Bangladesh at crossroads: The struggle to preserve historical memory and national identity (IANS Analysis)

New Delhi, Dec 16 (IANS) Five months after the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government, Bangladesh finds itself trapped in a state of lawlessness, political turmoil, and deepening societal divisions. The newly established interim government, struggling to restore order and implement vital reforms, seems unable to guide the country toward political stability. Bangladesh’s political evolution, however, is not without precedent.

Over the years, student-led movements have consistently driven the nation’s transformations, from the 1952 Language Movement to the 1971 Liberation War, the 1987 anti-Ershad movement, the 1990s anti-authoritarian struggles, and now the July 2023 movement that brought an end to Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year rule.

What sets Bangladesh apart from its neighbours is not just its historical experience, but also its struggle for national identity. Unlike Pakistan, whose state formation was largely based on religious identity, Bangladesh emerged from the crucible of a fight for linguistic and cultural self-determination.

This distinct history of national formation has, over time, become inextricably linked to the struggles of its people. In this light, historical memory plays a crucial role in understanding the political dynamics and the values that shaped Bangladesh’s independence.

Yet, ever since the 1971 Liberation War, religious and linguistic identities have often clashed, often taking centre stage in debates surrounding nationalism.

The July 2023 student protests, spearheaded by Students Against Discrimination (SAD), reflected the youth’s desire for a fairer, more pluralistic society. Initially sparked by opposition to a controversial quota system — specifically the 30 per cent reservation for the descendants of freedom fighters in government jobs — the protests evolved into a larger challenge to the Hasina administration’s broader policies, perceived to favour loyalists and perpetuate corruption.

The reinstatement of this contentious quota system by a court, seen as sympathetic to Hasina, came at a time of mounting economic difficulties, such as rising youth unemployment and inflation.

This decision was the catalyst for the youth’s disillusionment, which eventually led to an anti-establishment uprising. Sheikh Hasina’s dismissive and inflammatory response — calling the protesters “razakars”, a term historically used to describe collaborators with the Pakistani military during the 1971 Liberation War — further stoked the flames of opposition, culminating in her political downfall.

Hasina’s political strategy has long been rooted in historical memory. Since 2009, she has invoked the legacy of her father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founder of Bangladesh, to consolidate her power.

One notable example of this was the implementation of the 1973 International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, which aimed to prosecute those involved in war crimes during the Liberation War.

This move was in line with Hasina’s promise to bring justice to the victims of the genocide committed by Pakistani forces and their collaborators, particularly the Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI).

JeI’s role in the 1971 atrocities is well-documented, with its leadership forming the backbone of the Razakar militia, a paramilitary force that assisted the Pakistani military in its genocidal campaign.

In recent years, however, Jamaat-e-Islami has refused to acknowledge its role in the war, continuing to champion a religious-based politics that stands in stark contrast to the secular, democratic vision embraced by the freedom fighters.

This ideological rift between secularism and religious nationalism has been reignited in the post-Hasina period, especially with the growing prominence of Islamic parties advocating for the establishment of an Islamic state.

This shift, alongside the rising persecution of Hindu minorities in Bangladesh, underscores the ongoing battle between religious and cultural nationalism. The interim government, led by figures such as Muhammad Yunus, has not been shy in making moves that signal a rejection of the nation’s secular and socialist roots.

Yunus has advocated for the removal of the 15th amendment to the constitution, which enshrines secularism, socialism, and Bengali nationalism as core principles of the state.

This attempt to rewrite the constitution’s foundation hints at a deliberate move to reverse the historical values upon which Bangladesh was built. For many, these developments point to a dangerous erasure of the country’s hard-won identity and principles.

Throughout her tenure, Hasina successfully tied her leadership to the legacy of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. His image was omnipresent in public spaces, and his role as the father of the nation was central to the ruling Awami League’s legitimacy.

However, following Hasina’s downfall, the destruction of statues and murals of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman marked a significant shift in the public discourse. Mobs not only vandalised representations of Mujibur Rahman but also set fire to his former residence, now the Bangabandhu Memorial Museum.

These actions were perceived as a deliberate attempt to discredit his legacy and diminish his association with Hasina’s authoritarian rule, which some critics have termed “fascist”.

What followed was a systematic effort to distance the interim government from Mujibur Rahman’s legacy. The removal of his portraits from official buildings, the cancellation of his commemorative holidays, and even the proposal to eliminate his image from the country’s currency notes, all point to a deliberate attempt to sever the connection between the nation’s independence and its founding father.

These moves have led many to question whether Bangladesh is entering a new phase where historical amnesia will dominate, disregarding the very principles upon which the country was founded.

The July protests were not just about the end of Hasina’s rule; they were also a reflection of the youth’s desire to reconnect with the revolutionary spirit that defined the nation’s birth. For many of the protesters, their struggle was not just against an autocratic government, but a wider battle for the soul of the nation — a battle to uphold the secular, pluralistic vision that the freedom fighters fought for in 1971.

In this sense, the protests were a link between the past and the future, a call to preserve the values of democracy, justice, and pluralism. However, the developments that followed after 5 August—marking the beginning of Bangladesh’s state reconstruction process—suggest a deliberate disregard for the country’s historical memory.

The interim government’s actions, including attempts to rewrite the constitution and distance itself from Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s legacy, indicate a rupture with the past. It is as if the state is attempting to redefine its identity by erasing the very history that gave it life.

This selective amnesia is dangerous, for it risks repeating the mistakes of the past –mistakes that could lead the country back into the dark corridors of autocracy and intolerance.

Bangladesh finds itself at a crossroads, and the direction it takes in the coming months will determine whether it can hold onto the values that shaped its birth or whether it will succumb to the forces of historical revisionism.

The youth-led protests of July 2023, which sought to restore justice and democracy, must not be reduced to a mere footnote in the country’s history.

Instead, they should serve as a reminder of the enduring power of historical memory — a memory that is vital for the nation’s survival as a democratic, secular, and pluralistic society. Without this memory, Bangladesh risks losing its way, and with it, the very essence of its nationhood.

–IANS

scor/