In the pages of Bangladesh interest blogs, where you will be labeled BNP supporter if you dare disagree with even a single policy of Sheikh Hasina and where neutrality is a hated concept, one needs a lot of courage to write a tribute to Late President Ziaur Rahman. And I decide to take the unwise step to show the arrogance of writing a blog on Ziaur Rahman, foreseeing a barrage of attacks and a bleeding myself at the end of the ordeal.
********************************************************************
A quarter of a century passed since President Ziaur Rahman was assassinated by a group of ranking army officers. Before being assassinated he could rule Bangladesh for around five years. Here are some of my observations about Zia, his life and death, the people’s love and the legacy.
1. Freedom fighter Zia is way overshadowed by military ruler turned president Zia. His role in 1971 war never got the due respect, even during the current hay days of his party.
First attack on freedom fighter Zia came from his fellow jealous freedom fighters like Major Rafiq who smeared against Zia’s activities preceding March 25 revolt.
Intellectually retarded leadership of post Zia BNP, while unduly focusing on his declaration of Independence, always failed to portray the valiant fighter sides of Zia, his brave, shrewd war plans, his overall contribution to the warfare of 1971.
It is yet unclear to me why Zia, senior most sector commander in active duty was superseded by Gen Shafiullah, an officer of significant lower caliber and courage, to be the first army chief of independent Bangladesh.
2. While Zia is blamed ( To some extent rightly) for his heavy handed dealing with the army coups, killing of dozens of freedom fighter army officers, killing of sector commander- war hero- war wounded Colonel Taher; his role is stabilizing Bangladesh Army into a disciplined force has never been appreciated. We have to understand that when Zia was rescued from house arrest on 7th November 1975, a large portion of Bangladesh armed forces was under control of Marxist philosophy, and the other part of army was resorting to coup and counter coup on a weekly basis. The whole chain of command was shattered. And at the end, when Zia paid for his cruelty with his own life, Bangladesh Army was a more disciplined force.
3. Zia could have kept the one party rule mandated by 4th amendment of the constitution, but he decided to nullify the fourth amendment to pave the way for multi party democracy. He was well aware of the grassroots power of Awami League and he opted take the challenge with tools of democracy.
4. While Zia was immensely popular to the youth and the students of the 80s and 90s, he failed to develop any following among the intelligentsia. In my observation, the weakest link of Zia legacy is that there is not a single progressive intelligent mind in Bangladesh who will talk publicly in favor of Zia. Bangladesh media or blog scenarios are such examples. You will get hundreds of trash quality books on Zia written by BNP MP wannabees, not a single enlightened analysis of his political philosophy.
Has any poet ever write poem on Zia? Did any painter lovingly painted Zia’s portrait? Did any Zia follower dedicated a website on Zia? Answer to all of them in NO. And these are Zia’s failure.
5. Zia’s rehabilitation of dalals and razakars was, although short sighted, very much needed to politically face a huge grass root party like Awami League. Shah Aziz is one such example who very successfully tackled AL in the parliament. But all these razakars kept their name by dumping BNP for Ershad’s JP in the first opportunity.
6. Zia’s scrapping of secularism, another short sighted step, was, although very popular at that time, took Bangladesh a leap backward. Zia didn’t have that significant political opposition at that time to resort to this sort of drastic constitutional measure.
The irony is that although Zia is regularly termed as “unknown major”, ” Military dictator”, ” tyrant”, his vision of Bangladesh’s political system, a ‘quasi religious, quasi nationalist, half-hearted democracy”, is being followed page by page by all the proceeding governments. Nobody ever expressed any feeling of discomfort in this system.
7. While Zia struggled and succeeded in maintaining a corruption and nepotism free image, his legacy, his dynasty, his family is solely based on rampant corruption and shameless nepotism. This is probably the worst failure of Zia legacy.
8. I used to live in Sher-e-Bangla Nagar when Zia was killed. I’ve never seen a bigger human gathering in Bangladesh and I’ll probably never ever see the collective spontaneous expression of deep grief by millions present in the funeral service. Unfortunately that generation is not in existence anymore. Zia’s party, although carry Zia’s image in election posters, depend more on votes from Awami League haters than the votes of Zia lovers.
9. Zia should never be compared with Bangabandhu Mujib. They are not comparable. Mujib will always have a different, high up place in history. But there should not any hesitation in crediting Zia for holding the country in steady hand during the post-Mujib vacuum.
In the Middle of Nowhere 
June 1, 2006 at 8:34 am
I disagree that Zia’s family legacy is solely of family nepotism and corruption. Khaleda Zia’s role in the eighties anti-Ershad movement was of tremendous courage and uncompromising attitude. Similarly her first tenure was also relatively corruption free. However, she completely lost control at her second tenure — thanks to the alternative power base at Hawa bhaban.
Similarly, one can conclude that the principles that the country was founded on was completely replaced by Zia (to a certain extent, the process was started with the 4th amendment in 1974). His legacy is of personal honesty and bold leadership both nationally and internationally (do you remember his shuttle meetings with Saddam, Arafat, Boni Sader?, we never reached that stature after his death). But domestically he can be blamed for using religion for his political gain. I do believe though that Zia had the charisma , leadership quality to take Bangladesh to the next level of prosperity and he would have learnt from his mistakes. Ignoring some of his political steps, I liked him as a leader and clearly remember how profoundly upset I was at the age of six, when he died.
This time in Dhaka, my khala handed me a paper clipping of San Francisco Chronicle from 1978. The report talked about how Zia used to pay a monthly fee to the government for the time his car was used for personal purposes. Compare that with the lifestyle of his sons today.
June 1, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Bismillahirrahmanurrahim
Ziaur Rahman…shadaron & shorol manusher netha…thumakeh keno bolbona bongobhondu? Thumakeh keno bolbona vira uttama?
Rumi bhai this is such an objective post, & like all objective posts this post suffers from modesty. I’m guessing it’s not intentional, it’s natural.
You haven’t credited Ziaur Rahman with the fact that he was a closet feminist, I know that he didn’t write The Subjection of Women, but he did pave the way for someone like Khaleda Zia. Women in Bangladesh must thank him for that.
It’s because Ziaur Rahman completely sorted out the infrastructure of Bangladesh, we now see people from all walks of life supporting the BNP. Also, you see so many wonderful hotels in Dhaka.
Considering that most Bangladeshis are not actually indigenous to that region, Ziaur Rahman went about creating a cohesive indentity of a Bangladeshi – who can be identified with his indubitable “trust & faith in all mighty Allah.”
Ziaur Rahman, with his article 25.2 of the constitution, has shown solidarity with fellow sunni Muslims like Saddam Hussein.
Ziaur Rahman allowed Golam Azam, holder of a Pakistani passport, to stay in Bangladesh for almost two decades without becoming a Bangladeshi. Hereby demonstrating that Bangladeshis are not a resentful and grudging people. Does the UK show such hospitality? While one is eulogizing Ziaur Rahman, one ought to say that Golam Azam is really a nice chap & his political party is jolly decent. All the baseless, unfounded, accusations hurled at Golam Azam & his party is done by the enemies of Ziaur Rahman’s Bangladesh. Golam Azam would vehemently protest against the Pakistani army taking the izzat of our sisters.
Ziaur Rahman never secured votes by “stage managing.” He was nothing like Dubya Bush (because vote rigging happens in hypocritical Christian countries).
Ziaur Rahman must also be thanked for passing a bill to indemnify anyone against any baseless accusation of putting down a communist or non-communist dog.
June 1, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Oh, how could I forget the man who freed and reinstated Ziaur Rahman, Abu Tahir, an amputee (war veteran) who was shown gratitude by Ziaur Rahman with Abu Tahir’s hanging.
June 1, 2006 at 5:27 pm
A good article written by Mr William B Milam, a former US ambassador to Pakistan and Bangladesh.
” ……This Zia was challenged by something like 23 military mutinies in his early years as the country’s leader. He put them down, sometimes ruthlessly. Perhaps because of that experience (did he conclude that the military was no more to be trusted than the civilians?), Zia slowly moved the military out of politics. Whether he knew it or not, intended it or not, Zia ur Rahman set Bangladesh on a glide path to a civilian dominance of politics. We do not know exactly why; did he believe in democracy, or just in himself?
It wasn’t just a civilian facade, but a civilian government, led by an ex-military leader who kept his word and took his uniform off. He became a genuinely elected civilian president. His assassination in 1981, perpetrated by a general who not only was dismayed that his career was abridged, but was angry also at Zia for pushing the army out of the political limelight, interrupted the glide and Ershad’s coup in 1982 tried unsuccessfully to turn it back. But the die was cast. Or, perhaps more accurately, half cast; the civilians have yet to emulate Zia’s effective governance.
I remember that when we looked at Pakistan and Bangladesh in the late 1970s, we thought that, though separate countries, they remained quite similar in their politics — both ruled by the military, both led by a general named Zia. We couldn’t have been more wrong.”
June 1, 2006 at 6:48 pm
People like W B Milam need to cut the crap. “Ruthlessly” is a slur and slap to Bangladeshis everywhere, how can this be a description of the vira uttama who at the end gave his life for Bangladesh?
June 2, 2006 at 1:09 am
Muhamad, I was in Kelvingrove park in Glasgow yesterday with my kid. We saw a statue of Thomas Carlyle, and my boy wanted to know who the ugly sausage was… Your post lampoons Carlyle type nonsense, and is a hilarious antidote to the worship of moustachioed men which goes on in Bengali discussions about past “leaders.” Thank you for taking the discussion away from such silly hagiography.
However from a development perspective Zia’s legacy in terms of reviving local government institutions is worth remembering. What Khaleda went on to do to local government in her earlier period in power is a stark reminder of how different the present leader of the BNP is, and constitutes yet another indictment of her party and her government.
June 2, 2006 at 5:18 am
Shafiur bhai, during my student days I came up with the idea that there’s a template for human behaviour, and within that template we can see where one politician’s behaviour tallies with another politicians behaviour. As such, one could say that Adolf Hitler did somethings, development wise, that’s worth remembering.
1. he didn’t take the life of an animal to eat it, and in that respect he was an Aryan through and through.
2. imposing German architecture.
3. innovative ways to building roads — the autobahns are a testament to his artistic ingenuity (Hitler was an artist, hence a cultured person).
4. the Volkswagen production line, in keeping with the newly built autobahns.
5. saved his nation from the shame of the Versaille treaty.
6. got rid of the Weimar incompetents.
7. strengthened the devalued and inflated Deutschmark, that was once carried in bucket loads (the Bangladesh Nationalist Party is making sure that this sort of thing never takes place in Bangladesh).
8. rejuvenated the youthful and the not so youthful Teutonic people’s pride in themselves as Aryans.
9. transformed Germany into the most powerful nation in Europe, and feared by the globe.
June 2, 2006 at 5:25 am
“a great man–a man whom nature has constructed and invented in the grand style–what is he?”
Friedrich Nietsche,
“sura” 962 (1885) from The Will to Power (Der Wille zur Macht), translated by Walter Kaufmann.
June 2, 2006 at 7:01 am
Yes you make me laugh. But i am wise to your tricks. I was not adding to any list. You will note Muhamad I talked about Zia’s LEGACY from a DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE …as valid as discussions of the legacy of that austrian runt. That is far from hagiography and far from a list of achievements/ attributes devoid of context !
June 2, 2006 at 11:26 am
🙂
Ah that’ what I like to hear, but more so than what you call my tricks it’s the politicians’ tricks we need to be wise to.
Yes, everybody has a legacy, some promulgated as somehow more important than others.
Human behaviour on all fronts is interconnected, and so if we look closely we will find some things are in context.
June 4, 2006 at 12:47 am
Rumi bhai:
Thanks for writing this piece. I suppose opinion will always be divided whether his days as CMLA and President were some of our darkest or, instead, the beginning of new hope for Bangladesh.
Last week while visiting the Liberation War Museum in Dhaka with my mother, it was nice to see Ziaur Rahman from the context of the War. As a Sector Commander among the military campaign exhibits, and in the short documentary they show afterwards that included his Chittagong broadcast (“on behalf of Bangabandhu” is the official Museum position). There is a poignant calm to that rememberance, as there is to that for all the men and women who are part of the historic legacy in one way or the other. It made me think we have to always go back to 1971 to remember these men for who they were, before they became our heroes and tyrants. But at least we have a place to go back.
June 4, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Thanks, Rumi and the blogers on the timely important topics on the week of Zia’s death anniversary.
It’s very very sad that our country is almost equally divided on the issue ‘of the two
heroic historic persona of our independence and their legacies as rulers of newly independent Bangladesh,whose rule and contribution was
more important or brighter!’
We know this debate absolutely,unnecessary. Not only unnecessary but harmful to our nation as it’s dividing us even at a time when the country needs absolute unity and solidary like
in the fight against corruptions or fanatic forces,in the name of religion or secularism or any other ideologies.
Mujib and Zia,both had their own distinct and
uncomparable legacies of admiration and respect.
I believe, Zia’s rule in independence war and post-75 politics was complementary to Mujib’s politics in the sense,both leaders
wanted to see newly independent war-torned chaotic Bangladesh as self-esteemed prosperous stable nation. We many a time forget men
are not beyond mistakes. Maybe both of them had
many grave mistakes, yet
giveing their due respectful places
in the history,we can engage in criticizing
their caveats in objective way to learn from their mistakes,not just for the shake of political revalries.
Many believe, forgiving the collaborotors by Mujib and permitting them in politics by Zia were serious polical mistakes. But to me, those decisions were the real-time necessity and visionary steps by both men, otherwise the country could have turned to Labanon or Algeria and would have seen ferocious fight and more blood shed by ultra fanatic forces rigth and left.
June 4, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Rafiq Vai
You are so right. All our leaders must be put in their respective places.
As for Bangabandhu, successive BNP governments didn’t leave any effort undone to undermine Bangabandhu’s role in founding Bangladesh. But all their efforts failed miserably. Bangabandhu has his place, nobody ever will be able to shake that position. Even hardcore BNP supporters don’t go along party line when it comes about bangabandhu.
Similarly there have always been an effort to vilify Zia’s role in 1971. Although these quater has not been in governing power, they have tremendous clout in our cultural, social arena.
In this context, I am quite skeptical of Liberation War Museum about how they will portray Zia. It is well know that the majority of LWM trutees hate Zia’s politics to bottom their gut.
Now I only can hope that while presenting sector commander Zia, they would leave behind their partisanship and be objective.
June 4, 2006 at 9:47 pm
I can’t agree more with you ABUUSA. I believe it is about the time we agree to discuss these issues.
While talking about this two leaders, we should remember that one had 3 and half years to rule and the other had four and half. Compare these with 9 years of Ershad, ten years of Khaleda Zia and five years of Sheikh Hasina.
Still these two contributed so much to shape our national identity.
June 4, 2006 at 11:53 pm
The funny thing here is that Zia himself referred to Mujib as Bongobondhu – something that Khaleda Zia’s BNP refuses to mention. Not that anyone is forced to do so, it’s just that I am trying to show the mis- representation.
Zia himself mentioned how Mujib’s speech inspired him and gave him the green signal to prepare.
Here is the Zia article:
Click to access ziaBichitra.pdf
Rumi bhai said rightly that each must be put in its right place in history.
June 5, 2006 at 8:40 am
I highlighted the same thing here:
http://www.thedailystar.net/2005/08/15/d50815090170.htm
June 10, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Here, I would like to counter the idea of Mr. Muhammed, how Zia hanged Late Mr. Abu Taher, a gallent freedom fighter who rescued Zia from near-death custody situation.
I had the same thinking about Zia for sometime
for that reason, even though I had the deepest respect for him for his charistmatic leadership and inestimable timely role of declaring Independence while Late Sheik Mujib was arrested, other Awami League leaders were disperesed and the whole nation was like a steerless boat in a savage sea with Sunami.
But, that negative thinking about him soon gone. Many a time, I sobs when I read his stories and think, what he did for us and what he intended to do. If we could finish his unfinished job, I, very strongly believe, Bangladesh could have been far better than Malayasia.
Why and how I came off the negative views about Zia on Taher’s hanging?
Folks,look at If I had been the Judge of Military or Civilian court I would have hanged Taher dozens of times. Not only would I have hanged Taher but also others like Rob, Jalil, Enu gong, who in the name of so called Gono Biplob, killed many of our gallent freedom fighters/Army Officers like Khaled Musharraf, Major Haider and other many innocent officers, even including their spouses. They would have killed all the army officers.
They just tried to use the popularity of Zia and eventually would have killed Zia too,
to accoplish their Biplobi Mission.
I wonder, how many of our brave sons who fought so legendary fight against Pakistani Army in 1971 and now they went into oblivion. One of the great such great fighter was the then CAP-
TAIN HAIDER BIRUTTOM who was killed by Taher group. Every now and then, Captain Haider’s tale of gallent fights used to be waved from Swadhin Bangla Beter Kendro.
Zia was very just not pardoning them. If he had favored Taher it would have been travesty of justice. It would have been great injustice to innocent army officers who were killed by Taher.
If you were a judge and if failed to punish a killer or criminal because once you were favored by the criminal, would not that have been injustice and mockery to justice system.
Zia was never a cruel man. More than a dozens of coups were attempted. Look at the history around the world about other military rulers, If it would have not been Zia, there could have been far more blood-shed and killings. We don’t know exactly how many people were executed. One report told, couple of years ago, for about 17 failed coups some 143 or 243 people were executed. If it’s true it’s not too big a number because in each coup there more than hundred of people’re involved.
Look at other fact, Col/Brig. Shefat Jamil was Dhaka Brigade commander at the time of counter coup of Nov.3, 1975 under leadership of Khaled Musharraf. It was learned from difference soureces, Brig. Shefat Jamil [Name spell may be incorrect] was the main instigator for that coup.He was injured jumping over Banghabavan’s wall while fleeing after failed coup. He was cought at Naraynganj, was treated humanely and he is still alive. I wonder, if Zia would have cruel and mad of taking personal revenge, then we wouldn’t have seen Shafat Jamil still alive.
May 31, 2007 at 8:13 am
Rumi (#13)
Reading the comments “for and against” our national leaders, I asked myself, why can’t we truly and properly respect our national leaders? Why we always fall in arguments? These are the two quick answers I got and posted in DP:
1. Obsession for Leadership
Leaders are human being and they have both the good and bad side in their intensions, decisions. But we supporters are so obsessed that we never find the awful side of our leader, rather dig the terrible side of other leaders to make our one comparatively better!
2. Virtue of Birth
Most of us believe what we have been taught to believe from our childhood. Just think of our own religious belief… isn’t it becoz we were born in this family? (Just imagine Bush was born in a Muslim family and Laden was born in a Christian Family!)
If such a deep rooted believe can come more from “virtue of birth”, and not from “rationale”, why can’t political belief?
The worst thing is, when we say that we did the “post-belief-research”. That is, “I really went through the history to find the truth”. The sad thing is, when we have a pre-fixed belief in our head, we only “research” to justify our belief and find only those evidences that suits our belief.
When we will agree that Ziaur Rahman was both (what has been said by the supporters and the haters), only then we will be able to pay a true homage.
January 24, 2011 at 10:47 am
I can explain why Zia did not receive support from our intellectuals, and no good book was ever written on him. It goes back to history – unfortunately – since 1800 people who started writing books are the dominating ‘intellectuals’ – dishonest intellectuals who wrote many many propaganda books – all of them – please name one – who did not! ….
Those who could not make them happy – could have never be their friends. so our intellectuals who just started to raise pen instead of ‘langal’ got brainwashed and were amazed of their white and grey matters. Like the dominant groups, would not let anyone learn anything unless you agree with them 😉 got it ? .. if you want to know more find out how the Bengalis with the help of Brit Raj (or vice versa) touched the ceiling of developmental height – in the area of intellectual works, money and opportunity. And look at our intellectuals from last 5 decades – many of them had to be 100% bengali aka (hindu- as hindusim is actually a culture – never had fixed form – got recognised as religion with the effort of Bhibekananda), to receive the secret of ‘knowledge’ from them. They never had acceptence, you need to be like them to be accepted. Mujib and his bahini was – so he got name , fame , good book and even statue :P. (also notice who are the writers of his good books). I am sure Kazi Najrul could have never never received any attention if was not non-religious – actually if he did not write lots of bhajans to show his loyalty. yet ….
Those revived soldiers of hindusim (during sena monarchy – pls read how hindusim was revived and caste system was made- hisduism was never here for a long time!) did everything possible to sabotage people who were under the unbrella called Islam and its associated cultures , religion and arts (their treat! question: did we ever get to learn Galib, Hafiz or Rumi as translation, but we did learn english poets, what was the problem if we were introduced with other poets too?) No! We were tightly safe gaurded from any foreign pollution- upper class ppl got to learn english like mother tongue, went to ‘bilet’ took titles – irony of century!!
the immediate rulers of bengal during brit rule were hindu jamindars – they can’t let it do!! they called themselves aryan (which is a false claim, there is no proof of aryan hypothesis anywhere in the world as it is expressed today).
I regret how idiots our intelectuals were!- no wonder pakis were so much angry with them. People in bangladesh did not have that much intelligence to relate cause and effect. Those who protested were islamic minded – that raised another problem.
If anyone not clear what I am trying to say – let me know I’ll explain in elaborate.