In 2001, I did a series for BBC Radio titled 'Bangladesh 1971'. In that connection, I interviewed General Jagjit Singh Arora, the Eastern Region Chief of the Joint Forces, at his residence in Delhi. It took some time to find him. The Indian government was not too keen about him. Later I found out that he was involved in the Khalistan movement, so a 'stay away from him' policy was on in the official world.

Anyway, while I was fixing the tape recorder, he smiled softly and said, 'Everyone asks me about the military forces, about the war. But no one asks this question, if the people of the villages of Bangladesh had not given us permission, could we have entered Bangladesh to liberate Dhaka?'

Many such basic questions have been lost in this way about our history.

2

There is no end to the debate about our history of 1971. We have not yet been able to decide why we want to study its history, to educate people, establish traditions, collect and process information, or to do politics? So many books have been written, but even after 53 years, the quarrel over the history of 1971 has not stopped.

Is it a methodological weakness of the study of history? Or is it something deeper, something that is rooted in our socio-political structure, from which we cannot be free still as we grapple with history as a servant of politics?

3

People's interest in the history of 1971 has decreased. Those who are involved in it in some way or another-in body, mind, thought or have benefited or suffered from it are interested. Their number is small. The rest have little interest in it.

For most people, Independence of Victory days are just ceremonial government events-more when the Awami League is in power, less when others are in power. This time too, it is very little.

For many, the history of 1971 means a matter of politics-quarrels, disputes, talk shows, etc. People are also increasingly less interested in these too.

4

Study of history means collecting and analyzing information without bias, no more, no less. The question is, is it possible to study history in this way in our socio-political reality? If it's the history of 'liberating' the country, can anything other than 'patriotism' be allowed in it?

We are all citizens of this country. This bias is inevitable. But a bigger problem is that we often blur the gap between the country and the political party. As a result, the history of one political party or another is written, not a reliable history for everyone. Politics comes first. History falls behind.

5

We call the events of 1971 'Independence War', 'Liberation War', some people in the village call it 'Year of Trouble', some call it a 'Failed Revolution', etc. In other words, there are multiple titles for the same event. This is normal. The history of the founding of the country has multiple dimensions, different perspectives etc. That is why it is called by different names. However, there should generally be no confusion about the main facts.

The conflict or dispute that takes place in our country over the history of 1971 is based on the original facts not interpretations. And that dispute takes place within the framework of institutional or state history. This is because politics and the state coexist.

6

1971 is a kind of "just war" for us. As a result, it has risen above discussion and criticism. This happens in all countries, but not to this extent it has happened here. In this country, the main characters of 1971 are also sacred to one group, but enemies to another. For this reason, we do not have the scope for a fact-based review of the event.

History is needed in this country mainly for political reasons, not for the need for the pursuit of knowledge. This is the dilemma in most cases in our country.

7

There is evidence that genocide took place in Bangladesh in 1971. For that, there is no need to give how many got killed, just information that genocide was committed. There is little discussion about the long political or socio-political-historical continuity of the establishment of Bangladesh since the British era. There is more debate about who announced what and when in 1971. New history books are written after every change of ruling party. The purpose of this is that convenient history is necessary in politics. Politics dictate scholarship.

Ruling party-based history is now established in Bangladesh. This is the continuous reality. The management of rewards and reprimands in the institutional or state sphere is also established on this principle.

8

Every history has multiple spheres-political, social, and many more. The vast history of a country is formed by the combination of these historical streams. However, our history is largely state-centered, there is no social history here. As a result, in the history of 1971, we see politicians, military experts, warriors, bureaucrats, journalists, and expatriate leaders not ordinary people, not society.

Our historians are also part of this circle. That is why this has become the mainstream. There is a history of the state, and there is also controversy about it. But there is no history of society, because society is not a partner in the sharing of state power. Therefore, there is no 'public' (people) in that history. Therefore, there is no public interest in this history.

9

Many documents have been lost, destroyed, many documents, including Indo-Pakistani documents, will never be available so as a result, our state history will remain incomplete. But the controversy over it will continue, because the basis of this controversy is not history, but political expediency.

The big crisis in the field of social history is that a large part of the people who could bear witness are now dead. The memories of the rest have also almost gone to the grave. In addition, there are various pressures. Therefore, it has become impossible to learn adequately about 1971. Some individuals may do something on their own initiative, but unfortunately, we have largely been reduced to a population that does not know much about its own history. What's even ironic is that it doesn't seem to be bothering anyone.