[🇧🇩] Independence Day of Bangladesh

[Saif]

Date of Event: Mar 17, 2025

Source : https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/news/independence-day-parades-be-held-63-dists-except-dhaka-3850026

Independence Day: Parades to be held in 63 dists except Dhaka
Shafiqul Alam

The interim government has announced that Independence Day parades will be held in 63 districts on March 26, excluding Dhaka, due to ongoing renovation work at the National Stadium.

A statement from the Chief Adviser's Press Wing yesterday evening dismissed reports claiming the parade would be cancelled this year, clarifying that while the capital will not host the event, all deputy commissioners have been instructed to organise the parades and ensure due honour for freedom fighters across the country.

Earlier in the day, Home Ministry Senior Secretary Nasimul Ghani said that no parade would take place this year.

"The Victory Day parade was not held last year, and there will be no Independence Day parade this year," he told reporters after a meeting.

He cited the government's current stance, saying, "Advisers have stated that we are in a wartime mode. We are not in a celebratory mood."

Asked about potential security concerns surrounding 26 March, Ghani said, "At present, I do not see any security risks."

He added that the government has implemented extensive security and logistical measures during Ramadan and in preparation for Eid-ul-Fitr and Independence Day.

Authorities have also taken steps to curb extortion and street crimes in transport hubs, he added.​

 

[Saif]

Reviving the spirit of Independence Day

On Wednesday next, the nation will observe the 55th Independence and National Day of Bangladesh. The observance is going to take place at a critical juncture of the nation following the fall of the tyrant ruler Sheikh Hasina on August 5 last. There is now a renewed challenge to restructure th

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Reviving the spirit of Independence Day
Tanim Asjad
Published :
Mar 22, 2025 00:04
Updated :
Mar 22, 2025 00:04

On Wednesday next, the nation will observe the 55th Independence and National Day of Bangladesh. The observance is going to take place at a critical juncture of the nation following the fall of the tyrant ruler Sheikh Hasina on August 5 last. There is now a renewed challenge to restructure the country by gradually abolishing the toxic legacies of tyranny. It requires upholding the true spirit of the country's independence achieved through nine months of blood bath in 1971.

March 26, 1971, was a historic day for Bangladesh, as it marked the declaration of independence following the midnight crackdown by the Pakistani army on March 25. Since then, this day has been observed with great significance as Independence Day. On October 3, 1980, the government headed by President Ziaur Rahman decided to observe it as the National Day as well, further emphasising its importance.

The crackdown under the name of 'Operation Searchlight' was one of the most barbaric attacks on unarmed civilians in the 20th century after the Second World War. However, it was the resilience and courage of the Bengali people that led to the emergence of sovereign Bangladesh on December 16, 1971. For the people of Bangladesh, erstwhile East Pakistan, it was primarily a war of self-defence in the face of the crackdown designed by Julfikar Ali Bhutto, Yahia Khan and Tikka Khan, along with their associates in erstwhile West Pakistan. The Pakistani army was ordered to brutally kill several million Bengali people and destroy their homeland in the name of protecting the unity of Pakistan. To camouflage the crime of mass murder, torture and destruction, the leaders of Pakistan also argued that such a move was necessary for the sake of Islam.

Since the emergence of Pakistan and India as two independent countries in mid-August 1947 from British colonial rule, the eastern wing of Pakistan, previously known as East Bengal, had suffered extremely discriminatory treatment. The growing socio-economic disparity coupled with cultural differences made the Bengali people of the eastern wing of Pakistan greatly disappointed and resentful. They gradually raised their voices and demanded rightful and legitimate shares in power and resources. The situation reached a boiling point when the army regime of Pakistan refused to hand over the power to democratically elected representatives led by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Instead, they had opted for an army crackdown that made bloodshed and conflict unavoidable and the independence of Bangladesh inexorable. Three million lives were sacrificed and two hundred thousand women were violated during the nine-month long war. Also, ten million people took shelter in neighbouring India as refugees.

Thus, the war of independence, or the liberation war, in 1971 is a matter of incredible pride and achievement for the Bengali people. It gave the nation a sovereign place on the world map, a red-green flag to hoist along with other countries, and a unique identity. Five and a half decades later, there is no doubt that Bangladesh has consolidated its position on the world stage, overcoming a series of obstacles, turmoil, and setbacks.

Nevertheless, the spirit of independence lies in democracy, secularism, social justice, non-discrimination, inclusiveness and economic emancipation. In other words, these are the true spirits of the Bangladeshi Independence Day. Over the decades, these were undermined by political parties in power and other forces on narrow considerations. The one and a half decade of Hasina regime is the latest example in this connection when the spirits of independence were suppressed in a calculated manner. A trend had been there to establish Bangladesh Awami League as the sole and only proprietor of the war of independence. Contribution of mass people and other sections were systematically sidelined by distorting historical records and rewriting history. Instead of properly correcting the liberation war's history that had been distorted earlier, there was a move to compel everyone to accept Awami League's narrative of the war of independence. Again, people's right to vote freely was curbed and dissident voices were brutally silenced. Social relations were also undermined.

The ouster of the oppressive regime through the student-led mass uprising in July has brought an opportunity to cleanse these toxins. This is the biggest challenge, and the nation has to fight persistently to overcome those in the near future to uphold the spirit of independence.​

 

[Saif]

The legend of Nader gunda

The tale of a fearless freedom fighter from Old Dhaka

www.thedailystar.net

The legend of Nader gunda
The tale of a fearless freedom fighter from Old Dhaka

This faded signboard in Malitola is the only record of Nader’s legacy.

Faruq Hossain, an elderly resident of Hoseni Dalan area in Old Dhaka, furrowed his brow when we asked him if he heard about Nader Mia from Malitola.

"Are you asking about Nader gunda? He was killed by the Pakistan military during the Liberation War. He was a fearless man. But I never saw him in person," he said.

Mohammad Afzal, another elderly man in his 70s from Urdu Road in the capital, gave a similar response. "The very mention of Nader's name would scare people."

Back in those days, "Nader Gunda from Malitola" was widely known in Old Dhaka. Many of those who had never seen him were also familiar with his name, according to Faruk, Afzal, and several other elderly people in the old town.

Ali Ahmad Ziauddin Bir Pratik, a freedom fighter from Crack Platoon, is also familiar with the heroic tales of Nader, who turned into a "freedom fighter from a street gangster" causing terror to the Pakistan army.

"After the crackdown, we went to India for training to join the war in the first week of April. Later, we returned and fought. But Nader and his gang put up resistance right from the beginning. On March 25 and 26, it was the civilians who put up the primary resistance at three locations in Dhaka. Among them, Nader and his group organised resistance on English Road in Bangshal," he said.

The two other resistance points were near Dhaka Central Jail and behind the Iqbal Hall (present Shaheed Sergeant Zahurul Haq Hall of Dhaka University), said Ziauddin, who too never seen Nader but was familiar with Nader's valiant fights during the war.

Monowara Akter

A TALE OF VALOUR

On the dark night of March 25, 1971, when the Pakistan forces launched their brutal massacre on unarmed, sleeping Bangalees, many fled the city, but Nader did not, multiple elderly locals said.

Sensing the situation early in the night, Nader took position on the rooftop of the Isha Brothers building in Bangshal with 8-10 of his associates, armed with a revolver and a double-barreled gun. He set up an ambush, waiting for the Pakistan forces, they said.

After midnight, Pakistani soldiers began torching the slums near the mosque at the Rai Saheb Bazar intersection. Then they moved on to set fire to the sawmills of Nayabazar. As soon as their jeeps came within Nader's ambush range, he and his companions opened fire, taking the enemy by surprise. Several Pakistani soldiers were killed in the sudden attack, they added.

However, as the Pakistani forces outnumbered them and were heavily armed, they quickly regained control. The soldiers retaliated with gunfire, but by then, Nader and his men had retreated.

The next morning, on March 26, Nader took his family to safety in Manikganj, and returned to Malitola, ready for the next fight.

No one among Nader's fellow freedom fighters is alive today. Elderly locals said they heard about Nader's incredible bravery from his fellow freedom fighters when they were alive.

Abdul Majid, a resident of Basabari Lane in Tanti Bazar, is one of them.

"At that time, a Bihari named 'Sangram' supplied weapons to Nader's group in exchange for a hefty sum of money. Initially, Nader purchased weapons using his own and his gang members' savings. But as their funds ran out, he started collecting donations from residents of different neighborhoods to buy weapons to fight Pakistani soldiers," he said.

By mid-April, as "Shanti Committees" started forming in various neighborhoods of Dhaka, Nader and his comrades had to restrict their movements for safety.

Several senior residents from Old Dhaka said that towards the end of May, the local Shanti Committee in Armanitola decided to hold a meeting where Khwaja Khair Uddin, the convener of Dhaka's Shanti Committee, would be present.

Abdullah Bulu

Nader and his associates bought some weapons from Sangram and planned an attack on the meeting.

On the scheduled day and time, Nader and his gang members took position near the Armenian Church at Armanitola. However, Sangram and a notorious gangster from Malitola, known as Geda, had already informed the Pakistani army about Nader's plan.

To deceive Nader and his group, the Pakistan military arrived in Armanitola in several microbus instead of a military jeep. Before Nader and his group could react, the Pakistani soldiers in plain clothes surrounded them from three sides and launched an attack, locals said, citing Nader's fellow freedom fighters.

Nader and his comrades retaliated, but by then, it was too late—the Pakistani soldiers had already surrounded them from all directions. Seeing this, Nader decided to retreat while firing back, along with his comrades. In the process, a bullet struck Nader's leg. By that time, most of his fellow freedom fighters had managed to reach safety.

"After being shot in the right leg, Nader crawled into Shabistan Cinema Hall. Then he climbed over a wall and escaped into the neighbouring house called 'Baghwala Bari'" said Munna Mia, 72, a resident of Malitola and Nader's cousin.

In a subsequent raid, the Pakistan troops along with local razakars interrogated the residents of the house who handed over Nader out of fear. He was then taken to the Dhaka Cantonment, Munna said.

"There, the Pakistan army tortured him and then killed him," he added, citing Nader's fellow freedom fighters.

These freedom fighters include Mohammad Ali from Alu Bazar, Sadek from Siddik Bazar, Chorui Saeed from Golok Pal Lane, Shamsu alias Cenghis Khan from Mirpur, Abdullah from Shyambazar, among others, locals said.

Recalling Nader's bravery, Nurul Mia, 90, a resident of Kalta Bazar, told The Daily Star, "I had a good acquaintance with a Pakistan army officer. He once told me—"if they had four more boys like Nader, the country would have gained independence much earlier."

The scene of Armanitola, where Nader fought his last battle and was eventually captured, has changed completely.

During a recent visit, The Daily Star found that the Bagh Bari no longer exists. Shabistan, the cinema hall, is also gone. In its place, several residential-cum-commercial buildings, including Protyasha Plaza, now stand tall.

RISE OF NADER

Nader Mia was born in Malitola in 1930s . His father was a court clerk, and Nader was his eldest son. He studied at Jagannath College and was involved with student politics.

However, before completing college, Nader became involved with local gangs. One of his closest associates was Dulu Gunda, who later became widely known as the famous actor Faruk. In an interview nine years ago on Somoy TV, Faruk himself revealed that between 1967 to 1971, there were 37 cases filed against him.

During the Non-Cooperation Movement in March 1971, shopkeepers in ration stores started hoarding goods to sell at higher prices, leading to a severe shortage of essential products. When the war broke out, Pakistani forces looted these ration shops. In this dire situation, Nader and his gang members broke into a ration store on Golak Pal Lane and distributed the stockpiled wheat, sugar, and rice among the local people, according to multiple elderly residents of Malitola.

"Nader may have had a bad reputation outside our neighbourhood, but within our community, he had immense respect for the elders. Words cannot describe the level of honour he showed them. He also cared deeply for us younger ones," said Mohammad Habib, a businessman from Shyambazar, who spent his childhood and teenage years in Malitola.

SHAHEED NADER'S FAMILY

Today, the only sign of his contribution is an old, dust-covered signboard:"Shaheed Nader Smriti Sangsad, Established in 1972."

Locals said one of Nader's brothers had established the club after independence, but it no longer functions. No photographs of Nader could be found there.

Locals said Nader's brother Harun was also killed during the war. Their remaining family members still live in Malitola. Two of his brothers are alive, but they declined to talk about Nader. Nader's wife and son now live in Keraniganj.

'LOVE' IN TIMES OF UPRISING

During the turbulent days of the mass uprising of 1969, all of Dhaka was in turmoil. In such an intense time, Nader went to visit his friend Habil's house in Shahjahanpur.

There, he became fond of a girl named Mary, whose father passed away and whose mother lived in Barishal. Habil's parents were raising her.

Having fallen in love with her, Nader proposed marriage to Habil's parents but they refused. Later that night, Nader and Mary eloped, got married and returned to Malitola. Initially, Nader's parents did not accept the marriage, but after a few days, they changed their minds.

After the marriage, Nader changed Mary's name to Monowara Akter.

Speaking to The Daily Star, Monowara, 70, said, "Everything was going well. Though people outside called him a gangster, he had a kind heart. He was always out all day. But he loved me very much."

But Monowara's happiness did not last long. Just two years after their marriage, war broke out and Nader joined the war, sending his wife to Manikganj. Monowara was five months into her pregnancy then. She received the news of her husband's death while in Manikganj.

Abdullah Bulu, Nader and Mary's only child was born during the war.

After the war, Monowara returned to Malitola with her infant son and later shifted to his brother's house in Keraniganj. Abdullah now runs a small business in Shyambazar and lives in Keraniganj.

"When people tell me, 'Your father did such courageous things,' I can't hold back my tears. My father gave his life for this country, but he was never truly honoured," Abdullah said, with his mother by his side.​

 

[Saif]

Yunus pays homage to Liberation War martyrs

The chief adviser placed a wreath at the altar of the memorial around 6:11am

www.thedailystar.net

Yunus pays homage to Liberation War martyrs

Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus paid tributes this morning to the Liberation War martyrs by placing wreaths at the National Memorial in Savar marking the 55th Independence and National Day.

The chief adviser placed a wreath at the altar of the memorial around 6:11am.

He stood in solemn silence for few minutes in memory of the martyrs of the great Liberation War in 1971.

A contingent of Bangladesh Army, Navy and Air Force presented a state salute while a melancholy tune was being played on the bugles.

The chief justice, advisers to the interim government, chiefs of the three services, freedom fighters, foreign diplomats and high-ranking military and civilian officials were present at the time.

After paying his respects, the chief adviser left the memorial premises.

Following his departure, the National Memorial was opened to people of all levels to pay homage.​

 

[Saif]

Shahjahan Ali: A war hero's commitment to community

Following independence, Shahjahan joined the Bangladesh Police, but he did not remain in the job for long

www.thedailystar.net

Shahjahan Ali: A war hero's commitment to community

The month of March always seemed to stir something deep within Shahjahan Ali. Restless and fidgeting, he would sit in silence, lost in thought, while everyone in the house sensed what was happening. It was as if he had travelled back to the turbulent days of 1971, reliving the injustices committed by the Pakistanis, the formation of the Swadhin Bangla Sangram Parishad, and, ultimately, the declaration of independence.

Driven by patriotism, the young college student from Makorkol village in Tangail Sadar upazila made his way to India to actively participate in the war. There, he received military training at the Tendua Military Academy and later fought on the frontlines in Sector 11, near the Indian border adjacent to the then Mymensingh district.

Skilled in rifle shooting and grenade throwing, he quickly earned the respect of Indian army officers and fellow soldiers. After the country's victory on December 16 in 1971, he returned home.

Following independence, Shahjahan joined the Bangladesh Police, but he did not remain in the job for long. Instead, he returned to his village and opened a small pharmacy. The poverty-stricken residents of the sandy Jamuna char had little means to pay for medicine, but he refused to turn them away.

"I provided medicine for free, driven by the same sense of duty that had compelled me to fight for my country," he told this correspondent recently.

The pharmacy still stands after fifty years, and the need remains.

"My children are employed in different professions, so I never saw providing free medicine as a burden," he added.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, Shahjahan took another step towards serving his community. He established Mahmudnagar Technical School to equip the village's youth with practical skills and help them become self-sufficient.

To make this possible, he donated his own land, took a bank loan of ten lakh taka, and used the monthly allowance he received as a freedom fighter.

"I never viewed the allowance as a personal benefit but as a means to contribute to the future of the nation."​

 

[Saif]

We had lost the taste of true freedom: Mirza Abbas

BNP Standing Committee Member Mirza Abbas today said that even after 54 years of independence, the nation had lost the essence of true freedom but regained it after August 5

www.thedailystar.net

We had lost the taste of true freedom: Mirza Abbas

BNP Standing Committee Member Mirza Abbas today said that even after 54 years of independence, the nation had lost the essence of true freedom but regained it after August 5.

He made these remarks on the morning of Independence Day after paying tribute to the martyrs at the National Memorial.

"First of all, I remember the proclaimer of independence, martyr President Ziaur Rahman, then fought from within the country and liberated it. Even after 54 years of independence, we lost the taste of true freedom in the middle. We got it again after the 5th," he said.

He honoured the martyrs of 1971 who sacrificed their lives for freedom and expressed condolences to their surviving family members. On behalf of BNP leaders Khaleda Zia and Tarique Rahman, he extended greetings to the nation.

Reflecting on recent events, Mirza Abbas said, "We have just got a new taste of democracy by driving away a new form of oppression through the student movement in July and August."

He criticised those referring to the events of 2024 as the "second independence," asserting that such terminology diminishes the significance of the 1971 Liberation War. "Those who say this want to shorten today's Independence Day; they had no role in the independence of 1971. Therefore, they want to diminish this day," he added.

"I want prayers for national leader Khaleda Zia and will seek prayers from Allah so that we can maintain this independence, so that our next generation can uphold this independence," he said.

Addressing political dynamics, Mirza Abbas stated that while different parties have their ideological stances, this does not equate to disunity.

He emphasised that if a time comes when greater national unity is required to protect independence and sovereignty, the people of Bangladesh will unite. "Now, we may be talking differently for party ideological interests, but when the need arises, the people of Bangladesh will be united," he said.

Regarding the assurance from the chief advisor about elections in December, he expressed trust in that commitment. "Every political party in Bangladesh is an opponent. I do not want to believe that elections will not be held," he concluded.​

 

[Saif]

Let 1971 continue to guide our path as a nation

Misguided efforts to compare the 1971 war and the 2024 uprising should stop

www.thedailystar.net

Let 1971 continue to guide our path as a nation
Misguided efforts to compare the 1971 war and the 2024 uprising should stop

VISUAL: STAR

Today marks the 54th anniversary of our nation's independence. Every year, we commemorate this day with solemn reflection and deep gratitude for the enormous sacrifices made by our valiant freedom fighters along with countless ordinary people. This year holds special significance, however, coming as it does in the wake of another historic moment: the overthrow of an autocratic regime through a student-led mass uprising. These occasions—over half a century apart—demonstrate the continuation of people's unwavering resolve against oppression and injustice.

While this is reassuring, in recent months, we have seen some misguided efforts to compare these two events as if they were equal in nature or importance. Even amendments proposed by the Constitution Reform Commission appeared to equate the two, which is quite unfortunate. There is no denying the importance of the 2024 uprising, but it cannot be compared to our independence struggle as doing so risks reducing its unparalleled significance to just another political struggle. The fact is, the Liberation War is much more than that. It is the singular most defining moment of our existence, a fully fledged war fought against an external oppressor—Pakistan—after decades of economic, political and cultural subjugation. The sacrifices made during those nine months, culminating in the birth of Bangladesh on December 16, 1971, reshaped the destiny of an entire people.

In recent months, we have seen some misguided efforts to compare these two events as if they were equal in nature or importance. Even amendments proposed by the Constitution Reform Commission appeared to equate the two, which is quite unfortunate. There is no denying the importance of the 2024 uprising, but it cannot be compared to our independence struggle as doing so risks reducing its unparalleled significance to just another political struggle.

On the other hand, the 2024 uprising was a movement to reclaim our political space and fundamental rights—but not a war of liberation. While we take immense pride in people's resistance against Sheikh Hasina's authoritarian rule, we must not blur the lines here and allow historical distortions to serve political narratives. Equally importantly, the constitution must not be changed in ways that permit such distortions. The Liberation War remains unique and sacred—it should never be trivialised or repurposed to suit contemporary interests.

Instead, what we should focus on is building the nation anew, in line with citizens' aspirations for a society free of discrimination and inequality, just as we sought to do after 1971. While efforts are currently underway to initiate reforms through the collaboration of political parties and the interim government, citizens too must engage in the collective effort of nation-building with a commitment to justice and equality. Just as the sacrifices of 1971 laid the foundation of an independent country, the recent uprising has created an opportunity to turn it into a just and equitable one. Let us not squander this opportunity.​

 

[Saif]

The road to liberation: March 1971 and the years that led to it

The 1971 Liberation War was the culmination of a long struggle for a democratic, secular, and egalitarian society.

www.thedailystar.net

54 Years of Bangladesh's Independence

The road to liberation: March 1971 and the years that led to it

A child carries the flag of the newly born Bangladesh as he moves with his family during the Liberation War in 1971. PHOTO: COLLECTED FROM ARCHIVE

The Liberation War of Bangladesh, which officially began in March 1971, had its roots in events that unfolded many years earlier. The people of what is now Bangladesh played a key role in the establishment of Pakistan, primarily through their votes. They joined the Pakistan movement with the hope that the new state, founded on religious lines, would rise above communal conflicts and emerge as a true democracy.

However, the reality after Pakistan's formation gradually disillusioned the people in the erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). It became increasingly clear that the state structure was deeply flawed, especially for Pakistan's eastern wing. A powerful alliance took control at the centre, consisting of big business groups, the military and civil bureaucracy ("overdeveloped" as Pakistani social scientist Hamza Alavi termed it), and racially biased politicians. This triad consolidated power and blocked any meaningful democratic progress. When the military regime took over in 1958, it became the primary tool for these ruling forces to maintain control. Authoritarian rule was their chosen path.

In the 1954 provincial elections, the Muslim League suffered a decisive defeat. The United Front, led by three secular leaders—AK Fazlul Huq, Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani, and Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy—emerged victorious. Their 21-point programme called for greater provincial autonomy, land reform, public education rights, democratic rights, autonomy to universities, nationalisation of jute business, and scrapping of repressive laws. These demands laid the groundwork for future movements in the 1960s.

Even before martial law, and especially under it, regional and ethnic discrimination against East Pakistan worsened. Class inequality also deepened. In response, the people of East Pakistan resisted oppression, military dictatorship, and systemic injustice. Despite severe repression, the democratic movement in East Pakistan gained momentum, and secular political aspirations took shape. The struggle against Pakistan's authoritarian rule strengthened both democratic and secular ideals among the people. One key example was the evolution of the Muslim League into the Awami Muslim League, and eventually the Awami League, under the leadership of Maulana Bhashani. Later, Bhashani established another all-Pakistan party, National Awami Party (NAP), to advance the anti-imperialist struggle. Through this transformation, people's aspirations for democracy and secularism found expression. This resistance was not confined to East Pakistan alone. Democratic forces in West Pakistan also joined hands with those in the east. In the 1960s, workers and peasants' organisations flourished, especially under left leadership.

Two political figures played pivotal roles during this time: Maulana Bhashani and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Although Bhashani was a religious leader by title, he never engaged in communal politics. Instead, he always stood for workers' and peasants' rights, opposed imperialism, and supported socialist ideals. He was a key figure in the 1969 Mass Uprising and played a crucial role in securing Sheikh Mujib's release from prison.

Meanwhile, Sheikh Mujib's Six-Point Movement demanded autonomy and stood against ethnic discrimination. The 11-point movement by the student alliance, in addition, raised issues against imperialism and class exploitation. The Pakistani establishment—dominated by powerful business families (including the Adamjees and Bawanys), the military-civil bureaucracy, and authoritarian, racially biased politicians—was determined to retain control at all costs.

This ruling alliance consistently undermined democratic processes. However, the 1969 Mass Uprising challenged and ultimately broke their grip on power, leading to the fall of Gen Ayub Khan. The 1970 general election became Pakistan's final opportunity to remain united under a democratic framework. The Awami League's landslide victory opened the door for a new democratic leadership for all of Pakistan.

But the ruling triad refused to accept the election results. Their rejection effectively sealed Pakistan's fate. From March 1, 1971, instead of respecting the democratic mandate, the regime secretly prepared for military action under the guise of negotiations, culminating in the horrific events of March 25.

Until that night, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the Awami League's elected representatives continued negotiations with President Yahya Khan. However, threats from Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, fears among military generals of losing power, and anxieties of the big business families pushed the regime towards a catastrophic decision.

On the night of March 25, the Pakistani military launched a brutal crackdown in Dhaka. Their primary targets included police and East Pakistan Rifles (EPR) headquarters, student dormitories at Dhaka University, slum areas, teachers, intellectuals, and journalists. Estimates suggest that over 25,000 people were killed in a single night.

The Pakistan Army believed this operation would crush all resistance within days. They arrested Sheikh Mujib and imposed a curfew on March 26. By March 27, large numbers of people had begun fleeing Dhaka. But the events of March 25 made one thing clear: Bangladesh could no longer remain a part of Pakistan. What began on March 25 quickly escalated into a full-scale national armed struggle for liberation.

The massacre turned the people's long-standing desire for independence into an unstoppable determination for freedom. There is some debate regarding the formal declaration of independence. Maj Ziaur Rahman, on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, made a radio proclamation referring to Mujib as the president. Similar declarations were also made by other Awami League leaders.

Actually, people did not wait for a formal announcement. Resistance erupted spontaneously across the country. The Pakistani military's assumptions were shattered as people from all walks of life—students, workers, peasants, and the general public—rose in what became a people's war. Except for a few war criminals, the whole population of the country participated in this war. Countless lives were lost, rape and the abuse of women reached horrific levels. Few events in world history compare to the scale of the genocide committed in such a short time and also the intensity of the resistance.

The 1971 Liberation War was the culmination of a long struggle for a democratic, secular, and egalitarian society—free from discrimination based on religion, caste or ethnicity. It marked a crucial phase in that journey, though not its conclusion.

However, in the years following the victory, people's expectations were steadily betrayed. Over the past 54 years, there have been severe deviations from the spirit of the Liberation War. Successive governments have failed to realise the dreams that fuelled the war. The Awami League, throughout its unelected ruling period (2014-2024), harmed the ideals of Liberation War more than any previous record.

Nevertheless, this war remains the most glorious chapter in Bangladesh's history. The people did not submit; against one of the world's most brutal and well-trained military forces, they showed extraordinary courage, dignity, and determination. As we stand at a new phase of political awakening, sparked by recent mass uprisings, we must remember that the Liberation War of 1971 laid the strongest foundation for a democratic, inclusive, secular, and just Bangladesh. Progress cannot be achieved by ignoring or diminishing the legacy of 1971.

The Liberation War must always remain our guiding light, our enduring source of strength as we move forward.

Anu Muhammad is former professor of economics from Jahangirnagar University.​

 

[Saif]

Henry Kissinger’s role in 1971

Lauded by some as a master of diplomacy and realpolitik, he remains, in the eyes of others, a war criminal who should have been held accountable for his actions.

www.thedailystar.net

Henry Kissinger’s role in 1971

Visual: Aliza Rahman

Henry Kissinger, one of the most influential yet controversial political figures of the 20th century, passed away in 2023, leaving behind a legacy that continues to spark heated debates. Lauded by some as a master of diplomacy and realpolitik, he remains, in the eyes of others, a war criminal who should have been held accountable for his actions. In The Trial of Henry Kissinger, Christopher Hitchens meticulously builds a case against Kissinger, arguing that his policies and decisions—from his role in extending the Vietnam War to his backing of right-wing coups, complicity in genocide, and orchestration of covert operations—led to mass suffering across the globe. The Bangladesh chapter of the book is particularly damning, exposing the cold indifference and realpolitik calculations that led to one of the most horrifying atrocities of the 20th century.

In December 1970, the people of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) overwhelmingly voted for self-rule under the leadership of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the Awami League. However, instead of honouring the democratic mandate, the Pakistani military, led by General Yahya Khan, launched Operation Searchlight on March 25, 1971. What followed was an unrelenting campaign of mass killings, systematic sexual violence, and forced displacement. Conservative estimates place the death toll at 300,000, though many argue the real number was closer to three million.

As reports of massacres spread, one of the earliest and most powerful condemnations came from Archer Kent Blood, the US Consul General in Dhaka. Blood and his team sent a series of telegrams to Washington detailing the atrocities being committed by the Pakistani military. In the telegrams, they pleaded the US to take a stand against the Pakistani government. The message read:

"Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities…Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankruptcy..."

This was signed by dozens of diplomats, making it the strongest internal protest ever recorded within the US State Department. Yet, Nixon and Kissinger dismissed it outright. Kissinger, obsessed with using Pakistan as a backchannel to China, saw Yahya Khan as an indispensable ally. Instead of acting against genocide, Kissinger chose silence and complicity. In fact, the US government, under Kissinger's guidance, actively supported the Pakistani military by supplying them with weapons.

Kissinger also made a callous remark in a private conversation, referring to Bangladesh as a "basket case," illustrating his dismissive attitude toward the country's plight and people. Between March and December 1971, the Pakistani military conducted some of the most gruesome acts of ethnic and political cleansing of the 20th century. Bangalee intellectuals were specifically targeted and executed, Hindu minorities were slaughtered, and millions of women were subjected to rape as a weapon of war. While the world condemned the atrocities, Nixon and Kissinger continued to stand by Pakistan.

His secret conversations with Nixon reveal racist and derogatory remarks about Bangalees and Indians, showing his complete disregard for human lives. Even when the then US Ambassador Kenneth Keating urged the administration to publicly condemn Pakistan's brutality, Nixon said to Kissinger that Keating had been "taken over by the Indians." Kissinger, for his part, at the height of the genocide in late April sent Yahya a message praising him for "delicacy and tact."

As the crisis deepened, India, overwhelmed by millions of Bangalee refugees, prepared to intervene militarily. On December 3, 1971, India officially entered the war to assist the Mukti Bahini. In response, Kissinger orchestrated a dangerous and reckless move. He deployed the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal. This was meant to intimidate India and deter its intervention, but it failed.

Mukti Bahini with help from India swiftly defeated Pakistan, leading to the creation of an independent Bangladesh on December 16, 1971. But Kissinger's hostility toward Bangladesh did not end there.

When Mujib sought international recognition and aid for the war-ravaged country, the US remained distant. Kissinger saw Mujib's government as an embarrassment, resenting the exposure of US complicity in genocide. In November 1974, Kissinger made a brief eight-hour visit to Dhaka, where he refused to acknowledge the role of the US in Pakistan's actions.

Hitchens' book meticulously builds a case against Kissinger, arguing that his actions in Bangladesh, Chile, Vietnam, and East Timor amount to war crimes. Kissinger's secret involvement in overthrowing democratically elected leaders, his orchestration of military coups, and his support for genocidal regimes paint the picture of a man who viewed human lives as collateral damage in his grand strategy. As Bangladesh continues to push for global recognition of the 1971 genocide, the question remains: will history hold Kissinger accountable, or will his crimes fade into the shadows of realpolitik?

Kollol Kibria is an advocate, human rights activist, and political analyst.​

 

[Saif]

Operation searchlight: The massacre at Ctg cantonment

On March 24, 1971, the day before the Pakistani army unleashed the infamous “Operation Searchlight,” its top brass flew to Chattogram Cantonment from Dhaka.

www.thedailystar.net

Operation searchlight: The massacre at Ctg cantonment
Pakistan army killed hundreds of soldiers, cadets on Mar 25 night

Tomb of the soldiers martyred in the East Bengal Regimental Center massacre at Chattogram cantonment. Photo: Collected

On March 24, 1971, the day before the Pakistani army unleashed the infamous "Operation Searchlight," its top brass flew to Chattogram Cantonment from Dhaka.

By then, a quiet but growing spirit of rebellion was taking shape among the Bangalee soldiers stationed at the East Bengal Regimental Centre (EBRC), an infantry training facility in the port city.

The delegation included high-ranking figures such as Chief of Army Staff Gen Hamid Khan, Maj Gen Khadim Hussain Raja, Maj Gen Mitha Khan, and Brig Ansari. These officials convened secret meetings, deliberately excluding EBRC Commandant Brig Mahmudur Rahman Majumdar, the senior-most Bangalee officer there at the time, according to Bangladesher Swadhinota Juddho: Dolil Potro (Volume 9).

Earlier, Brig Majumdar had defied direct orders to unload weapons shipped from West Pakistan to Chattogram Port in late February, signalling his resistance.

The tension escalated further when the West Pakistan military leaders took Brig Majumdar back to Dhaka, pretending they needed to discuss some urgent matters with him there.

The very next night, the unthinkable tragedy unfolded.

The Pakistan army had picked the EBRC as one of the primary targets for its brutal massacre codenamed "Operation Searchlight".

On the night of March 25, 1971, the Pakistani military killed more than 1,000 Bangalee officers, soldiers, and cadets at the EBRC, writes Maj (retd) Rafiq-ul Islam, Bir Uttam, in his book "Lokkho Praner Binimoye".

In the official EBRC records, 550-600 Bangalee officers, soldiers, and cadets are listed as martyrs of that massacre.

Bangladesher Swadhinota Juddho: Dolil Potro (Volume 9), Ameen Ahmed Chowdhury's "1971 Ebong Amar Samorik Jibon", Subid Ali Bhuiyan's "Muktijuddhe Noy Mash" are some of the books that documented this carnage.

According to these books, the EBRC had over 1,500 Bangalee soldiers under training in March 1971.

Besides, the 20th Baloch Regiment, which had arrived from West Pakistan in early January 1971, was stationed there.

Lt Col Mujibur Rahman Chowdhury was the chief instructor at the EBRC.

Soon after the sunset on March 25, Pakistan forces began disarming the Bangalee soldiers.

"At 7:00pm, all of our soldiers' rifles were taken away and stored in the armoury," Subid Ali Bhuiyan, writes in his book.

Maj Mir Shawkat Ali from the 8th East Bengal Regiment was the last person to speak to anyone from the EBRC via telephone around 11:00pm -- it was Chief Instructor Lt Col Mujibur Rahman Chowdhury.

Farewell ceremony of the 4th East Bengal Regiment in Lahore, West Pakistan, June 1970. Lt Col Mujibur Rahman Chowdhury, battalion commanding officer (back right). He was the first martyred Bangalee officer in 1971. Lt Gen Khwaja Wasiuddin, the colonel commandant of the East Bengal Regiment (back middle). courtesy: Col (Retd) Mahmud Ur Rahman Choudhury
Soon after the phone call, Lt Col MR Chowdhury ordered Captain Enamul Haque to break open the armoury and distribute weapons to the Bangalee soldiers. However, before they could do so, the Baloch Regiment soldiers stormed the premises.

Captain Enamul Haque described this moment in his writings on Bangladesher Swadhinota Juddho: Dolil Potro (Volume 9).

"Suddenly, the Bangalee guard commander from that particular quarter came running and informed me that the 20th Baloch soldiers were getting off their vehicles, fully armed…Within moments, they launched an attack on the guards, and gunfire erupted from all directions."

"At 11:30pm, six truckloads of Baloch soldiers slaughtered the Bangalee troops at the armoury and surrounded the recruit barracks, where most soldiers were asleep and unarmed, leaving them no chance to resist. The Baloch troops ruthlessly gunned down every soldier in their sight," Maj (retd) Rafiq-ul Islam writes in his book "Lokkho Praner Binimoye".

Captain Enamul was captured and held in a room filled with wounded soldiers.

"I saw Bangalee soldiers in agony, some crying out for water, others writhing in pain. The Pakistani soldiers pressed their boots on the throats of the dying to hasten the process," Enamul describes his experience on Bangladesher Swadhinota Juddho: Dolil Potro (Volume 9).

In the early hours of March 26, the Baloch soldiers fired shells from tanks onto the barracks. The wounded soldiers' screams filled the cantonment. Many were executed inside the EBRC school, where Pakistani troops opened fire at point-blank range.

Captain Enamul wrote, "At 7:00am on March 26, I saw a truck being filled with the bodies of those who had been mercilessly killed overnight. More than a hundred bodies were taken away in front of my eyes."

RESISTANCE THAT NEVER CAME

Colonel Oli Ahmed, Bir Bikram, who was the quartermaster of the 8th East Bengal Regiment, later revealed that he had tried to contact Lieutenant Colonel MR Chowdhury throughout the night but failed. The next morning, he learned that MR Chowdhury had been murdered.

Asked why the 8th East Bengal Regiment did not intervene, he said, "We had limited arms and ammunition. Many of our soldiers were on leave because we were supposed to be deployed in Pakistan. The 20th Baloch Regiment was fully armed. If we had intervened, it would have been suicidal. The only chance of survival for EBRC soldiers was to escape into the hills."

The attack began with the killing of EBRC's Chief Instructor Lt Col MR Chowdhury.

His son, Colonel (retd) Mahmud Ur Rahman Chowdhury, told The Daily Star, "When my father was entering EBRC from the officers' mess, a platoon of the Baloch Regiment shot and bayoneted him to death.

"In early January 1971, MR Chowdhury, along with Brig Mahmudur Rahman Majumdar, Maj Ziaur Rahman (later president), Captain Rafiq-ul Islam, and Captain Oli Ahmed, had begun planning an armed rebellion in Chattogram. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was aware of these plans, but since the Awami League was still pursuing a political solution, the uprising never materialised."

"If Bangabandhu supported an armed rebellion from the start, this massacre might not have happened. The war would still have taken place, but we could have avoided such massive loss of life."

IN SEARCH OF WITNESSES

Most of the Bangalee soldiers were martyred in the EBRC, but miraculously, very few survived.

The Daily Star collected names of the gallantry-awarded freedom fighters who were either serving or undergoing training at the EBRC on the night of March 25, 1971. However, none of them are now alive.

Dr Mohammad Kamal Uddin, a resident of Khondakia village (3km away from the cantonment) in Hathazari, said, "On the night of March 25, we woke up to the sound of intense gunfire. At dawn, we saw a few injured and terrified men near the Boro Dighir Paar. Their clothes were torn, and some were bleeding. They told us their weapons had been taken away earlier that evening, and they had barely escaped by crossing the hills."

At Chittagong Medical College, Dr Mainul Ahasan treated many injured soldiers on March 26.

"Most of the wounded brought in on March 26 were Bangalee soldiers from the cantonment. Many died on the way due to excessive bleeding," he told The Daily Star.​

 

[Saif]

Independence Day being observed with elaborate programmes

The country is observing Independence and National Day Wednesday amid huge enthusiasm. Various programmes have been taken at the national level to observe the day with due respect and solemnity.

en.prothomalo.com

Independence Day being observed with elaborate programmes
BSS
Dhaka
Published: 26 Mar 2025, 09: 11

National Memorial in Savar File photo

The country is observing Independence and National Day Wednesday amid huge enthusiasm. Various programmes have been taken at the national level to observe the day with due respect and solemnity.

The day commenced with a 31-gun salute at dawn across the country, including the capital.

Interim Government Chief Adviser (CA) Professor Muhammad Yunus laid a wreath at the National Memorial in Savar early morning as a mark of profound respect for the martyrs.

Led by Liberation War Affairs Adviser Farooq-e-Azam, people from all walks of life, including families of Bir Shreshthas, war wounded freedom fighters, members of the diplomatic corps, leaders of different political parties, social, cultural and professional bodies also placed wreathes at the National Memorial in the morning of the day to show their respect to the martyred freedom fighters.

Additionally, wreaths were also placed at the different district and upazila-level martyrs’ memorials.

The national flag has been hoisted atop all government, semi-government, autonomous and private buildings in all the divisions, districts and upazilas across the country at dawn. Singing of the national anthem, and student assemblies and parades at divisional, district, and upazila levels will also be held on the occasion.

To mark the day, important buildings and establishments have been illuminated with colourful lights. Main streets and road islands in the capital and other cities across the country have been decorated with national flags and other colourful flags and festoons.

The day is a public holiday.

Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus issued a message on the occasion.

In his message, the Chief Adviser said the interim government is fully committed to further developing and strengthening the country and delivering the full benefits of independence to the people.

“We are working to establish good governance and justice to ensure people-oriented and sustainable development, and ensure transparency and accountability through necessary reforms in all spheres of the state,” he said.

Muhammad Yunus also extended his sincere greetings and congratulations to all Bangladeshis living in the country and abroad.

He said achieving independence was the final stage of a long struggle to protect our dignity and existence and to gain “our rights”.

The War of Independence, through which Bangladesh emerged as an independent nation in the world, officially began on this day, he added.

He said, “I remember with reverence the valiant martyrs who sacrificed their lives in the War of Independence, whose supreme sacrifices brought us our desired freedom.”

The Chief Adviser said for the past 16 years, the people of the country have not been able to enjoy the benefits of this freedom. “The dictatorship oppressed the people and took away their freedom and all their basic rights. The successful uprising of student-workers and the masses has liberated the people of the country from the tyranny of dictatorship.”

Professor Muhammad Yunus said, “On this auspicious occasion of Independence Day and National Day, let us take the oath to work for the development, peace and prosperity of the country, keeping in mind the spirit of the great Liberation War.”

Different national dailies have published special supplements, articles and periodicals highlighting the significance of the day while electronic media broadcast month-long special programmes based on the Liberation War.

Different social and cultural organisations, including Bangladesh Shilpakala Academy, Bangla Academy, National Museum, Liberation War Museum, and Bangladesh Shishu Academy, will organise Liberation War-based discussions, cultural events and drawing, essay writings and sports competitions for children and display Liberation War-related documentaries and film shows.

Various types of games, including football, T20 crickets and Kabadi, will be organised at district and upazila levels.

Besides, a reception will be hosted for valiant freedom fighters and family members of martyred at metropolitan city, district and upazila levels.

To mark the day, Bangladesh Postal Department will release commemorative postage stamps. Special prayers will be offered at different mosques and other worship places seeking eternal peace of the souls of martyrs of the Liberation War and peace, progress and prosperity of the country.

Improved diets will be served in hospitals, prisons cells, orphanages, old-age homes, vagabond organisations, children’s daycare centers and other similar institutions across the country.

On the day, all children’s parks and museums will be kept open for all without tickets across the country.

Bangladesh Navy is going to open its ships at different places across the country for the visitors marking the day.

Seven ships including BNS Chithra would be displayed at Dhaka Sadarghat, BNS Atandra at Pagla Naval Jetty in Narayanganj, BNS Samuddra Obhijan at Naval Berth-2, New Mooring in Chattogram, BNS Oparejyo at BIWTA Launch Terminal in Khulna, BNS Dholeshwari at Digraj Naval Berth of Mongla, BNS Padma at Marine workshop Jetty in Barishal and BNS Shaheed Farid in BIWTA Ghat at Chandpur respectively.

People can visit the ships from 12:00 pm to 4:00 pm on that day, said an ISPR press release.

Similar programmes will be taken at district and upazila levels as well as Bangladesh missions abroad highlighting the significance of the day.​

 

[Saif]

Committed to advancing partnership with Bangladesh for peace, prosperity: Modi tells Dr Yunus

President of India Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have extended felicitations on the occasion of the National Day of Bangladesh with India reiterating its commitment to advancing partnership for peace, stability and prosperity. "We remain committed to advancing this partnership, d

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Committed to advancing partnership with Bangladesh for peace, prosperity: Modi tells Dr Yunus
UNB
Published :
Mar 26, 2025 12:45
Updated :
Mar 26, 2025 12:45

President of India Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have extended felicitations on the occasion of the National Day of Bangladesh with India reiterating its commitment to advancing partnership for peace, stability and prosperity.

"We remain committed to advancing this partnership, driven by our common aspirations for peace, stability, and prosperity and based on mutual sensitivity to each other's interests and concerns," Modi said in a message to Chief Adviser Prof Muhammad Yunus.

Modi extended his felicitations to Dr Yunus and the people of Bangladesh on the occasion of the National Day of Bangladesh.

"This day stands as a testament to our shared history and sacrifices, that have laid the foundation of our bilateral partnership," said the Indian Prime Minister.

He said the spirit of the Liberation War of Bangladesh continues to remain a guiding light for the relationship, which has flourished across multiple domains, bringing tangible benefits to our people.

President Droupadi Murmu, in her message to Bangladesh President Mohammed Shahabuddin, said, "On behalf of the Government, the people of India and on my own behalf, I extend warm greetings and felicitations to you and to the friendly people of Bangladesh on the occasion of your National Day."

She said Bangladesh-India relations are multi-faceted with our cooperation encompassing diverse areas such as trade, multimodal connectivity, development partnership, power and energy, education, capacity building, cultural cooperation and people-to people exchanges.

The Indian President said Bangladesh is at the focus of India's "Neighborhood First" and "Act East" policies.

"Our SAGAR doctrine and the Indo-Pacific Vision. India reiterates its support for a democratic, stable, inclusive, peaceful and progressive Bangladesh," she said.​

 

[Saif]

US greets Bangladesh on Independence Day

The United States has congratulated Bangladesh on its Independence Day Saying Washington supports Bangladesh in its journey toward a bright and democratic future. “As Bangladesh marks this special occasion, I extend my warm regards to its people and reaffirm the United Sta

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

US greets Bangladesh on Independence Day
FE ONLINE DESK
Published :
Mar 26, 2025 12:38
Updated :
Mar 26, 2025 12:38

The United States has congratulated Bangladesh on its Independence Day Saying Washington supports Bangladesh in its journey toward a bright and democratic future.

“As Bangladesh marks this special occasion, I extend my warm regards to its people and reaffirm the United States, commitment to working together to make both our nations safer, stronger, and more prosperous,” said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a statement.

On behalf of the United States of America, Rubio congratulated the people of Bangladesh as they celebrate their Independence Day on March 26, reports BSS.

He said that this celebration comes at a pivotal point in Bangladesh’s history, as the Interim Government prepares the nation for elections that will allow the people of Bangladesh to choose the path forward for their nation.

“We look forward to continuing our partnership promoting economic development and regional security in the Indo-Pacific,” said the Secretary of State.​

 

[Saif]

The foreign couple who fought for Bangladesh

In the summer of 1971, as the people of Bangladesh waged a desperate fight for freedom, two foreign voices -- one British, one American -- rose in defiance against the brutal atrocities unfolding thousands of miles from their own homelands.

www.thedailystar.net

Independence Day

The foreign couple who fought for Bangladesh

Exhibition being held honouring contributions of Paul and Ellen Connett to the country’s struggle for liberation

In the summer of 1971, as the people of Bangladesh waged a desperate fight for freedom, two foreign voices -- one British, one American -- rose in defiance against the brutal atrocities unfolding thousands of miles from their own homelands.

Paul and Ellen Connett, a young couple, refused to stay silent. They did more than express outrage; they took action.

Paul, a British national, and Ellen, an American, became key figures in the international movement against the genocide in Bangladesh.

As the Pakistani military cracked down on the people of the then-East Pakistan, the Connetts mobilised global attention, spearheading protests, raising funds, and even risking their own safety to bring aid to war-affected civilians.

Their story was revisited at an exhibition titled "Humanity Is One", organised at Gulshan Society Lake Park in the capital, marking Bangladesh's 54th Independence Day.

In one of the most striking moments of their activism, on August 1, 1971, the Connetts helped gather 25,000 people at Trafalgar Square in London for a massive demonstration against the genocide in Bangladesh.

Organised in collaboration with UK-based East Pakistani activists and rights groups, the protest became a defining moment in international solidarity -- one that stood alongside the legendary "Concert for Bangladesh" in New York.

But for the Connetts, protesting was not enough. They wanted to do more. They acquired a World War II-era ambulance, packed it with medical supplies, and embarked on a daring journey across multiple countries, determined to bring aid to the war-ravaged people of Bangladesh. When they finally reached the country, they used the ambulance to provide crucial medical support to civilians affected by the war.

Their actions came at a cost. Ellen Connett was arrested while attempting to enter Bangladesh. She was imprisoned, but her spirit remained unshaken. Just days before victory, she was released, a testament to her relentless determination to stand with the people of Bangladesh.

While imprisoned, she discovered that she was pregnant. On returning to the UK, she gave birth to her son, naming him Peter William Mujib Connett.

The couple also received "Friends of Liberation War Honour" from the government.

At the exhibition yesterday, Mofidul Hoque, founder trustee of the Liberation War Museum, described how Action Bangladesh and Operation Omega -- platforms co-founded by the Connetts -- raised funds and procured ambulances for Bangladeshis during the war.

Abdul Majid Chowdhury, co-founder of Action Bangladesh, recalled the immense risks taken by foreigners who stood with Bangladesh.

"We, as a nation, fought for our freedom -- that was expected. But the way foreigners risked their lives for us was truly extraordinary," he added.

Speaking at the event, James Goldman, acting British deputy high commissioner to Bangladesh, called their story a powerful demonstration of the enduring relationship between Bangladesh and the UK.

He said that the UK was among the first nations to recognise Bangladesh in 1972 and has maintained a strong partnership with the country ever since.

German Ambassador to Bangladesh Achim Troster expressed Germany's said, "We stand by Bangladesh and will remain a reliable and trustworthy partner -- hopefully towards more democracy and a less antagonistic political landscape."

Speaking at the event, Syed Ahsan Habib Rana, secretary general of Gulshan Society, said, "Fifty-four years ago, a nation was born not just through the struggles of its own people but also with the unwavering support of voices from across the world—voices that refused to stay silent."

Moderating the event, Srabanti Datta, cultural secretary of Gulshan Society, said that the exhibition is particularly valuable for younger generations. "It offers a powerful lesson on the significance of global solidarity and humanitarian efforts in a nation's struggle for freedom," she added.

As visitors at the exhibition walked past rare photographs, historical documents, and firsthand accounts of the Connetts' activism, one message stood clear -- humanity knows no borders.​

 

[Saif]

New definition of freedom fighters, associates

Persons who fought on the battlefield will be recognised as freedom fighters, persons who helped the war in anyway will be recognised as associates

en.prothomalo.com

Independence Day
New definition of freedom fighters, associates

A new section on the spirit of Liberation War was incorporated into the draft ordinance. It states the ‘spirit of Liberation War’ means “The spirit to ensure equity, human dignity, and social justice of the people of Bangladesh as stated in the Proclamation of Independence by the Mujibnagar government on behalf of the constituent assembly on 10 April 1971.”

Arifur Rahman
Dhaka
Updated: 26 Mar 2025, 16: 16

Photo shows a group of freedom fighters.

People who fought against the occupying Pakistani forces on the battlefield during the 1971 Liberation War will be recognised as ‘valiant freedom fighters’, and the individuals who made a special contribution to and were active in creating global opinions for the Liberation War at home and abroad will be recognised as ‘ associates of freedom fighters’.

The definition of valiant freedom fighters is going to be changed through an ordinance on the amendment to the Jatio Muktijoddha Council (Jamuka) Act.

The draft of the ordinance has already been sent to the cabinet. Previously, the definition of freedom fighters was changed in 2022, recognising the people who fought on the ground, as well as those who made special contributions to the Liberation War as valiant freedom fighters.

Officials at the Liberation War affairs ministry said demands were raised by various quarters to change the definition of freedom fighters after the fall of the Awami League government due to the student-people movement.

After that, they spoke to freedom fighters with gallantry awards, researchers and various organisations. Almost everyone said those who fought the battle on the ground and those who contributed to the war in various ways cannot have similar recognition.

That is why the definition of freedom fighters is being changed, taking opinions from everyone.

Several Liberation War researchers, however, told Prothom Alo that the past Awami League governments changed the definition of freedom fighters for political reasons at various times, and now a new class of associates of freedom fighters is being defined, which is not right. It will not be honourable either. Rather, the matter will deepen the crisis and bitterness in future.

Liberation War affairs researcher Afsan Chowdhury told Prothom Alo that there has been controversy over the definitions of the Liberation War and freedom fighter since the beginning. Sometimes these changes were made for political reasons, sometimes to provide various facilities.

There has been controversy over the definitions of the Liberation War and freedom fighter since the beginning. Sometimes these changes were made for political reasons, sometimes to provide various facilities--Liberation War affairs researcher Afsan Chowdhury.

He further said people from different walks of life took part in the Liberation War, and joined the battle in various ways. However, all governments changed the definition of the Liberation War for political reasons. It is happening now and will happen in future too.

Who are the freedom fighters?

According to the definition of the draft ordinance, all civilian (who at the time was over the minimum age as determined by the government), who took preparation and received trainings at home, and engaged in fighting against Pakistan by participating actively against the junta and occupying Pakistani armed forces and their local collaborators Razakar, Al-Badar, Al-Shamsh, Muslim League, Jamaat-e-Islami, Nizam-e-Islam and collaborators and Peace Committees in the Liberation War from 26 March to 16 December 1971, will be recognised as valiant freedom fighters.

Besides, members of Armed Forces, Mukti Bahini, BLF and other recognised groups, police, East Pakistan Regiment (EPR), Naval Commando, Kilo Force and Anasar will also be recognised as valiant freedom fighters.

The definition states that civilians are in three categories. Firstly, persons who crossed Bangladesh borders, listed themselves at various training camps in India and participated in the Liberation War actively; secondly, all women (Birangona) who were tortured by junta and occupying Pakistani forces and their collaborators; and thirdly, all physicians, nurses, and medical assistants of all field hospitals, who provided treatments to wounded freedom fighters during the Liberation War.

All three categories of people will be recognised as valiant freedom fighters.

Who are the associates of freedom fighters?

The draft ordinance will incorporate a new provision on associates of freedom fighters.

It states that Bangladeshi citizens who inspired the freedom fighters, as well as participated in and cooperated actively to play the role of organiser to intensify the Liberation War and accelerate the independence of Bangladesh, mobilise global public opinion, gain diplomatic support and psychological strength, will be recognised as associates of freedom fighters.

There will be five categories of associates of freedom fighters. Firstly, Bangladeshi professionals who contributed to Liberation War during the wartime while living abroad and Bangladeshi citizens, who played active role in raising global public opinion; secondly, officials or employees or ambassadors under the government of Bangladesh (Mujibnagar government) formed during the Liberation War, and physicians, nurses and other assistants appointed by the Mujibnagar government; thirdly, all members of national assembly (MNAs) or members of provincial assembly (MPAs) who were involved with the government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh (Mujibnagar government) formed during the Liberation war, and who later became the members of constituent assembly; fourthly, all artistes and technicians of Swadhin Bangla Betar Kendra, and all Bangladeshi journalists who performed duty for Liberation War at home and aboard, and fifthly, Swadhin Bangla football team.

There was no debate after the Liberation War over defining the frontline fighters as freedom fighters. The interim government’s decision seems to be an attempt to return to the actual definition of freedom fighters---Mohammad Sazzadur Rahaman, a PhD researcher at Clark University, in the US. People of five categories have since been recognised as valiant freedom fighters.

Now they will be recognised as associates of freedom fighters once the ordinance of the JAMUKA Amendment Act is issued.

The existing JAMUKA Act mentions Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in various places, but the ordinance will leave out all of it. The ordinance will also replace ‘spirit of Liberation War’ with ‘goal’.

The existing act defines the Liberation War as a response to the Declaration of Independence of Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

The new ordinance omits these lines and several other words. Instead, it states, “A war against the junta and occupying Pakistani armed forces and their local collaborators Razakar, Al-Badar, Al-Shams, Muslim League, Jamaat-e-Islami, Nizam-e-Islam and Collaborators and Peace Committees from 26 March to 16 December in 1971 with a desire to establish equity, human dignity, and social justice for the people of Bangladesh as an independent democratic state.”

According to Liberation War affairs sources, the definition and criteria of valiant freedom fighters have been changed 11 times since independence, with the definition alone being changed five times.

With the new ordinance, the definition and criteria of valiant freedom fighters will be changed for the 12th time.

On the other hand, lists of valiant freedom fighters have been revised seven times so far.

The Liberation War affairs ministry maintained a management information system (MIS) database on the lists of all valiant freedom fighters, their allowances and other details.

According to the MIS database, currently, there are about 197,800 valiant freedom fighters in the country, and 196,454 of them receive allowances monthly.

If the new list of associates of freedom fighters is prepared, the number of valiant freedom fighters will normally drop. The ministry, however, could not specify the reduced number.

Liberation War Affairs Adviser Faruk E Azam told Prothom Alo at his office on 23 March, “In fact, those who fought the battle on the ground, only they will be recognised as freedom fighters. Those who participated in the war from various points of view, like some people cooperated diplomatically or some sang for the war, will be the associates of freedom fighters.”

How the previous government decided to recognise political leaders as valiant freedom fighters raised questions to a large extent, but how they are being relegated to the associate category would raise further debate---Mohammad Sazzadur Rahaman, a PhD researcher at Clark University, in the US.

He said the draft ordinance of the JAMUKA Amendment Act was sent to the cabinet, and they gave several observations, now those are being incorporated.

Replying to a query, Adviser Faruk E Azam said those who were in the government of Bangladesh (Mujibnagar government) formed during the Liberation War will be considered as valiant freedom fighters. The draft ordinance first mulled recognising them as the associates of freedom fighters, but it is being amended now.

Spirit of Liberation War

A new section (14) on the spirit of Liberation War was incorporated into the draft ordinance. It states the ‘spirit of Liberation War’ means “The spirit to ensure equity, human dignity, and social justice of the people of Bangladesh as stated in the Proclamation of Independence by the Mujibnagar government on behalf of the constituent assembly on 10 April 1971.”

Speaking to Prothom Alo, Mohammad Sazzadur Rahaman, a PhD researcher at Clark University, in the US, said there was no debate after the Liberation War over defining the frontline fighters as freedom fighters. The interim government’s decision seems to be an attempt to return to the actual definition of freedom fighters.

How the Awami League expanded the extent of the definition of freedom fighters, expatriates also started getting certification of freedom fighters, he stated.

This government wants to check this rush, he remarked.

Sazzadur Rahaman also said that how the previous government decided to recognise political leaders as valiant freedom fighters raised questions to a large extent, but how they are being relegated to the associate category would raise further debate.

Since the Liberation War is said to be the war of the people, it would not be considerate to give state recognition and facilities separately to various kinds of associates, he argued.

* This report appeared in the print and online editions of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten in English by Hasanul Banna​

 

[Saif]

1971: Ayub Khan's terse message to Yahya Khan

The people of Bangladesh have just gone through yet one more anniversary of Independence Day. When fifty-four years ago, in March 1971, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman made the declaration of Bangladesh's independence, in the aftermath of the brutality unleashed by the Pakistan army, questions we

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

1971: Ayub Khan's terse message to Yahya Khan
Syed Badrul Ahsan
Published :
Mar 27, 2025 00:07
Updated :
Mar 27, 2025 00:07

The Bangkok Post on 26 March published a report titled "Pak Near Civil War" with a subhead 'East Declares Independence'

The people of Bangladesh have just gone through yet one more anniversary of Independence Day. When fifty-four years ago, in March 1971, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman made the declaration of Bangladesh's independence, in the aftermath of the brutality unleashed by the Pakistan army, questions were raised about why the Yahya Khan junta had chosen the path of repression rather than go for a negotiated settlement of the crisis.

There were all the mistakes the military rulers based in Rawalpindi made, one after another in that tumultuous political season. Of course, there was little question that the Bengalis of Pakistan would sooner rather than later opt out of Pakistan. Had 1971 not happened, there would be 1976 or 1981, by which point the two wings of Pakistan could have arrived at a settlement allowing the Bengalis to go their independent way. Things could have gone the way of the Czechs and the Slovaks or the republics of a collapsing Soviet Union in later times or even the course taken by the Congress and the Muslim League in India in 1947.

By opting for military action aimed at the mass murder of Bengalis beginning on March 25 in 1971 and going all the way to December 16 in 1971, Pakistan's ruling circles simply committed one folly after another. It was folly that need not have been there. General Yahya Khan, having presided over a good election in December 1970, should have acted swiftly in calling the new National Assembly into session. He did not do that. Too much time was lost. The assembly ought to have convened in Dhaka by the end of December to enable all members-elect to get down to the business of framing a constitution for Pakistan within a 120-day timetable as stipulated in the Legal Framework Order (LFO) earlier promulgated by the regime.

Mistakes piled up one after another. It did not help that senior military officers, non-Bengalis, were already reassuring their troops in East Pakistan itself that 'these black *&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&' --- the reference was to Bengalis --- would not be allowed to govern Pakistan. To be sure, the military establishment as also an entirety of West Pakistan was shocked at the scale of the Awami League victory, a triumph that would in the natural scheme of things lead to the party taking power in Rawalpindi/Islamabad. When President Yahya Khan visited Dhaka after the election, he met Bangabandhu and prior to leaving the province told newsmen that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman would be taking charge as Pakistan's Prime Minister. The future looked promising for a country long bruised by military rule.

But then Yahya Khan blundered, and that was when he began to be manipulated by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The Chairman of the Pakistan People's Party had meanwhile visited Dhaka, held discussions with the Awami League leadership on the Six Points and also explored the probability of an AL-PPP grand coalition at the centre along the lines of West Germany's CDU-SPD coalition formed by Kurt-Georg Kiesinger and Willy Brandt in 1966. The Mujib-Bhutto talks yielded a simple result, failure. The Awami League was not interested. Yet the possibility remained that all constitutional issues would be thrashed out at the session of the National Assembly. A chink of light appeared when Yahya Khan made it known that the assembly would meet in Dhaka on March 3. Nearly three months had gone by since the election. Even so, things appeared to be moving in the right direction.

But then came other mistakes. Bhutto's adventurist politics, manifested through his announcement in mid-February that his party would not attend the National Assembly session in Dhaka, put a spanner in the works. Unhappy that he would be relegated to the role of Leader of the Opposition in the assembly once the Awami League formed the government, he wanted a solution to the issue of the Six Points between the PPP and the majority party. He ignored, rather deliberately, the political ideal of all issues relating to the constitution being hammered out in the assembly. It was obvious that a share in power rather than principles dictated his decision. It was an early blow at Pakistan's state structure.

In bizarre fashion, Yahya Khan agreed with Bhutto. Rather than talking things over with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman or sticking by his declaration that the assembly session would go ahead with or without the PPP --- other West Pakistani politicians such as Khan Abdul Wali Khan and Ghaus Bux Bizenjo and even the PPP's Ahmed Raza Kasuri were ready to go to Dhaka for the assembly session --- the general simply walked back from his earlier announcement regarding March 3. And on March 3, as demands for Bangladesh's independence began to reach a crescendo in Dhaka, came a farcical announcement of a presidential move to convene a round table conference of political leaders, including Bangabandhu, on March 10. The Awami League chief, to no one's surprise, rejected the invitation out of hand.

Yahya Khan arrived in Dhaka on March 15. Between March 16 and 24, talks between the junta and the Awami League took place at President's House. Into the negotiations stepped Bhutto on March 22. The strangest aspect of the talks was that while the Awami League presented its position, through documents and other paperwork, at the talks, the army and the PPP had nothing on offer. They had no alternative proposals that could be mulled over by the majority party. Nothing in the record suggests that the junta or Bhutto's team countered the Awami League position with its own. It was unbelievable that two stakeholders, out of three, were unable or unwilling to conduct the very serious business of shaping a political strategy for Pakistan to free itself of the crisis. It was a broad hint of what was coming. In other words, there was no intention on the part of the West Pakistan ruling circles to arrive at a settlement. The regime was playing for time.

And then there was the final blunder. Without calling a formal end to the talks or without assuring the Awami League that the negotiations would resume at a later date, President Yahya Khan and his entire delegation left Dhaka stealthily on the evening of March 25. Orders for the genocide that would follow in a few hours had already been passed on to General Tikka Khan, who would inform General Khadim Hussain Raja, 'Khadim, it is tonight.'

POSTSCRIPT: in April 1971, Yahya Khan sent his brother to former President Ayub Khan to solicit the latter's views on what the regime should do in the grave situation --- Bangladesh had already taken to the road of guerrilla resistance against the Pakistan army --- arising out of the crisis. Ayub Khan, keenly aware that East Pakistan was as good as lost, had a terse message for his successor: call an end to all military operations in East Pakistan and bring all the soldiers home to West Pakistan. In other words, it would be futile for the army to try preserving Pakistan in what had become a de facto Bangladesh.​

 

[Saif]

BETWEEN UNIFORMS AND WORDS: Struggle for democratic soul, shaped by 1971

NINETEEN seventy-one arrived, not as a year, but as a violation, a savage tear in the thin skin of what we dared call life. I was a child, a splinter of a being, four years old, yet the tremors of that brutal rending still reverberate in the hollow spaces of my bones. They call it the Liberation...

www.newagebd.net

BETWEEN UNIFORMS AND WORDS: Struggle for democratic soul, shaped by 1971
Abdul Monaiem Kudrot Ullah 26 March, 2025, 00:00

NINETEEN seventy-one arrived, not as a year, but as a violation, a savage tear in the thin skin of what we dared call life. I was a child, a splinter of a being, four years old, yet the tremors of that brutal rending still reverberate in the hollow spaces of my bones. They call it the Liberation War, a tidy phrase for a messy, monstrous thing. It was the air we choked on, thick with terror, the acrid smoke of burning homes a permanent, poisonous bloom on the horizon. Not history, then, but the raw, weeping present, the very earth beneath our feet, stained and violated.

Before the bloodletting, whispers of hope, fragile as spun glass. A child asks a beggar for forgiveness for not offering alms and she replies, ‘Baba ar koydeen deo – Sheikh re vote diyechi- se Pindi theke taka ene khaobe (wait, child, a little longer. I voted for Sheikh. He will bring money from Pindi and we will eat).’ But the fools of Pindi, blinded by their own arrogance, unleashed ‘Operation Searchlight,’ a grotesque parody of illumination, a festival of butchery on the night of March 25. Earlier, the whispers of betrayal, Brigadier Majumdar’s warnings to Sheikh Mujib, about the orders to spy on Bengali officers and the plan to prevent the Awami League from forming government, were ignored. Mujib, confident, believing in the hollow promises of Yahya. But the young majors, the soldiers, they knew. Ziaur Rahman’s defiant roar, ‘We revolt,’ a crack in the carefully constructed facade of power.

The flood came first, a rehearsal for drowning, water swallowing villages, leaving us adrift in the wreckage. Then, the exodus, a river of broken humanity, flowing past our doorstep, carrying their meager lives, their children, their ghosts. Their faces, masks of fear, became the cartography of my nightmares.

Violence, a constant, a low, throbbing hum beneath the surface. The Pakistani Army, those predators in uniform, turning our land into a slaughterhouse. Yet, even in this wasteland, a fierce bloom of defiance. Kushtia, a word spat out with venomous pride, where the people, against all odds, pushed back. Major Abu Usman Chowdhury and his ragged army, a defiant fist raised against the storm. Their victory, a spark in the darkness, a refusal to be extinguished.

Guerrilla fighters, shadows in the paddy fields, their lives a precarious dance with death. Their struggle, not just for land, but for the very right to breathe, to exist, to be.

But freedom, that treacherous illusion, revealed its true face. Even after the enemy was driven out, the hunters remained. The Rakkhi Bahini, those newly anointed guardians, turned their guns on the very people they were sworn to protect. The government, drunk on its own power, became the very oppressor it had overthrown. Extrajudicial killings, political purges, the stench of corruption — the ideals of liberation, a beautiful lie, shattered and defiled.

And so, new rebellions sprouted in the shadows. The Raat Party, the Naxals, phantoms in the night, rejecting the hollow promises of the post-colonial state. Their resistance, met with the iron fist of authority — curfews, crackdowns, the crushing of dissent. Even our cultural expressions, the vibrant Jatra, the defiant Lathi Khela, became acts of rebellion, a refusal to be silenced. Mujib, the once-idolised leader, plunged into the abyss of unpopularity, after 1973 his party unable to win a single parliamentary seat in the Greater Kushtia until the dubious victory of 2008.

Disillusionment, a poison seeping into the soul of the nation. The rise of false freedom fighters, those scavengers who profited from the sacrifices of others, eroded the last vestiges of trust. Modernisation, a seductive lie, bringing new forms of displacement, new anxieties. Migration, shifting religious practices — reflections of a society adrift, searching for meaning in a world turned upside down.

The war had ended, but the battle for justice, for true liberation, had only just begun. The wounds remained, festering, a testament to the enduring struggle against the forces that sought to control our lives, our minds, our very souls.

As Bangladesh commemorates another Independence Day, it is necessary to analyse the complex relationship between military leadership, political authority and intellectual critique — an interplay that has shaped the nation’s trajectory. Figures like MAG Osmani, Ziaur Rahman, KM Shafiullah and Khaled Mosharraf illustrate the military’s foundational role in state-building, yet history consistently reveals the structural tensions inherent in such transitions. The military, by its very nature, is an institution built on hierarchy, discipline and decisive action, while democratic governance demands negotiation, accountability and ideological pluralism. This fundamental disconnect has fuelled not only political instability but also persistent scrutiny from the intelligentsia and the press. Where civilian institutions are weak or ineffective, military actors inevitably fill the vacuum. In Bangladesh, as in other post-colonial states, military intervention has often been less a product of institutional ambition than of political disorder and administrative failure.

Despite this, the press and intellectual elite often portray military involvement as an inherent threat to democracy, reducing complex civil-military dynamics to overly simplistic narratives of authoritarianism. Paradoxically, while successive political regimes — particularly those led by the Awami League — have subjected journalists and intellectuals to censorship, surveillance and repression, these same groups have largely remained sympathetic to the party while adopting an overtly critical stance toward the military. The reasons for this asymmetry remain unclear, yet its effect is undeniable: a lopsided discourse in which the military is scrutinised relentlessly, while civilian leadership evades equivalent accountability.

Constructive critique of military influence is essential for democratic governance. However, when scepticism becomes indiscriminate or ideologically driven, it fosters a deepening mistrust that erodes national cohesion. The military’s role in governance warrants examination, but such analysis must acknowledge the structural deficiencies in civilian leadership that have, at times, necessitated its intervention. The real challenge, therefore, is twofold: to professionalise the armed forces while simultaneously strengthening civilian institutions, ensuring they are capable of governing effectively. Only then can the conditions that enable military involvement in politics be truly eliminated.

During Bangladesh’s 1971 Liberation War, the bifurcation of military command and civilian governance was not incidental but structurally imperative. General MAG Osmani’s leadership of the Mukti Bahini functioned within the broader strategic framework established by Tajuddin Ahmad’s Mujibnagar Government, which secured both political legitimacy and essential international alliances. This arrangement conformed to the classical model of civil-military cooperation in revolutionary conflicts: while the armed forces executed tactical operations, the political leadership ensured diplomatic recognition and resource mobilisation. Yet, as history has demonstrated, wartime unity does not necessarily translate into post-war stability.

The immediate post-independence period exposed the fragility of Bangladesh’s civil-military equilibrium. The military, having temporarily submitted to civilian authority, grew resentful as political leaders interfered directly in command structures rather than adhering to formal chains of command. Irregular recruitment practices, the siphoning of war booties by Indian troops and the allocation of material privileges — including basic cantonment supplies — fuelled discontent within the officer corps and rank-and-file soldiers alike. The preferential treatment granted to the Rakkhi Bahini, a paramilitary force loyal to the ruling regime, further exacerbated tensions, fostering perceptions of political favouritism and institutional marginalisation.

In the years following independence, Bangladesh faced the classical dilemma of post-revolutionary states: the consolidation of authority amidst factionalism, personalist rule and institutional underdevelopment. The administration of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, though emblematic of the nation’s hard-won sovereignty, struggled to impose a cohesive state order. Factionalism within the political class and competing centres of power within the military eroded cohesion, while a political culture of entitlement undermined institutional discipline. The assassination of Mujib in 1975 was not an isolated act of political violence but a structural rupture — one that signified the unravelling of the post-war political order and the reassertion of military interventionism. What followed was a cyclical pattern of coups and counter-coups, characteristic of states where civilian institutions fail to institutionalise control over the military.

Amid this turbulence, Ziaur Rahman emerged as the architect of a new political order, one that sought to integrate military authority with civilian governance. Unlike many military rulers who prioritise the suppression of political opposition, Zia’s early years were characterised by a focus on restoring discipline within the armed forces, recognising that the stability of the state was inextricably linked to the cohesion of its military. Having consolidated power, Zia transitioned from military command to civilian leadership, founding a political party that remains one of the dominant forces in Bangladeshi politics today. His military successor, Hussain Muhammad Ershad, refined the mechanisms of military governance, operating under a civilian guise while ensuring that the military retained its institutional primacy in national affairs.

The pattern of military involvement in governance is neither unique to Bangladesh nor an aberration in post-colonial political development. Across South Asia, Africa and Latin America, military elites have often assumed the reins of power, legitimising their rule under the pretext of stability and national security. Pakistan institutionalised military dominance through successive regimes led by Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf, ensuring that civilian governance remained subordinate to military oversight. In Myanmar, the armed forces have never relinquished their grip on the state, demonstrating the enduring capacity of military institutions to dictate political trajectories. Similarly, Latin American regimes under figures such as Jorge Videla in Argentina and Augusto Pinochet in Chile transformed governance into an extension of military doctrine, enforcing order through authoritarian rule while suppressing democratic participation.

Yet, Bangladesh presents a distinct variation of this paradigm. As observed by my boss Colonel Corey of the US Army, during my tenure as staff officer in the Civil-Military Liaison Section of UNMIL in 2005, the nature of military hierarchy in Bangladesh differs from that of Pakistan. Whereas the latter exhibits a rigid, master-subordinate dynamic, the Bangladeshi military operates under a framework of fraternal camaraderie and institutional loyalty. This distinction is crucial in understanding why Bangladesh has oscillated between civilian and military rule without permanently succumbing to direct military governance. While the armed forces no longer govern overtly, their influence pervades economic enterprises, intelligence operations and political decision-making. The 2007-2008 interregnum, characterised by the ‘1/11’ episode and the subsequent military-backed caretaker government, served to demonstrably assert the military’s institutional supremacy and its perceived legitimacy in the conduct of state affairs. This period functioned as a stark manifestation of the military's capacity to intervene decisively within the political sphere, reinforcing its position as a critical, if not dominant, actor. Conversely, the 2009 Pilkhana mutiny, a violent and disruptive event, revealed the inherent fragility of the military's internal cohesion and exposed the enduring challenges to harmonious civil-military relations. This episode highlighted the latent tensions that persist within the state’s power structure, underscoring the delicate and often contentious dynamics that govern the interactions between the civilian and military domains. These events, taken together, illustrate the cyclical nature of civil-military relations, oscillating between assertions of military dominance and the revelation of its vulnerabilities, thereby shaping the ongoing evolution of political power within Bangladesh.

Deposed Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has engineered a model of authoritarian governance that, while ostensibly civilian, relies on the militarisation of key state institutions. The security apparatus, law enforcement agencies and intelligence services function as enforcers of executive authority rather than neutral instruments of state policy. The media, long regarded as a critical check on power, operates under constraints that oscillate between reverence and subjugation. Investigative scrutiny into government affairs is met with reprisal, reinforcing the opacity of governance and diminishing the scope of public accountability. Intellectual discourse, once vibrant in publications such as the ‘weekly holiday,’ has largely succumbed to political pressures, with dissenting voices marginalized or co-opted by the state.

The paradox of civil-military relations in Bangladesh lies in the populace’s simultaneous rejection of military rule and reliance on military intervention to safeguard democratic processes. The successive electoral manipulations of recent years have heightened public expectations for the military to assume a decisive role in ensuring electoral integrity. Yet, historical precedent suggests that military involvement in governance rarely remains confined to transitional oversight. The very logic of military professionalism — discipline, hierarchy and command — stands in fundamental opposition to the participatory and pluralistic imperatives of democratic governance. Stability, the professed objective of military-led regimes, ultimately proves illusory when confronted with the contradictions of political rule.

The persistent allure of military leadership, deeply rooted in colonial legacies and perpetuated by cycles of political instability, continues to shape governance in developing nations. However, history reveals that military regimes, despite their initial promises of stability, inevitably face the inherent limitations of authoritarian rule. From Dhaka to Islamabad, Santiago to Naypyidaw, the lesson is clear: once the military gains control of governance, it seldom relinquishes power without significant political resistance. The challenge for Bangladesh, as with other nations navigating the civil-military divide, is to establish mechanisms that ensure military professionalism while maintaining civilian supremacy — a balance that remains delicate in the country's evolving political landscape.

Bangladesh’s experience is not just a historical account; it serves as a cautionary tale of civil-military relations in a developing democracy. The struggle between civilian authority and military power unfolds across institutions, the media and the hidden corridors of governance. Democracies, though imperfect, must stay vigilant, as the military’s influence, often subtle, remains a constant factor in statecraft. The barracks may appear distant from the political arena, yet the shadow of military influence persists, highlighting the ongoing challenge of democratic consolidation.

Samuel P Huntington’s framework of ‘objective civilian control’ provides a critical lens through which to assess Bangladesh’s civil-military dynamics. In The Soldier and the State (1957), Huntington argued that civilian supremacy over the military is best ensured through the latter’s professionalization — restricting the armed forces to matters of national defence rather than political intervention. ‘Subjective control,’ reliant on legal and institutional constraints, often proves inadequate in states lacking entrenched democratic traditions. Bangladesh’s historical trajectory demonstrates this failure, as weak professional norms within the military have enabled recurrent political interventions.

The civil-military dynamic in Bangladesh has been deeply influenced by its intellectual landscape, reflecting the broader contest between authority and dissent. During the transitions between military and civilian rule in the 1980s and 1990s, intellectuals, journalists and civil society actors sought to challenge military influence, exposing concerns related to governance, corruption and human rights. In response, military-backed regimes employed censorship, surveillance and strategic co-optation to maintain control, reinforcing the enduring primacy of the armed forces in shaping political discourse. However, civilian governments proved no less intolerant of opposition. Elected regimes systematically suppressed dissent, consolidating power through patronage networks and political favouritism. Of all Bangladesh’s rulers, Ziaur Rahman alone attempted to structure governance on principles of meritocracy, while successive civilian administrations were mired in nepotism and cronyism. Under the recently deposed Awami League government, the state has evolved into a centralised political fiefdom, where institutional autonomy is subordinated to partisan imperatives, further entrenching executive dominance over the political order.

Talukdar Moniruzzaman’s analysis of post-colonial states offers another perspective on Bangladesh’s civil-military relations. He posits that the military’s interventionist tendencies stem from its colonial origins. The British Indian Army was structured to maintain imperial control rather than function as a professionalized national defence force under civilian oversight. This institutional legacy persisted post-independence, fostering an interventionist and anti-democratic orientation within Bangladesh’s armed forces.

Moniruzzaman contends that the military’s self-perception as the ‘guardian of the state’ is a direct product of this colonial inheritance. This mindset has justified successive interventions in governance, from the coups of the 1970s and 1980s to the military-backed caretaker government of 2007–2008. The pattern is consistent with other post-colonial experiences, particularly in Pakistan, where the military sees itself as the ultimate arbiter of national stability, shaping both domestic and foreign policy.

Huntington’s 1961 article, Inter-service Competition and the Political Roles of the Armed Services, highlights another dimension of Bangladesh’s civil-military dynamic — the absence of meaningful inter-service rivalry. In many states, competition between military branches acts as an internal check on political intervention. However, in Bangladesh, the Army has historically dominated national security policymaking, with the Navy and Air Force relegated to secondary roles. Unlike in Latin America or the Philippines, where inter-service competition occasionally tempered military juntas, Bangladesh’s hierarchical structure has facilitated the Army’s preeminence in governance.

This dominance is further reinforced through budgetary control, promotion mechanisms and institutional appointments. The Navy and Air Force, while crucial in regional security and modernisation, have remained largely disengaged from political affairs, enabling the Army’s consolidation of influence with minimal internal resistance.

The experiences of Latin America and the Philippines provide instructive parallels. In these regions, regimes have historically instrumentalised the military for political gain, often prioritising loyalty over meritocracy. Three key trends emerge:

Patronage and political favouritism: Argentina, Brazil and Chile saw military regimes promoting officers based on ideological loyalty rather than competence.

Weakening institutional cohesion: Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez purged military officers opposed to his socialist policies, undermining operational effectiveness.

Parallel military structures: Nicaragua’s Sandinista regime developed party-loyal militias to counterbalance regular armed forces.

Bangladesh exhibits elements of all three trends. Political leadership has frequently appointed military personnel based on personal loyalty rather than professional criteria. Institutional cohesion has been strained during political transitions, with divisions within the armed forces becoming apparent. Additionally, paramilitary units like the Rapid Action Battalion function as quasi-military forces under direct executive control, circumventing traditional military oversight.

Both Huntington and Moniruzzaman emphasise the need for clear civil-military boundaries to sustain democratic governance. Three critical reforms emerge from their analyses:

Professionalization of military: The armed forces must prioritise defence expertise over political engagement through merit-based promotions and depoliticised military education.

Strengthening civilian institutions: Effective governance requires robust civilian institutions, including an independent judiciary, transparent electoral mechanisms and a vibrant civil society.

A graffitto on a wall in Dhaka. Sony Ramany

Balancing inter-service influence: Greater parity between the Army, Navy and Air Force could prevent any single branch from monopolising national security policymaking.

Although direct military rule has receded, its indirect influence remains embedded in governance, media control and economic enterprises. The trajectory of Bangladesh’s civil-military relations will depend on its capacity to professionalise the armed forces, insulate democratic institutions from military influence and foster an environment where civilian authority is unequivocally established.

The legacy of 1971 serves as a reminder that sovereignty is not merely a function of territorial independence but also of democratic stability. Ensuring a professional, apolitical military remains one of the final frontiers in Bangladesh’s journey toward a consolidated democracy.

The uneasy waltz between the military and the intellectual class in Bangladesh is neither new nor unique. It is an old, tired script, rewritten with each passing regime, stained with the same ink of suspicion, censorship and fear. The military, draped in the garb of national security, sees dissent as an infection, something to be excised before it spreads. The intellectuals — writers, poets, professors, truth-tellers — believe that questioning authority is not a crime but a duty. And so, the country sways between these forces, between the clenched fist of order and the restless pulse of resistance.

The ghosts of 1971 still linger in the corridors of power, whispering their unfinished business. Once, there was a moment — a flickering, fragile moment — when civilian leadership and military command found a way to coexist. Tajuddin Ahmad and General Osmani stood on the same side of history, their alliance driven by the urgent need to birth a nation. But that moment passed, drowned in the din of power struggles and ideological betrayals. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman failed to carve out a truly professional military, distracted by the hubris of political absolutism. Ziaur Rahman, once a soldier, became a politician and in doing so, blurred the very boundaries that should have remained sacrosanct. What followed was predictable: political opportunism, military adventurism; and a system that allowed power to slip through the cracks of institutions into the hands of individuals who bent the rules to suit their own ambitions.

The intellectuals who dared to speak up were silenced. Some with bribes, others with bullets. Surveillance became a shadow, always lurking, always watching. Censorship crept in, not just in the obvious places — the newspapers, the universities — but in the very minds of the people. When fear seeps into thought itself, when self-censorship becomes survival, what remains of freedom?

Bangladesh is not alone in this. History has shown us that military intervention in politics is not an anomaly; it is a recurring affliction. Latin America knows it. The Philippines knows it. Each coup, each declaration of emergency, each whisper of ‘national security’ is just another way to rewrite the social contract without the consent of the governed. The theory — Huntington’s ‘objective civilian control,’ Moniruzzaman’s historical determinism — tells us that a professional military and political neutrality are the ideals. But the reality is messier. The military does not exist in a vacuum; it is shaped by the very power structures it is meant to serve. And when those structures are corrupt, compromised and brittle, the military becomes both the enforcer and the usurper.

What, then, is the way forward? The answer is neither romantic nor simple. It is a slow, stubborn resistance against the erosion of democracy, an insistence that power belongs not to men in uniforms or men in tailored suits but to the people. A system must be built — not just on paper, not just in speeches, but in practice — where institutions matter more than individuals, where laws cannot be bent for convenience, where dissent is not a punishable offense but a necessary force.

And, the intellectuals? They must remain, despite everything. They must write, must speak, must challenge, even as the walls close in. Because without them, the story is told only by those in power and power is not in the business of telling the truth.

For Bangladesh to become the democracy it aspires to be, sovereignty must mean more than guarding its borders. It must mean guarding its ideas, its voices, its freedom to dream beyond the confines of political expediency and military oversight. It must mean that democracy is not a performance, but a practice. Only then will the country move beyond the cycles of suppression and survival toward something resembling true freedom.

Abdul Monaiem Kudrot Ullah is a retired Captain of Bangladesh Navy.​

 

[Saif]

Bangladesh's independence is unique but grossly undermined

The usual fervour and euphoria have been missing to some extent from the celebration of the Independence Day this year. This is because of the confusion about and uncertainty over the future of the country. Controversial narratives about relations between the liberation war of 1971 and the July-Aug

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Bangladesh's independence is unique but grossly undermined
Nilratan Halder
Published :
Mar 27, 2025 23:42
Updated :
Mar 27, 2025 23:42

The usual fervour and euphoria have been missing to some extent from the celebration of the Independence Day this year. This is because of the confusion about and uncertainty over the future of the country. Controversial narratives about relations between the liberation war of 1971 and the July-August uprising, 2024 have been responsible for the tentative and less spontaneous participation by the people in the celebration of this august occasion. Leave alone the legacy of the ultimate achievement won at a colossus cost, some forces are presenting a volte-face and still other forces inimical to the country's foundational principles, remarkably not only those from the fallen regime, are out to incite lawlessness in society in order to prove that it is a failed state.

Contradictory and conflicting narratives about the liberation war propagated by some quarters in the absence of a firm stated official policy on this issue sacrosanct to the majority of the people, have eroded people's confidence in the systemic transformation. They are also increasingly getting disillusioned by the steep deterioration of the law and order situation. Incidence of crimes including sexual abuse and violence against women and girls has been getting higher with every passing day. The poor and the marginalised cannot be blamed if they feel abandoned by the authority in power because apart from some bureaucratic measures such as open sale of a few commodities from TCB (Trading Corporation of Bangladesh) trucks, no radical measures were taken to outmanoeuvre the business syndicates responsible for manipulation of the market. At a time when potato and onion farmers are counting losses, the administration is playing the role of a silent spectator.

If common people feel they are marginalised as they were during the 15 years of high-handed discriminatory rule, apathy towards the incumbent government is likely to grow and the buttery words of certain quarters suspect of malicious intention may have approving audience. That will do grievous harm to the cause of the country's independence. To have the record straight, the liberation war and the independence have to be kept beyond controversy because no other achievement compares with this precious possession.

How precious it is can be realised by the fact that the country was third to earn an exclusive recognition from the international community and that too within a short time. As Rachel Stevens, a teacher of History at the Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, Australian Catholic University in Melbourne, points out that in the past 300 years, only twice did 'secessionist states' achieve global legitimacy 'without the assent of the home state'. Belgium starting its independence movement in 1830 had taken nine years before achieving international recognition. Ireland is the second such country to have begun its war of independence against the United Kingdom (UK) in 1919 and earned its international legitimacy in 1949.

The secession from Pakistan would be impossible in an environment of current global politics. It was the Cold War that made the task easier---albeit with the risk of a world war --- for Bangladesh. The rivalry of extending the spheres of influence also played its part in Vietnam which freed itself from French occupation first and then with the joining in the feud by the US in 1964 following skirmishes between U.S.S Maddox and two Soviet-built Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin. Fortunately, before the US could similarly intervene in favour of Pakistan, the war was over in Bangladesh with defeat for the Western wing. China also opposed Bangladesh's breakaway from Pakistan and did not approve legitimacy of the country until October 4, 1975 after the military coup that killed Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib and overthrew his government.

However, there is a difference between Vietnam and Bangladesh. North Vietnam wanted the country's unification and to bring the entire territory under the socialist system. In this task, the country received unreserved support from both the Soviet Union and China and the war continued for over a decade. Bangladesh wanted to secede from Pakistan and the war was brief with China opposing its birth. The courses they have charted since their independence are also different with Vietnam consolidating its political system much to the satisfaction of its people. Two of the reasons may be the prolonged war that has steeled the resolve of the Vietnamese people and the leaders' integrity of character.

Bangladesh was indeed lucky to carve a place for itself as a sovereign country so soon in the comity of nations. Given the backlog of India's direct military involvement in the war to the consternation of some nations and in defiance of some global big players' open support to Pakistan, the recognition Bangladesh received from important allies of the US such as UK, West Germany, Italy, France and Canada among others by February, 1972 is remarkable indeed. But the surprise of all surprises is the official recognition of Bangladesh by the US on April 4, 1972.

So early a triumph over one of the fiercest militaries in the world and early recognitions were to prove both a blessing for the country and a curse perhaps. Blessing, because the carnage could have decimated the population if it protracted further; and curse, because the nation could not match its war achievements, aided morally largely by the Soviet bloc and militarily by India, with its administrative performance. The country had to endure one of the worst genocides in human history but did not learn much form that terrible experience. It achieved its independence and soon afterwards, it fell into chaos and misrule. Even the uprisings against autocratic misrule and state corruption have failed to bring the rulers to their senses. So people are keeping their fingers crossed that the July-August uprising also does not peter out without achieving its lofty objective of a pro-people administration free from bossiness and corruption and a society of equal opportunity for all its citizens.​