It has become a ritual to remember the fall of Dhaka without introspection and learning any lessons from it. It reminds me of the fall of Granada in 1492 when the last Arab ruler left his capital after his defeat and surrender. The last sigh of the Moor has become a symbol of helplessness as is evident in the fact that the Christian powers, after the reconquista, asked the Muslims and the Jews to either convert to Christianity or leave the country. In case of the fall of Dhaka, we do not mention anything about the Bengalis who suffered tribulation, humiliation, insult, and loss of lives. To us the fall of a city is tragic because of the loss of territory and the end of political domination, not because of what happened to the people; their suffering is not our concern. Owing to this persecution of history, we never recognise our guilt and as a result of this, never learn any lessons from history.
History is not interpreted only by one perspective. There are always other points of view to look at and analyse the events. We should also learn what the Bangladeshis think about the separation from Pakistan. To the Pakistanis, it is the fall of Dhaka; to the Bangladeshis it is their liberation from Pakistan and from its military and bureaucracy which ruled their country as a colony. The fall resulted in the emergence of a new nation and a new beginning with national pride and honour.Bangladesh experienced the taste of freedom twice: the first time around from the British colonialist, and the second from Pakistan.
The Bangladeshis remember the days when army action was taken place with sadness and sorrow and express regret at the fact of how brutally their co-religionists and countrymen treated them. Their historians reconstructed the history which narrates the oppressive policies of the Pakistani ruling classes and the silence of its people. They resisted successfully and won freedom but at a very high cost.
From the inception of Pakistan, the ruling classes of the west wing were not feeling at home with the Bengalis. Both wings differed politically and culturally. There was a significant political difference because the Partition of Bengal in 1905 had given the Bengalis a mature political consciousness and they actively participated in all aspects of the freedom movement. Their leadership was not comprised of feudal lords. After the partition, the provincial assembly abolished feudalism which provided ample opportunity to the middle class to play a vital role in politics. Moreover, a progressive ideology was very strong and deep rooted in their resistance struggle. Different radical groups were very active in their fight for the cause of down-trodden and under-privileged people. Culturally, there was also a significant difference. The Bengalis had their own distinct and rich cultural heritage. It was a multireligious and multicultural society where the Hindus, the Buddhists and other followers of religions were living together with harmony. Their contribution to music, dance, art and literature transformed their society into a tolerant one.
On the other hand, West Pakistani society was feudal and its politics was dominated by the feudal lords. The middle class was subservient to the elite. It had no voice in the politics. The non-Muslim minorities wee marginalised and subdued. Sectarian conflicts created hostility and hatred among their followers from the very beginning. They were not aware of the benefits of multiculturalism and were nourished on religious extremism and intolerance.
Thus, culturally, both wings were poles apart. The ruling classes of west Pakistan had failed to understand character and nature of the Bengalis. To them, they were not pure Muslims and were under the spell of Hindu culture. Furthermore, the feudal politicians of West Pakistan were not ready to sit and share with the politicians of East Pakistan who belonged to the middle class.
What way has the image of the Bengalis been projected in the eyes of the West Pakistani people? The official version of history constructed by the ruling classes portrays them as rabble rousers and rebels who always created trouble for the centre, from medieval times to the present. The conflict with the centre was very old. Instead of appreciating its historical roots and contributing factors, the Bengalis were blamed for keeping the centre unstable. A more accurate reading of history is that the Bengalis were not submissive people. They did not recognise the domination of power and always raised their voice against exploitation and coercion. They had a strong sense of identity and loved their cultural traditions.
The effects of this separation on Pakistan were manifold. It weakened its democratic struggle against the army dictators, damaged its progressive movements, and encouraged the growth of religious extremism. On the other hand, Bangaldesh, after its independence, passed through different phases of political change and maturation and learned lessons from its past experiences; it strengthened its democracy, economy and education with the result that it is now more stable and developed compared to Pakistan.
The writer is one of the pioneers of alternate history in the country.