Language movement was a manifestation of the new conflict in Pakistan state

There had been many movements even before the Language Movement of 1952. There were movements regarding the constitution and all sorts of issues. There would be meetings at the Armanitola grounds, sometimes at Victoria Park and I would go there. But I was never involved in student politics. I never dabbled in student politics when I went to school and college in Bardhaman, not when I was at Dhaka University. But I was politically conscious. I was admitted to Dhaka University in April 1950. A movement was on at Dhaka University at the time. There were meetings being held at Aamtala. How could someone like myself, who had grown up in a political environment, remain immune to all this!

Not at all. My father's politics did have an influence on me, but I did not follow his politics. I was never a part of Chhatra League or Muslim League. When I was a child, our home teemed with all sorts of politics -- Congress, Muslim League, Communists. But I was never really involved in that sense with the Student Federation or the Communist Party. The Communist Party people would come to No. 2 Park Circus Road in Kolkata. We were there then and I would attend their classes. They did have a certain influence on me, but from an early age I had a dilemma within me. Perhaps that is why I never was part of any party or student politics. I couldn't decide in which direction to go.

As I said, I certainly am not a leader of the 1952 Language Movement, not even an activist. But I have written a book on the language movement. You can say I was a conscious observer.

There is a history behind this. Towards the end of the sixties, I decided I would take up work on the political events of East Pakistan. I was a political science teacher at Rajshahi University at the time. Before coming here in 1950, we would live in Bardhaman. I knew nothing about the happenings over here. I knew nothing about what occurred between 1947 and 1950. As I had come from outside, I couldn't understand many inside matters. I wasn't involved with any organisation either. I decided to first discuss matters with various people. Kamruddin Ahmad was a family friend, a very well-read conscious man. We were very close to him. I spoke to him about this. I sat with him and day after day I took down notes of what took place in this country from 1947. We didn't have tape recorders back then and so I would note down everything. Then I would go home and write everything in detail. That is how I could retain everything in my memory.

I had proceeded ahead to some extent with this work when a relation of ours came and said that a brief book could be written about the Language Movement. I said, all right, let's see. I started collecting information on the Language Movement. I started talking to various people. I found nothing substantial in the libraries about the Language Movement. I would have to collect all the details myself. So I started thinking on how to go about this task.

Professor Abdur Razzak would say that the most important aspect of a book is its methodology. This must first be determined. My work on the Language Movement was actually writing contemporary history. I began taking interviews, collecting leaflets and pamphlets, letters. Shahidullah Kaiser helped me a lot with this. He got the Communist Party circulars for me.

Shahidullah Kaiser was a Communist Party man. He would look after their documents. As he was killed, all the Communist Party documents were lost too, lost forever. The social welfare department at Rajshahi University had a Xerox machine and I made copies of all the circulars he had given from the Language Movement times. Moni Singh knew I had these documents and one day he sent Matiur Rahman, now the editor of Prothom Alo, and Nurur Rahman, a leader of Comilla's Krishak Samity, to me. They came to my Shantinagar house and said, Moni Singh asked that I show them those documents. I felt morally obliged to share those documents with them. They later returned the documents to me.

I used those circulars. I thought, those who will write in the future will not have the opportunities that I had, will not be able to take the interviews like I did or collect the papers as I did. So I began collecting documents extensively. That was part of my methodology. That methodology made all the difference.

I had once met Tajuddin Ahmad and told him about my work. Kamruddin Ahmed was with me too. While we were talking, Tajuddin Ahmad, said, "I have a diary. I don't know if it will be of any use to you, but you can take a look at it." He took the diary out of a torn cloth bag. It had entries from 1947 till 1956. I exclaimed, "This is a gold mine!" He hadn't realised how important it was. I asked him for the diary. I brought all of his diaries up till 1956. After going through them, I returned the diaries after 1952.

There were all sorts of movements in the country from 1948. There were informal meetings, meetings at Armanitola. I didn't get details in the newspapers of who were at these meetings, who chaired the meetings, where these were held and so on, but Tajuddin Ahmad's diaries had all the details. In fact, I referred to newspapers after reading about certain incidents in these diaries. Tajuddin Ahmad was a big help in my research. He went to Kolkata once after the book was published. No one would know him there. He said people read the diary extracts in this book and came to know of his political identity.

I do not think it would be accurate to see it that way. You see, the entire direction of politics changed after 1947. This was because the character of the conflict in the Pakistan state had changed. That is why after 1947 a different sort of movement cropped up here. In British India, politics had emerged on the basis of the Hindu-Muslim conflict and partition took place. After partition, Muslims became the majority here and power came to their hands. So the basis on which politics had emerged before partition, no longer existed. The Hindu-Muslim conflict was no longer there. But a new conflict emerged in the new state. There will always be conflicts in society. But what was this new conflict? An exploitative class emerged in West Pakistan, ruling over East Pakistan. They began to exploit East Pakistan and the assault on the language was an example. There was one thousand miles between the two wings of Pakistan, a difference in language and culture. Overall, the conflict that had emerged was the conflict between East Pakistan and West Pakistan, Bengalis and non-Bengalis.

This may not have been clear in 1947-48, but after 1947, politics gradually emerged, centering on this conflict. As this conflict grew, all sorts of movements sprung up in the sixties. I wrote about the history of Bangladesh in a book called Emergence of Bangladesh. No one has written on Pakistan's history quite in that manner. In this book I serially wrote about Pakistan's history, from the people's viewpoint. Many have written, but you will find those fractured, scattered, disconnected. I have given that connection. It shows that the change in conflict of 1947 led at one point to the Language Movement. More important than the influence of the Language Movement, is how that conflict grew and led to the Language Movement and the other movements. In the fifties and sixties, the students, intellectuals and cultural activists had large movements. It was our friends in university of those times who later went on to become renowned litterateurs, writers, bureaucrats and so on.

The movement in the beginning had been political. Then came the cultural movement. In the sixties too there was a cultural movement. In 1962 there was the students' movement. Throughout the sixties there was the student movement, peasants movement, workers movement, etc, which led to a collective outburst in the 1969 mass uprising. All of this was the result of the East Pakistan-West Pakistan conflict. The 1969 mass uprising was an advance rehearsal for 1971. But even in 1969 no one realised that within two years Bangladesh would be independent. But the nature of the conflicts was such that 1971 happened. That is why in Emergence of Bangladesh, I end the narrative with the 25-26 March crackdown.  That is when Bangladesh emerged. After that is a different history.

My answer for this too is -- change in conflict. During the British period there was the Hindu-Muslim conflict. In Pakistan times, there was the East Pakistan-West Pakistan conflict. After 1971, neither of these conflicts remained. A fundamental conflict emerged theoretically here, which can be termed as reality, in a sense. And that is the class conflict. Bengalis took over rule in Bangladesh. So the Hindu-Muslim or Bengali-non-Bengali conflict was no longer there. Many people talk about communalism now, but communalism was uprooted in 1947. The instances of Hindu homes being looted now are sheer robbery, greed to grab property. This communalism is not political. In Bangladesh, communalism isn't a political issue anymore. I have written about this. I have written very clearly about who are the ones attacking the Hindus. Anyway, after Bangladesh was created, a new conflict came up. Now one group, the groups that rules, is exploiting. And another group, the group that is ruled, is the exploited. In British India there was a communal conflict. In Pakistan times there was regional conflict. And now it is a class conflict.

Awami League took over state power. Their class characteristic has nothing to do with production. The basis of the conflict in British times was the conflict between the manufacturer or producer classes. It was the same in the Pakistan period. In Bangladesh times, as an organisation, Awami League was completely a non-productive 'middleman' class. Its leaders were lawyers, 'muktars' physicians, school teachers, student leaders, unemployed persons. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was their leader. He could gather people together, inspire them. It was based on this that he advanced up till 1971.

He came to the helm of power after independence. When this unproductive class came to power, the wealth they amassed was not through production or manufacturing. The middle class that then emerged was a class of looters, not any productive class or manufacturers. When manufacturing classes are exploiters, they are at least better than looters. They create scope for work. People get jobs. But where would the youth, which emerged in the later times, go? They were trapped in a net. The looters were gaining everything, so why would they bother with any resistance? There really is no realistic circumstance for resistance now.

You see, up until 1971, we commemorated the language movement as resistance day, not as a day of mourning. It was power, not mourning. There were some at that time, too, who wanted to establish it as a day or mourning, but they were not successful. In 1972 Awami League introduced a ritual of the prime minister going to the Shaheed Minar at midnight and laying a wreath of flowers there or some such thing. But this simply served to overshadow the early morning processions to the Shaheed Minar,  replete with the song written by Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury and composed by Altaf Mahmud, "Amar bhaiyer roktey rangano ekushey February'. It ruined the emotional participation of the people in 21 February, the beauty and appeal of the event. The spirit of resistance cannot prevail in a day of mourning. Also, the Language Movement aimed at applying Bangla in all spheres. Where is that?

A large part of all work done here is in English. In the parliament Bangla is spoken otherwise most of them wouldn't be able to speak. Otherwise English would have been spoken. The court gives its verdict in English, occasionally in Bangla too. Before this country become independent, the signboards on the shops were all in English. These became Bangla after independence. Now it's all English again. These are indicators.

The movement took place in 1952 for the medium of education to be Bangla. Coming to power, Sheikh Shaheb did that in 1972. That certainly was a laudable step. But it was done in an unrealistic manner. It was not done in a planned way. Studies were being conducted for 200 years in English and this was overturned like magic overnight. The medium was turned to Bangla, but there were no books in Bangla. At the primary stage it was all right, but the major problems were at the secondary level, college and university. Education deteriorated because of this vacuum. There was need of a good textbook board for the textbooks. This was formed, but it was totally inadequate. It was essential to have an institution for translation where important books would be translated extensively. That was not done. This vacuum was filled with third rate notebooks. The students began passing the MA exams by studying these notebooks.

Yes, certainly. A topic such as the Language Movement can be seen from so many angles. There is the Kaivarta rebellion, the Fakir-Sannyasi resistance, the Santhal rebellion -- isn't there still research on these matters? So why not on the Language Movement? There has certainly been some work on the Language Movement. I had told Atiur Rahman to carry out research on the places outside Dhaka where the Language Movement took place. He hasn't done that. Bashir Al Helal has a book published by Bangla Academy. It's a good book. It has more about the cultural aspects, but doesn't really have any particular focus. Research on the Language Movement can be carried out now from many different angles.