The crucial task of nation-building that Zia carried out

Today, 30 May, is the 44th death anniversary of the former president Ziaur Rahman. It was on this day that he was assassinated by scheming army officers at the Circuit House in Chattogram.

Every year this day arrives with a new message, a new significance for the people. The people of Bangladesh, amid all disaster, learn new lessons from the life and work of Ziaur Rahman. I feel that the greatest achievement of Ziaur Rahman, during his less than six-year rule, was the creation of Bangladeshi nationalism. This was a monumental task, though he managed to carry it out in a very short span of time.

We know of many nationalist leaders in the political arenas of post-colonial Asia and Africa. Sukarno, Nasser, Ben Bella, and Nkrumah were towering figures in the anti-colonial struggles of their respective countries. Many of them remained in power for long periods and enjoyed international acclaim. They made significant contributions to the task of nation-building.
Yet, after their deaths, the people did not adhere to their ideologies. The state ideals they had established did not endure once they left power.

However, in the case of Zia, it was quite different. Zia was not a flamboyant or grand personality like them, yet he left behind a party and an ideology that continue to shape the course of Bangladesh’s history to this day.
His Bangladeshi nationalism has taken deep root in the hearts of the people and has transformed into a powerful tangible force. How so?

While acknowledging the limitations of historical categorisation, the history of decolonisation can be divided into four stages. These stages are: the emergence and consolidation of nationalist movements; the victory of these movements; the subsequent state formation following the success of the movements; and the stage of defining the state’s relationship with other states and with the unequal social structure within, and ensuring the stability of these relationships.

In most cases, our focus has remained confined to the second and third stages. However, in reality, the most significant turning points in social transformation have occurred in the first and fourth stages.

In the context of Bangladesh’s decolonisation, Zia was involved in the third and fourth stages. The generally belief is “seek ye first the political kingdom,” and that “the nationalists could make the state, and the state could make the nation.” But in Bangladesh's case, there was little room for nurturing such illusions, even though the vast majority of the population shared a common language and a thousand-year history.

With the exit of the Pakistan army, we did indeed gain a national flag, a national anthem, and a government. But we mortgaged our national sovereignty to India as the price for their support and assistance during our war of independence. We were compelled to keep our armed forces small in size and weak in every respect to repay our “debt of gratitude” to India. The development of a strong military could have been construed as a sign of hostility toward India.

Soon after Bangladesh’s emergence, India revealed the tiger claws it had kept hidden. India's ulterior designs included the withdrawal of water from common rivers, the unequal agreements regarding enclaves, the proposal to send Indian bureaucrats to help run Bangladesh’s administration and more.

Countries that have depended on foreign military forces for their national liberation or deliverance have typically attained only limited sovereignty. The nations of East Europe in the post–World War II era stand as strong evidence of this.

It was through a symbolic act that Ziaur Rahman upheld the flame of our full national sovereignty. In October 1975, as army chief, Zia handed over a pistol seized from an Indian army commander during the 1965 Pakistan-India war, to a unit of the Bengal Regiment. This was a significant symbolic message from Zia to both the soldiers and the people.

Thus, on 7 November 1975, at a moment of grave national crisis, soldiers and civilians came together to free Zia from the conspirators’ captivity and entrusted him with the responsibility of leading the state. This victory gave the people a sense of security and reassurance.

As head of state, Zia redefined the nature of Bangladesh’s relations with other countries. He fostered friendly cooperation with China. Deep ties were established with Muslim countries of the OIC. Bangladesh became a respected member of the Al-Quds Committee and took on a mediating role between the warring nations of Iran and Iraq. In the Western world, Zia clarified Bangladesh’s true position as a non-aligned country and resolved prevailing misunderstandings.

Even our hostile neighbour India signed a five-year water-sharing treaty with a guarantee clause, which reduced tensions. This was because Zia had succeeded in mobilising public opinion regarding Bangladesh’s rightful claims. Bangladesh earned the dignity of being an independent and sovereign nation.

From the experience of the last 44 years we now know that creating Bangladesh and creating Bangladeshis is not the same thing. A political revolution may result in the formation of a state, and perhaps even partially stabilise its foundations, but the fundamental question remains: who are we and what have we achieved in the intervening years?

Independence only marks one stage in nationalist ideals. Simply condemning subjugation or celebrating its end is not enough to ensure advancement to the next phase. What must be done is to foster a sense of solidarity within the collective consciousness of the people within the state, and through that, transform the fragmented segments of the nation into a unified identity. The actions of the national government must then be determined in accordance with the demands of this unified identity.

This is precisely what Ziaur Rahman did through his concept of Bangladeshi nationalism. Through this, Zia determined the relationship, significance, and inherent elements of two key sensibilities: the “local way of life” and the “spirit of the times.” Bangladeshis want to follow their own way of life while also keeping pace with the era. Zia was the embodiment of these dual sensibilities and in therein lies his greatness.

There are numerous examples in his policies and actions as head of state that demonstrate how he harmonised indigenous lifestyles with the demands of the modern age. This means initiating the process of social transformation through the interaction between contemporary imperatives and social realities.

Zia understood how to reconcile what Edward Shils called the “will to be modern” and what Mazzini referred to as the “need to exist and to have a name.” What could be a greater virtue for a statesman and nationalist leader?

* Mahbub Ullah is an economist and political analyst
* The views expressed here are the writer's own.