What exactly was the 1971 war? Independence? Liberation? Freedom? Subjugation? A failed class war? The list is endless and can be expanded just as one wishes. It's entirely up to the individual or group contemplating an event and the conjuring up of arguments to fit the facts into it after being chosen from the banquet of the past and piled high on the plate with chosen items. It goes on and on as it has gone on and on for long.

The process has of course greatly benefitted from the fact that few agree on what happened and even fewer even know what occurred. History has been given a run for its money because its become about who wields political power to decide on the narrative and the rest can happily agree or disagree with the official one till their time comes and they can do it all over again.

The game goes on as one party after another comes to power changes the narrative, demonizes and glorifies and then once out of power waits for their turn once again. It's now become very predictable and the term 'history repeats itself 'has found new meaning. Not only does history repeat itself but the narrative of history does the same too with occasional; breaks.

The many different histories?

It's a political achievement of sorts that among politicians, almost the entire discussion on the 1971 event has been reduced to who is the "father" of the Nation and who "declared" independence. Not only have a million debates been held on them but it shall go on till time itself ends.

What few ask if there is a mono identity as a "Nation" unless it's a convenient term to mean what is useful and convenient. Its supposed to be Bengali nationalism. But if Bengalis are a "Nation" why didn't they agree to form a single state in 1947 when they had the chance?. I mean nothing kills the Bengali nationalism argument than this above mentioned fact which also means we are many other "nations" if you really want to use the word. Most of us are Muslims, all are East Bengalis and the "adivasis" are not even Bengalis. It's a mix of people, whose common experience of denial pushed them into the political space.

And of course we don't even think we began long before that date. We think it was born when the Bengali police of east Pakistan fired on Bengali protesters and somehow Bengalis were reborn and politics of the 1971 variety began. Everything in the past history is discarded and ignored. As the DU slogan proudly says, "From 1952 to 1971", a masterly cache of words useful in misguiding everyone. History can be so bothersome when it interferes with a catchy slogan.

The other is about who declared "independence". It came on the 26th of March and is remembered by all who heard it. But another declaration was also sent by wire. The Chittagong announcement was a declaration of resolve to continue the war and support for what had become a war to fight back the Pakistanis who had attacked in Dhaka.

In every sense, the war had already begun so no declaration was needed but it greatly buoyed up the spirit no doubt. But there is no need to trash the person who certainly did a historic act. But we are so desperate to claim or deny credit that we make that an issue to go into political war. There was also no doubt about the leadership of the war. And people were already fighting, call or no call from anyone.It's quite possible that all these are normal events in the process of war but we had been fighting such politically motivated wars for so long we have forgotten what happened in the war. But they have provided enough fodder for us to fight each other which we have been doing so since post 1971 politics began. It's the fighting that is important, not the war that led to the state of Bangladesh.

Mixing history with politics

The history of 1971 is therefore not about assimilation of facts but an arena of sorts where various contesting parties fight it out based on their current political opponents and objectives. And if one party is absent, the contentions, debates etc are also gone. This year -2024 December- is a very good example.

Since the major 1971 party is absent from the public political space, there is no debate, discussion, or even celebration. The reason is simple. There is no need by either the government or the political parties as there is no chance of scoring any points in the absence of other parties. Thus the public sparring is absent along with the Facebook level abusing which often claims to be public political wisdom and discourses.

But a far more interesting response is the public reaction from such absence of public events. And that is, there is no reaction. People simply have very little interest in the history of 1971. A good question is therefore, why?

The answer is simple. What people, us and the politicians call the history of 1971 is basically about the politics of now. History has no value to the politicians and the public has low interest in the way the politicians use history to make political hay. And history is seen as a celebration of the agreed past and ceremonial but only when there is agreement on its tradition. What we have is a tradition of disagreements so why should people be interested?

So it's no longer a corporate and people's affair but a personal issue, begging the question if we have a history at all or not and if we are a people of history or not as well.