12/16/2016

Deposingofadictator:RevisitingamagnificentmassuprisingVIII

Deposing of a dictator:
Revisiting a magnificent
mass uprising VIII
by Nurul Kabir | Published: 21:20, Dec 16,2016

THE Racecourse reception for the Sheikh earned a special historical importance,
for it was this reception at which Tofail Ahmed, then Student League leader and
vice-president of the Dhaka University Central Students Union, proposed to
accord the appellation of Bangabandhu, Friend of Bengal, to the Sheikh that a
crowd of more than a hundred thousand people approved with thundering
cheers. But, again, there remains a controversy over the issue, for Tofail Ahmed
suddenly proposed it to the public, on behalf of the Students Action Committee,
without any prior discussion with any other SAC leader in any of the previous
SAC meeting. (M Shamsuddoha, Itihaser Alpa Katha, pp 9091) Shamsuddoha,
then general secretary of the pro-Moscow Students Union, writes that none in
SAC would have any objection to the idea of according the appellation to Sheikh
Mujibur Rahman, while the Student League should have had an official
discussion about the issue at the SAC meeting. He believes that the incident
would continue to remain in the history as an example of cultural parochiality
practised in our democratic polity. (Ibid, p 91)
The abortive roundtable
WHAT the ruling bourgeoisie classes of any country, in other words their political
organisations both in and outside power, even the political parties of the petite
bourgeoisie class aspiring to replace the incumbents in a given authoritarian
structure of power, fear most is the radicalisation of political consciousness of the
masses. The radically politicised self-consciousness of the proletarian masses, with
a revolutionary political party in place, after all, poses a great threat to the
bourgeoisie and its smaller cousin, petite bourgeoisie, of being ousted from power.
http://www.newagebd.net/article/4925/deposingofadictatorrevisitingamagnificentmassuprisingviii

1/6

12/16/2016

Deposingofadictator:RevisitingamagnificentmassuprisingVIII

The peoples uprising in Pakistan, particularly in its eastern wing, in the last week
of January 1969 contributed not only to the raising of the peoples political
consciousness about their strength and power when united, as every peoples
movement does, but also radicalised the political view of the masses, particularly
that of the workers and the peasants, to the effect that the dismantling of
repressive as well as exploitative structure of state and the building of a
democratic one with egalitarian socio-economic order on the debris of the old one,
as the Left political camp preaches, was not an impossible proposition. There were,
after all, two kinds of political slogans, one liberal nationalist and the other radical
socialist, being raised by the social forces during the mass uprising against Ayub
regime. Santosh Gupta points out: During the mass uprising in 1969, the
supporters of Awami League and its student front used to chant slogans like
Jegeche, jegeche, Bangali jegeche the Bengalis have risen while the
supporters of the Left political camp used to chant slogans such as Muktir Ek-i
path, Sashasra Biplab Armed revolution is the only means of peoples
emancipation. (Santosh Gupta, Bangladesher Mukti Sangramer Itihas: 1969March
1971 in Professor Salahuddin Ahmed and others (ed), Bangladesher Mukti
Sangramer Itihas: 19471971, p 187)
The attempt that the rulers, and the political bodies of the ruling classes outside
power, make under such radicalised political circumstances is to forge negotiation
among themselves to thwart the political advances of the masses. In the process of
such negotiations, the rulers also accommodate the political forcers of the petite
bourgeoisie that aspires to share state power. And there arose the need for the
authoritarian regime of Ayub Khan to craft a negotiation with the political
opposition through peaceful dialogue or what it called a Roundtable conference.
Mohammad Farhad, a leader of then pro-Moscow East Pakistan Communist Party,
rightly points out: The mass uprising of January 24 not only made Pakistans
entire ruling coterie afraid of the political situation, it rather made the entire class
of the bourgeoisie, including those outside power, shaky about its future. So, the
politicians representing the bourgeoisie interests started mounting pressure on the
government to save the country from an imminent danger like Russian revolution
by way of forging negotiations with [opposition] political parties through dialogue.
(Mohammad Farhad, Unasatturer Gana Abhyutthan, Jatiya Sahitya Prakasani, Dhaka,
1989, p 50)
Hence, came the initiative from Ayub regime to hold a Roundtable with the
agitating political parties. President Ayub had announced in a televised speech on
February 1, 1969 that the Constitution is not anything sacrosanct, and proposed
http://www.newagebd.net/article/4925/deposingofadictatorrevisitingamagnificentmassuprisingviii

2/6

12/16/2016

Deposingofadictator:RevisitingamagnificentmassuprisingVIII

that he would hold a Roundtable to discuss constitutional issues with the leaders
of the responsible opposition parties. Ayub proposed February 17 for the
Roundtable to end the political impasse, and in order to initiate the proposed
dialogue, he issued an official letter to Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, president of the
Pakistan Awami League and convener of DAC, on February 5 inviting the
component parties of the alliance to the talks.
The opposition parties and groups apparently considered Ayub Khans
announcement a victory of the mass uprising, while his proposal for dialogue
divided the opposition camp. Mohammad Farhad writes: While the right-wing
parties were for using the Roundtable dialogue as a means to forge compromise
[with the power that be], the Awami League appeared vacillating and Moulana
Bhasanis National Awami Party opposed the idea of having any dialogue with Ayub
Khan. (Mohammad Farhad, Unasatturer Gana Abhyutthan, p102) The Moulana, in
fact, issued a press statement on February 7 rejecting outright the proposed
Roundtable. Subsequently, a journalist asked him whether he would not be isolated
if he refused to attend the Ayubs Roundtable conference, the Moulana replied,
Yes, Ill isolate myself from Ayub, his entourage and all the bourgeois political
leaders. I will not, however, be isolating myself from the people. (Tariq Ali,
Pakistan: Military Rule or Peoples Power, p 212)
The pro-Moscow Communist Party, which was working in DAC through the proMoscow National Awami Party, made an initiative, following mass uprising on
January 24, to broaden the anti-Ayub alliance by taking Moulana Bhasani and his
National Awami Party on board. But the initiative failed because the Moulana
found DAC, a political combine of heterogeneous forces with contradictory
orientations centrist, left, right and extreme right an ineffective platform to
fight against the powerful military regime. He, rather, wanted, as Mohammad
Farhad writes, Awami League and pro-Moscow National Awami Party to come out
of DAC, but Awami League refused to leave the political combine. (Mohammad
Farhad, Unasatturer Gana Abhyutthan, p 52) Besides, while addressing a public
rally in Jaypurhat on February 11, the Moulana unequivocally announced that his
party would not enter DAC, for its 8-party programme did not include the demand
for regional autonomy. (Syed Abul Maksud, Moulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhasani, p
321) The Awami League eventually left DAC, but only after getting betrayed by its
partners in the 8-party combine.
The Moulana had unilaterally announced on February 7 that he and his party
would oppose the idea of attending [Ayubs] Roundtable conference and called
upon the people to continue movement. (Mohammad Farhad, Unasatturer Gana
http://www.newagebd.net/article/4925/deposingofadictatorrevisitingamagnificentmassuprisingviii

3/6

12/16/2016

Deposingofadictator:RevisitingamagnificentmassuprisingVIII

Abhyutthan, p 60), arguing that only a ceaseless political struggle against Ayubs
autocratic regime would pave the way for realising the political demands of the
opposition parties. He also called upon other opposition leaders, particularly Sheikh
Mujibur Rahman, to boycott the conference, arguing that the 11-point charter of
demands could not be realised through dialogue at the Roundtable conference.
(Ibid, p 87)
In addition to his life-long conviction that political movement is the only decisive
means to get peoples legitimate demands met by the power that be, the politically
experienced Moulana analysed that General Ayub had already lost his relevance in
running the affairs of the state, and, therefore, there was no point in having any
talks with a powerless man any more. The Moulanas thought found expression in
his private talks with his younger political colleagues of the time, including Haider
Akbar Khan Rano, when the latter asked aobut his reasons to boycott General
Ayubs Round Table. The Moulna replied: Why holding talks with Ayub? Is it
worth talking to a corpse? Ayub now is a [politically] dead man. (Haider Akbar
Khan Rano, Shatabdi Periye, p 165) Moulanas leftwing National Awami Party and
its labour, peasant and student fronts accepted the argument and continued to
mobilise public demonstrations against the autocratic regime in power.
However, Moulana Bhasani was not alone to dissuade the Sheikh to attend Ayubs
roundtable. Rather, as Dr Wajed Miah, the Sheikhs son-in-law, reminisces, the top
youth and student leaders associated with the Awami League such as Sheikh Fazlul
Huq Moni, Sirajul Alam Khan, Abdur Razzak, Abdur Rauf, Khaled Mohammad Ali,
Tofail Ahmed and others [also] insisted unanimously on February 23 that
Bangabandhu [Sheikh Mujubur Rahman] should not attend the Round Table, until
General Ayub agreed to officially discuss about the contents of Six-point and
Eleven-point charters of demands in the conference. (MA Wajed Miah,
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibke Ghire Kichu Ghatana O Bangladesh, p 54) But the
Sheikh refused to give in, and left Dhaka for Rawalpindi to attend the conference
with a nine-member delegation of his party the next day.Later, he had an exclusive
meeting with General Ayub Khan on February 25, the day before the Roundtable
conference officially opened. (Altaf Gauhar, Ayub Khan: Pakistans First Military
Ruler, p 456)
Meanwhile, East Pakistans pro-Moscow Communist Party found the Moulana a
political adventurist for the latters refusal to attend Ayubs Roundtable
conference. (Mohammad Farhad, Unasatturer Gana Abhyutthan, p 86) But the later
development of political events testify that the Moulana rather proved a principled
and farsighted politician, both by way of refusing to enter DAC, and then staying
http://www.newagebd.net/article/4925/deposingofadictatorrevisitingamagnificentmassuprisingviii

4/6

12/16/2016

Deposingofadictator:RevisitingamagnificentmassuprisingVIII

out of Roundtable conference, for the Roundtable ended in a whimper and DAC got
dismantled immediately after the conference.
The Roundtable conference commenced in Rawalpindi on February 26, which was
postponed, due to Eid vacation, to resume on March 10.
Meanwhile, the DAC leaders had reached a consensus on March 9 on a four-point
demand that they would unanimously place during the talks with President Ayub
Khan. The four-point included general elections based on universal franchise,
introduction of parliamentary system of governance with a federal form of
government, full regional autonomy and the scrapping of the provision of One Unit
for West Pakistan while uniting the Western provinces under a sub-federation.
But as the talks progressed, most DAC leaders, particularly its West Pakistani
convener, claimed that the opposition alliance had only two agreed points
general elections based on universal franchise and introduction of parliamentary
system of governance with a federal form of government to place before the
President. Moreover, two DAC leaders from the West, Chaudhry Mohammad Ali of
the Nezam-e-Islami and Moulana Moududi of Jamaat-e-Islami, rather opposed the
idea of full regional autonomy and scrapping of One Unit for West Pakistan.
(Mohammad Farhad, Unasatturer Gana Abhyutthan, p 89) The right-wing leaders
from East Pakistan reportedly kept silent about the issues in question. And this
was not all.
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman reportedly pressed President Ayub Khan for accepting the
Easts legitimate aspirations reflected in the Six- and the Eleven-point charters of
demands, but neither President Ayub Khan nor any other politician from the West
even agreed to consider the points to be on the official agenda for discussion, let
alone accepting them for implementations. The East Pakistani leaders from DAC
also refused to incorporate the Six-and Eleven-points into the agenda for
discussions.
Earlier, as the Sheikh arrived in Lahore, en route Rawalpindi to attend the
Roundtable conference, he moved ahead to meet people in the crowed in the
airport and someone inflicted a small knife wound on his hand. (M Azizul Jalil,
In Retrospect: Glimpses from the Past: Conversation with Two Leaders, the Star,
the weekend magazine of the Daily Star, Dhaka, October 2, 2004) Later, on March
15, the day after the conference was over, Bhasani, who went to West Pakistan to
address some public rallies and watch the political atmosphere during the talks,
was attacked by some assailants in a train. (SA Karim, Sheikh Mujib: Triumph and
Tragedy, p 159) Haider Akbar Khan Rano, however, writes specifically that the
Moulana came under attack of some Islamist fundamentalists at the Shahiwal
http://www.newagebd.net/article/4925/deposingofadictatorrevisitingamagnificentmassuprisingviii

5/6

12/16/2016

Deposingofadictator:RevisitingamagnificentmassuprisingVIII

railway station in Punjab on March 16, and a general strike was observed in Dhaka
in protest against the attack the next day. (Haider Akbar Khan Rano, Shatabdi
Periye, p 193)
Nevertheless, the Sheikh eventually returned to Dhaka on March 13, empty-handed.
Before his return, the Sheikh had a private dinner with Ayub Khan on March 13,
the day the conference ended. (Altaf Gauhar, Ayub Khan: Pakistans First Military
Ruler, p 464) Earlier, on March 6, he had an exclusive meeting with General Yahya
Khan in Rawalpindi. (Ibid, p 457) On his return to Dhaka, the Sheikh announced
his decision to severe off Awami Leagues relation with the 8-party DAC the same
day. (MA Wajed Miah, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibke Ghire Kichu Ghatana O
Bangladesh, p 56)
Haider Akbar Khan Rano recollects: On his return to Dhaka airport, Sheikh
Mujibur Rahman directly accused some DAC leaders, such as Hamidul Huq
Chowdhury, Farid Ahmed, Abdus Salam Khan and Mahmud Ali, of betraying the
Bengali cause at the Roundtable, for which he could not get the demand for East
Pakistans autonomy met in Rawalpindi. (Haider Akbar Khan Rano, Shatabdi Pariye,
p 187) The Sheikh, however, praised the role that Nurul Amin, Mozaffar Ahmad
and [Justice] SM Murshid played at the conference. (Selina Hossain, Unasatturer
Gano Andolan, p 57)
To be continued.

http://www.newagebd.net/article/4925/deposingofadictatorrevisitingamagnificentmassuprisingviii

6/6