Editor's Pick

Two reviews from Syed Badrul Ahsan

Dhaka University and the Bengali ethos . . .

7 May 2010, 18:00 PM
BOOK REVIEWS

THE growth of Bengali nationalism in pre-1971 Pakistan had a whole lot to do with the various struggles put up by students and teachers of Dhaka University. And that was clearly a reason why during the War of Liberation the university would be made the target of the Pakistan army's particular wrath. That, of course, is an obvious truth. But what Rangalal Sen, Dulal Bhowmik and Tuhin Roy have come forth with in this work is a comprehensive study of the role Dhaka University has played in the shaping of Bengali nationalistic aspirations, beginning especially with the Language Movement of 1952. That is quite a departure from the title of the work. At the same time, for all the stress on the role played by Dhaka University and Calcutta University during Bangladesh's war for liberty in 1971, information on the contributions of the latter does not much go beyond an enumeration of the efforts its academics and students made towards assisting the Bengali movement. But, to be sure, it is invaluable information, a necessary reminder to Bengalis inhabiting the people's republic of the powerful wave of support that had come their way in clearly the darkest moment of their collective life. These are instructive essays we have here, from individuals who have closely studied Dhaka University as it has operated through the decades. That the university has been a focal point of an assertion of freedom in this part of the world has never been in doubt. Successive regimes in Pakistan understood this truth only too well, and for the very good reason that of all the institutions of higher learning in pre-1971 Pakistan, it was only Dhaka University which identified itself, gradually and surely, with the larger canvas of Bengali political aspirations. The first instance of defiance went out from the university, back in March 1948, when an arrogant Mohammad Ali Jinnah sought to have Urdu imposed on the country as the language of the state. It was only the beginning. In subsequent years, the university would come to acquire the role of a crusading spirit. It is interesting to think that almost the entire Bengali political set-up in the 1960s and, later, in the 1970s comprised the young men who as students had spearheaded various movements on the campus. A wide range of subjects and themes is covered in the work. Ajoy Roy's reflections on Dhaka University as it carved a niche in tale of the War of Liberation provides an incisive account of how the university transformed itself from an academic institution into a hotbed of nationalistic activity. A similar approach is taken by Rafiqul Islam who, however, makes sure that it is a broad area he deals with. Islam records the number of casualties the university went through in 1971, in terms of the lives of teachers and students lost at the hands of the Pakistan army and then its local collaborators. A refreshing aspect of Islam's observations is the bare truth he reveals about the collaborationist role adopted by a number of reputed academics. Syed Sajjad Hussain, Mohor Ali and Hasan Zaman come in for severe criticism, naturally and justifiably, because of their clear looking away from the genocide perpetrated in 1971. Hussain, appointed by Tikka Khan as vice chancellor in early 1971, remained indifferent to the many misfortunes students and his fellow academics were regularly subjected to by the occupation army. Sent on a trip abroad by the Pakistani junta to speak for it, he indulged in barefaced lies. The army, he told a disbelieving world, had not indulged in any atrocities in 'East Pakistan'. For himself, Islam had a narrow escape. Taken under arrest by the army, together with other teachers, he was eventually freed. But Giasuddin Ahmed, from the department of history, was not lucky the second time. The first time he was abducted by the army, he was allowed to return home. The second time, on the eve of liberation, his fate was sealed: an al-Badr killer squad of the Jamaat e Islami seized him and murdered him, along with others, most viciously. Reports have circulated all these decades (and they do not come from Rafiqul Islam in this work) of some of those very young al-Badr elements rising to prominent bureaucratic positions in Bangladesh. Perhaps they are yet there? Perhaps a checking of the records in government ministries will yield these killers up? The shaping of the Bangladesh nation-state through the periodic political ferment Dhaka University went through forms the theme of Abul Maal Abdul Muhith's essay. In essence, Muhith's thoughts go back to the earliest instances of student revolt and all the way through the gathering steam of the 1960s and early 1970s. It is a theme Rangalal Sen builds on in his admirable article on the 1962 student movement. There is another gem of a write-up from him, this one on Justice Abu Sayeed Chowdhury's role as vice chancellor and then as special envoy of the Mujibnagar government in 1971. Mohiuddin Ahmed expands on the Chowdhury theme in a separate chapter on the man who would subsequently take over as president of Bangladesh. You then go back to Rangalal Sen for some rich background information on the first twenty five years of student politics at Dhaka University, with particular reference to the times of Aditya, father of Madhu-da, he of Madhu's canteen. But if you need a more detailed account of the canteen and Madhu-da's supreme sacrifice in 1971, you cannot but pore through K.M. Mohsin's informative essay on the subject. Bangladesher Muktijuddho is a comprehensive, objective account of a significant part of national history that you ought not to ignore. It explains, in substantive form, why winning in 1971 was so important for the Bengali nation.

. . . and lessons in overthrowing governments

HOW do you plan a coup d'etat? The answer could come in either of two forms. A coup just happens or careful, meticulous planning goes into it. And then, of course, there are the many kinds of coups which have, especially in modern times, put paid to politics proper across the globe. By that you could mean Asia, Africa and Latin America. Indeed, there was a time when coups were quite the fashionable thing, with some country or the other going through it through the week or the month. Think of 1958 or of 1960. In the former period, two coups made noises around the world. There was, in July, the violent overthrow of the monarchy in Iraq, with the coup makers led by Abdel Karim Kassem murdering King Faisal and his prime minister and humiliating their corpses through having those dragged through the streets. In October, Iskandar Mirza and Ayub Khan placed a wobbly Pakistan under martial law. Not a shot was fired, no one was killed and twenty days after the coup, Ayub packed Mirza off to exile. But what happened in Turkey in 1960 was truly bloodcurdling. General Kemal Gursel, taking a leaf out of Kassem's book, overthrew the civilian government and had the top leaders of it murdered. David Hebditch and Ken Connor give you, in this excellent narrative of how men wielding guns can overthrow governments, usually in the pre-dawn hours, and of the various faces that coups can assume. But then you might ask what fundamentally is a coup d'etat? The answer is simple: it is an armed overthrow of a legally constituted government. But what, you might pipe up again, happens if a legally constituted government happens to working at cross-purposes with the citizenry? Would a coup aimed at dislodging it be considered all that bad? Hebditch and Connor may not respond directly to that, but here is how they have segmented coups in their different categories: there are the breakthrough coups and then there are the guardian coups. Lest you think that's about it, here is the third and it is known as a veto coup. There is more, such as bloodless coups and less-blood coups, along with accidental coups. Had enough? But here is yet another, probably the very last among the categories. It is called the faux coup d'etat. That is the list, all of it. Now, where instances of these many categories pf coups are concerned, first sit back and we will then go on. It is actually Hebditch and Connor who go on. They inform us that the breakthrough coup was what happened in China in 1911, Egypt in 1952 and Cuba in 1959. And in only Turkey do they spot instances of guardian coups, through 1960, 1971 and 1980. For veto coups, you go to Argentina as it was when the military struck in 1943, 1955 and 1976. The bloodless coup and that with less blood are what you think of when you recall the way in which Pervez Musharraf ousted the elected government of Nawaz Sharif in 1999. Accidental coups are what Sierra Leone confronted in 1992 and 1996, while you may chance upon a faux coup d'etat in a country like Equatorial Guinea. So much for coups in terms of definition. Have you ever reflected on some of the rulers overthrown? Think back on Egypt's King Farouk. It was not just that he was a deeply flawed man in moral terms. He was also a reputed kleptomaniac. Known, after the Second World War, as the Thief of Cairo, Farouk earned the dubious distinction of having stolen a ceremonial sword from the Shah of Iran. Shocked? But how would you react when you are informed that he also snatched a fob-watch from Winston Churchill as the latter was bidding him farewell on the steps of 10 Downing Street? Farouk was overthrown in July 1952, to the relief of Egyptians. And the Shah of Iran? It was a beautiful moment in 1953 when the Mossadegh government saw to it that the young monarch was shown the door. But, of course, the Americans and the British did not appreciate that at all. Iran's oil, yet under London's control, was something the West did not want to be trifled with. And so British and American intelligence got to work. Mossadegh was a communist and so needed to be put out of action! In no time, demonstrations were organized, heavily bankrolled by the CIA, and soon the Shah was back. Twenty six years later, the monarch was not so lucky. The ayatollahs ejected him lock, stock and barrel. That said, has it ever occurred to you that the United States has been deeply involved in nearly every coup of significance around the world? The gory details of the coup that ousted Chile's Salvador Allende need hardly be repeated. And, just so you remain aware of it, the Americans, in the person of Henry Kissinger, were in the know of what was happening in Bangladesh in 1975. Ask Christopher Hitchens. What is so good or so bad about coups? Well, a good coup is often a revolution. You have Fidel Castro in Cuba to demonstrate that fact. The bad coups have generally occurred in Africa, where even teenagers have emerged as leaders, soon to be gunned down by more responsible power-hungry men. In Latin America, coups have been a whole series of horror stories right from the 1960s and all the way into the late 1980s. The four coups Pakistanis have gone through have been relatively peaceful affairs. In what should have been a decent, human rights-based Bangladesh, coups have simply been another name for endless bloodletting. Ah, but let us not keep you from making your own assessments of what it is to send governments packing, through the barrels of guns. This work will show you the way. But here's a warning: do not try it at home . . . or in your country. It could prove harmful for your and your country's health.
Syed Badrul Ahsan is Editor, Current Affairs / Editor, Book Reviews, The Daily Star.

Google News LinkFor all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.

Click to comment

Related News