the importance rural Bangladesh better than Zia. He spent most of his tenure as ruler of Bangladesh walking from village to village.
……..To Be Continued.
[ Late President Ziaur Rahman is the most important thing that happened to our politics since independence. Yet Zia is the most misunderstood man in this country. There has been a serious lack of understanding of Zia's policies. As a result of a pathetic failure to explain Zia by two BNP governments, abject failure of Khaleda Zia and Zia's sons to live up to Zia's ideals and a constant barrage of negative campaign against Ziaur Rahman by a very powerful progressive force, Young Bangladeshis of today do not know anything good about Zia. This is my humble effort to start telling the story of Ziaur Rahman. I start this on 73rd birthday of Zia when Zia's legacy is in its worst shape in history. I promise to continue telling this story, infrequently, irregularly, but honestly and passionately. ]
January 21, 2009 at 8:01 am
Really good post. Thank you
January 23, 2009 at 6:47 am
Rumi Bhai,
Nice post.well told.
When someone talks ill about Zia,the ppl who saw and experienced Zia bleed internally. Other than some political chamcha,No one came forward to describe what zia was. Your post is rare.
I was a kid when I saw him. It was long late night when Presidential Train reached our railway station.He came down, shook hands while walking.He did not notice that he touched a hand of a little kid and thus bought him permanently.
February 15, 2009 at 10:17 pm
It’s good to see that Zia’s role is analyzed from a neutral perspective. It also needs to be highlighted that Zia and Mujib are not antagonist rather they complement each other.
Marginalization of Mujib’s contribution or Zia’s contribution would be suicidal for Bangladesh. Today’s youth needs to see the critical role Bangladeshi Nationalism played in our post 71 years and how Zia helped in asserting our sovereignty as an independent nation. Mujib’s trust in India cost him his life while Zia’s attempt to galvanize our national identity made him a target for a very well known intelligence agency who are still infusing confusion by proliferating pro vs anti liberation force concept. We are all Bangladeshi’s first and then comes everything else (i.e. Bangali, Chakma and the rest.) – that’s the reality.
A nice post.
February 16, 2009 at 4:42 am
Dear Rumi Bhai,
Good post. But I would like to differ/ comment on several points:
1. Father of Bangladeshi Nationalism: Bangladeshi nationalism was not the brainchild of Zia. It was first mentioned by an Indian writer ( read it in Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury’s book) just after 1971. Indians were concerned whether the language based secular Bengali nationalism would influence the West Bengali populace to sever the tie with the Indian confederation. At that time, the situation in West Bengal was grave due to the naxalist maoist movement. Therefore, a large section in Indian bureaucracy and press had made concerted efforts to impose a new nationalism in Bangladesh, based on the geographical segmentation of Bangladeshi ppl, not on the language based identity.
After Mujib’s death, the concept of Bangladeshi nationalism was brought to the limelight by Khondokar Abdul Hamid and was included in the constituition by Zia.
2. The announcement of Zia indeed had a great effect internationally and internally. It also boosted the morale of the freedom fighters and potential freedom fighters. But u cannot deny that even before the declaration, Major Rafiq had already taken over the control in Chiitagong EPR base. 1st east bengal regiment in Joydebpur Cant. was planning to revolt since March 19, 1971. Most of the pro liberation officers like Zia, Shafiullah, Khaled had been waiting since March 7 to find the right moment to revolt. So even without the declaration of Zia, the revolts in the cantonments was bound to happen after the March 25 crackdown and subsequent plot to disarm the Bengali officers.
3. Zia was a military dictator until 1979. First he established an air of legitimacy by arranging a so-called Yes/ No vote in total military supervision. Afterwards, he formed a political party while retaining the post of Army Chief. After it was all set, he arranged a parliamentary election, the fairness of which is also not above suspicion.
Zia was not directly linked to Bangabandhu murder but Colonel Faruq revealed in 1976 that Zia was aware of the conspiracy and did not report the activities to anyone else. Being the deputy chief of staff, he must have warned the then President about the conspiracy going on. There are several books written by ex Army officers having to connection with politics to witness that Faruq and Rashid used to visit Zia quite often before the Bangabandhu murder. Moreover, the Indemnity Ordinance was made a part of the constituiton by Zia himself, barring the trial of Bangabandhu murderers for 21 yrs.
4. I, as a mulim, have faith on Allah. But in Bangladesh, about 10% of the ppl are non muslim who do not have any faith on Allah. Now, due to the change Zia made, 10 % of the ppl have no way to follow the state funda #1.
You are right that “this one single step helped Zia seal the largest ever political coalition in Bangladesh”. Zia did it solely for political purpose. Now once the constitute is islamized, do u think any party in power, however large their no. of seats are, will be ever be able to scrap it ? ScrApping bismillah won’t be possible in a country like BD coz it will not get the public support at all. What Zia did was just an irreversible process, only an army backed non political govt can scrap it successfully. Just for political purpose, Zia has got us entangled in the “Bismillah” politics forever.
5. Zia is the reason why the rajakars and al badrs could enter in politics once again. Firstly he scrapped the collaborator act in 1976. As a direct consequence, more than 11000 alleged and about 1000 proven war criminals got freedom. Then when the party registration process started, he lifted the ban on Jamaat and other religious parties to let them in politics. He also made notorious war criminals ministers to get the sympathy of the pro pakistani faction of the society. In army also, he marginalised the freedom fighters and promoted Ershad and other Pakistan returned officers. Although a valiant freedom fighter himself, his later deeds was very much detrimental to the spirit of liberation war.
6. “since Independence the five years of Zia’s rule is the best period in Bangladesh history.” — what is the basis of the statement ? On what parameters can u say that this 5 year was the best one in BD history ? As far as I can see, either GDP wise or Human Dev Index wise, no way can it be said that Zia’s rule was better than Hasina/ Khaleda or even Ershad’s tenure. Would you please elaborate on which basis u have made such a claim ?
Having said all, I admire Zia for many of his well deeds. I also believe that he is an extraordinary person who rose into popularity in such a small period. With his extraordinary intellect, he filled the void of anti AL politics in Bangladesh so tremendously that even after 30 years of his death, the party he formed is still surviving. However, the way u had depicted him in the post is what I couldn’t support.
Thanks a lot.
February 16, 2009 at 8:21 am
ZIA, one of the most influential person in Independent Bangladesh, … that I understand day by day.
I’m not undermine Mujib’s contribution in Bangladesh, but the historically true, that Bangladesh achieved independence without Mujib’s physical presence, that was the highest contribution by Mujib for Bangladesh.
but the chaos during Mujib’s period, was not the real dreams for Bangladesh, including to introduce his BAKSHAL ghost.
This same ghost still exist in recent BAL, this ghost needed to eliminated permanently.
means, ZIA ensured the multi party democracy in Bangladesh, which begun his legacy, and continue forever!
Mujib’s legacy ended into his own BAKSHAL, Hasina’s BAL is nothing more than a virtual image of Mujib. means, recent BAL use Mujib as their political element.
BUT, new generation want to show their respect towards Mujib, keep him out of politics for all Bangladeshis. We want Zia’s multi party democracy.
February 17, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I am not a proponent of “Bismillah” in the constitution as it may alienate my brothers of other religion. However, democracy is rule by majority and if the majority of the people support addressing Islam there is nothing anyone can do. Zia did what he believed to address many of the nationalists concerns to unite the majority(including Chakamas who were asked to become Bangali by Mujib) and get financial support from Saudi aligned donors,US. Specifically in the 71-75 context in the backdrop of Sikkim annexation by India – realignation of the foreign policy and distancing from Soviet axis proved well for Bangaldesh (Even india did the same after the Collapse of USSR).
We can all argue Zia as the “Shadhinatar Ghoshok” however my parents who were diehard Mujib fans (like 100% Bangladeshis in 71) tells me how the unknown major’s voice gave them direction and inspiration. Yes that could have been done by others like Shafiullah, Khaled – but the fact of history is that it was Zia. We can all vilify Zia and try not to give him credit but history will judge him differently.
February 20, 2009 at 10:10 am
I apprecitae Rumi’s analysis about Zia.We need to evaluate properly all of our leaders.Though some of Zia’s work is controversial,but one of the main important thing is Zia established discpline in the country in contrast to Muzib’s reign of anarchy.This anrachism was not created by razakar, it was created by awamileagu. I have no question about Mujib’s patrotism,his love for the country is unquestionalble, but unpleasant truth is, Mujib was an absolutely failure administrator, his weak side is he loves flattery rather than dedication and had no clear idea about what thing is important for formulating an efficient government machinery.Zia’s positive side is he did not indulge nepotism, his integrity is unquestionable, Zia took the responsiblity of a country when coup and counter coup was regular feature and he became victim of the coup several times.As a real soldier, I think he did the right thing s to take the responsiblity when Sheikh Mujib and whloe family were assasinated and no on from the party seemed to be fullfil the place immidiately and might not to control the indisiplined army. So Zia’s role at that time was very wise.He made declaration for independence to the whole world with due respect to Mujib.He knew very well what to do when for the sake of country.Unfortunately he is bing assessed wrongly. His sons acivity contributed to tarnish his immage. All the work Zia could not perform uncontroversial but he wanted people’s walefare not for his family and relatives. From this present piarlament one law maker proposes to scrap Zia’s name from Zia International Airport and want to put Seikh Rassel’s name.Would it be ever justified: Russel’s death is pathetic undouibtedly.But should it be comparable with Zia’s sacrifice and contribution for the country.Zia knew his family is in great danger, but he did not hesitate to go for war. We should not be so hostile to any of our freedomfighter.If our great soldier Col. Taher, Khaled Mosharraf would be more patient and respectful to othe’s vision, we could acieve more propgress, I think.Unfortunately our great soldiers possessed indivdual different patriotism.They may not ready to listen each other.I pay due respect to Col. Taher, he loved country but majority of our people do not want socialism, He wanted wellbeing for the country but did not try to understand that people are not ready to adopt this ideology.Our great leader Sheikh Mjuib as well as Zia were able to realize the majority of the people’s mentality. Itroducing ‘Bismillah ‘ in the constitution not at all problem for other religion people.Because main principle of Islam is neuteral justice for all humanbeings and not to impose the opinion to others.So Bismillah never neglect other religion’s right.I would say that it emphasize equality to all, justice for all, reserve right to all.This thing should not be misinterpreted.
Zia always to be blamed that he is the killer of Col. Taher, no on can point out that Col. Taher plotted coup to kill Zia not only for one time, 17 times! What was the problem of him shedding army’s dress and formed ploytical party for socialism. He could be involved in polytics to establish his vision to the people in democratic way instead of attemting to kill President, who is working for people not for his own interest.We are unlucky that our freedom fighter were too much induvidualistic rather than democratic, though they love country very much.This is not good to try impose something in undemocratic way.We shoould try to understand each other view and listen respectfully. Zia was bound to take take stern action in the army.Otherwise the indiciplined soldiers did not stop.Zia’s action cotributed to create congenial atmosphere to his successor.I think we should not be reluctant to evaluate all of our leader, Their mistakes are their limitations not their illmotives.We should find our way from their mistakes and not to repeating that.We should never disregard never overdo to our freedom fighters and great leadres.
September 1, 2009 at 8:55 am
Bily wrote “Zia always to be blamed that he is the killer of Col. Taher, no on can point out that Col. Taher plotted coup to kill Zia not only for one time, 17 times! What was the problem of him shedding army’s dress and formed ploytical party for socialism. ”
It is simply surprising that how come one can make a comment. It only says that “Zia followers” like Bily, mostly never cares to get into the real facts or do some minimum homework with a neutral mind. Let us go into timeline of the events that occurred during that era to answer his naïve and ignorant assertions or believe. Let us se whether it was possible for Taher to stage so called “17 coups against Zia”… or whether Taher realy gave up his “dresses” to form a scocialist party.
Inroduction:
It is needless to say that Col Taher was a sector commander and unlike many “decorated sector commanders” he himself fought in the frontline and lost one of his legs during our liberation war. Due to his strong political opinions and desire to form a “revolutionary party” he retired form Army in 1972 September 22 and joined JSD (jatiyo ShomajTanrik Dal) as vice president.
1975 Nov.3
Khaled Mosharraf staged a coup and Zia was house arrested.
1975 Nov 4
Zia sent a message to Taher to rescue him. Zia knew that Taher already has a flowing in the army shepoy who were organized as “Biplobi Shoinik Shongstha”.
1975 Nov 6
JSD leaders decided to organize a revolt utilizing the Shipoys and there was a political decision to form a multiparty coalition government and Zia had full consent to that.
1975 Nov 7
So called “Shipahi-jonotar Biplob “took place and Zia was released, Khaled Mosharraf was killed. Zia turned his back to Taher from previous promises to be a part of the declaration of a coalition Government.
1975 Nov 23-24
JSD top brasses and Colonel Taher was arrested.
1976 June 15
A Kangaroo trail court was formed under Coln. Yusuf Haider, who never joined the Liberation war and was in active duty in Pakistani Military until his return in 1973.
1976 July 17
The court declared the verdict of the death sentence of Col. Taher
1976 July 21
He was hanged at Dhaka central Jail
1976 July 31
Zia suddenly found that the provision under which the death sentence was given never existed in army law. So, the law was retrospectively corrected 10 days after they had hanged Col. Taher.
Resources:
1.
2. Books published on his life:
April 3, 2009 at 1:43 am
Well done Rumi. Please dig out more on Zia and publish on line people to know the history of Bangladesh. I am concerned about today’s youngsters who do know only little about pre and post-independence of Bangladesh and are often misguided by lobbyist with bias information to eradicate our history and then these interest groups to get illicit advantages.
Today, our politics are so cancerous that especially those are pro-Indians and these elements pushing our country into total chaos and turmoil would at last invite havoc, destruction and loosing our identity.
May 12, 2009 at 4:24 am
Thnx Mr. Rumi for such a good writing. We cannot evaluate our leaders because we are biased. One may support BAL but it does not mean Zia was bad or vice versa.