The art of forgetting and selectively remembering 1971

Afsan Chowdhury writes for DOT : 
As a teacher of the history of 1971, I am surprised not by what people forget but what they remember. Much is remembered of the announcements declarations and numbers of dead and raped but little of the process that led to 1971 or what happened in that year. The result is a past which is remembered along certain codes, much of them becoming political rather than historical markers.
This has happened because we have used history for purposes of gain rather than constructing our identity through knowledge. The result of such a process is obvious as we have several generations who are caught between a past which has become uncertain due to by politics and a history of our birth that has been only partly told.
Creating a past or knowing history ?
The governments which come to power in Bangladesh have their own version of history which is believed and disbelieved as per need. Why they do is clear. 1971 is the key to legitimacy in politics. Without the blessings of that history nothing works so if politics can’t be fitted into history, the effort is into fitting history into politics.
The result is the “bureaucratization” of the history of 1971. It means history of 1971 is no longer a matter for historians to explore but politicians and amlas to decide. Since we now even have laws, the judiciary has been added to it. This is a rare situation in the history of histories.
Yet the issue is largely about just one issue : who declared independence. Problem is why this is a problem is not understood unless one thinks it is so.
Does declaration matter ?
Whether one likes it or not, the state declaration is not a historic issue because a national independence war is not dependent in any way on a declaration. Its a war that began many years ago before 1971 and was part of a nationalist struggle of the margins of Bengal. Its part of a long journey that didn’t begon one one particular night.
It held many names – Bengal, East Bengal, East Pakistan etc- but it’s part of a people’s struggle and they don’t need declarations to start a national war.
This nationalist war was a political one and the politics was led by Sk. Mujibur Rahman. And this is a fact of history and not about adding glory to the name. He represented the struggle and that is a fact. Its only after 1975 that the contestant in the form of Zia came up in the political space. Before that Zia’s announcement didn’t provoke any controversy because it carried little meaning though some AL people were insisting about a declaration.
But once it became an AL-BNP issue, the matter became “ who said first “ issue, a debate that has no historical meaning but full of political import. It effectively became the history of 1971.
A national war vs a declaration war
Thus generations have been raised thinking that nothing is more important than a declaration. Historically speaking, it was the unneeded part of the process because most people began the fight inspired by the speech of 7th March and enraged by the attack of March 25th night. They would have gone to war, a declaration or no declaration.
1971 war was not a gazette based war but an informal one in which everyone participated and it is their history that we have forgotten or chosen not to remember. Instead , the political elements have reduced the war of 1971 into a war of announcement and an absurd one between the leader of a people and one of his leading lieutenants.
Zia may need an announcement to gain higher legitimacy but Mujib doesn’t. Its something which not just BNP but AL should learn as well. It’s this undue attention to a bureaucratic detail of a people’s war which has motivated many to forget the significant and focus on a minor issue.
The writer is a Journalist, Media Professional, Researcher and Social Activist