It's common to find slogans stating that 1971 was kicked off by 1952. Many books refer to this and in the public imagination this is common. Most resistance to the Pakistan state is counted from that day as guns were fired and students and the public were killed. And Bengalis began the journey to a state of their own.

In terms of counting all the elements that make up a public "myth" that pushes forward a collective symbol of resistance, February 1952 fulfills all the criteria. Politicians pump this idea so it obviously catches the public mind. By mixing politics with cultural symbols and political imagery, few movements anywhere it's both diverse and complete.

Making the Muslim a Bengali?

The other is of course the semiotics of political nationalism. The state or sub-state officially was East Pakistan which was a product of the "Two Nation Theory" of M. A. Jinnah and Muslim League. It meant Hindus and Muslims were two "Nations" and therefore ultimately raised the issue of separate states leading to the politics of state making based on religious identity or Muslim nationalism. This is what began under British rule and led to 1947. And 1952 was a correction of that "nationalism" and everyone who mattered switched from a "Muslim" to a "Bengali". That's how the political imagination was framed.

The February argument is one of transition justification and realization. It's assumed that (East) Pakistan had a Muslim identity which after 1952 became or assumed a Bengali identity and the 1971 war was fought on the basis of that nationalism.

It's the common logic used by the simple linear narratives that ignores the historical facts and process that preceded it and the events that shaped the politics that ultimately led to 1971. The war of 1971 was the final stage of a movement that began long back perhaps as far back as in 1905 when the "East Bengal" sub-state came into being and from which grew the movement that ultimately led to the inevitable demand for a geography of the denied, those living in the margins of Bengal.

A custodial battle for History

Bengal was not a monolithic zone in any aspects before British colonialism arrived. The ruling class were Muslim Turko-Afghans of a decaying feudal class that had political but little economic power. They were considered outsiders by most of the rest of the people and they themselves were a non-socially interacting community for many reasons.

The middle class were mostly locals with trade often in West Indian Marwari and related clans with local Bengalis also found though not many. The lower and mid- level official and non-official bureaucracy was educated enough to do the job and largely constituted the Bengali middle class from the Hindu community. The Bengali Muslim middle class didn't exist. There were also a few local landlords but the state power was not shared by the Turko-Afghan clans, to a large extent an external people's state.

The rest of the overwhelming majority were peasants who lived under a variety of oppressions though less than under the later colonial era. They were split between Muslims and Hindus who were both subservient to religious leaderships and other networks of the rural kinds. As history shows the linkage amongst various classes played a significant role in the construction of political history under colonialism later.

Based on the above equation, later history was played out including what is generally described as "nationalism" or the so- called identity-based politics. In dominant narratives, people appear to switch their "national" identities as it suits political narratives of historians.

It's more accurate and practical to recognize that everyone carries several identities and these are cultural in nature and depending on historical conditions they act accordingly by pushing one or the other. The biggest pusher of history is not cultural Identity but socio-economic conditions.

However, the cluster of identities which leads to societal promotion of State aspiration are historical so that is what motivates society And state making are "historical" identities not based on accidental belonging to a cultural or ethnic group but a common historical experience, common objectives, common allies and a common historical enemy of a cluster held together by socio-economic denial.

Neither Bangladesh nor India or Pakistan can be explained comprehensively by using cultural markers like religion or language. What has held together each cluster or group of cultures is a shared historical experience.

Partition of Bengal 1905

East Bengal, the marginalized part of Bengal dominated by the Muslims both aspirant middle class and impoverished peasants supported the Partition of Bengal of 1905). This was a decision based on economic advantage seeking. The dominant Hindu middle class and the impoverished peasantry, who were far less politically involved as the Hindu middle class ignored them, also opposed it.

But the opposition to 1905 was led by the Swadeshi movement which was both middle- and upper-class Kolkata Hindu community driven. It was not a cultural identity-based politics but about the socio-economic control including landlordism they had and felt was threatened by 1905. The Hindu peasantry were not as involved in political activism because its middle class were often the landlords under whom they were not happy.

Hence the support to and opposition to 1905 sprung from aspiration to economically benefit or defend themselves from threats to existing benefits enjoyed by the other group. Bengal was home to both but the history of advantages by both was not a common one. So, in effect there was a common geography but not a shared history.

Politics of Elections and the Lahore Resolution; 1937 to 1946

After the first election in 1937, two Muslim led parties -Bengal Muslim League and Krishak Proja Party (KPP) won majority of the seats under the Separate electoral system in which most seats were reserved in proportion to the size of the Muslim and Hindu population. KPP tried to form a coalition government with Bengal Congress but its central command was not interested so BML-KPP formed the first government. It's this combo that went to Lahore in 1940 and was part of the first independent state making proposal known as the Lahore Resolution. It proposed two "independent states" of the Muslim majority zones of India roughly equivalent to what is now East and West Pakistan. It's this proposal that ultimately transpired into what is current Bangladesh.

Between 1940 and 1946 Bengal Muslim League carried on political mobilization around the idea of an independent state. Several organizations were exclusively devoted to this cause. After the election of 1946 in which BML swept to power as the sole party of the majority population, the prospect of an independent state seemed near as the British had already declared their intent post WW 2.

However, this "independent state" movement was dealt a severe blow when All India ML under Jinnah of which BML was a component met at Delhi where the Lahore Resolution was amended and a single state of Pakistan was proposed. Several BML leaders opposed but the amended resolution was passed.

United Bengal Movement and partition of Bengal 1947

BML leaders returned to Bengal and immediately began a new campaign for a "United Bengal" jointly with Bengal Congress. What is fascinating is that M.A. Jinnah of AIML who had cancelled/amended the Lahore Resolution for Pakistan now supported the UB movement of the Bengalis. The first united or single state proposal of Bengalis, a product of "Bengali" nationalism was supported by the arch "Muslim" nationalism which one may say is in complete conflict of nationalist principles so to speak.

But the most ironic part was that West Bengalis didn't exactly support it and central Congress opposed it and ultimately Bengal Congress proposed the Partition of Bengal in 1947 in a complete rebuttal of "nationalist" identity politics. Thus, the concept of Bengali or Muslim identity is a very shaky one going by this region's history.

1947-1952: background to a longer journey to 1971

Bengal Muslim League was in opposition to the Central Muslim league so the politics of continuity went on. Pakistan became a state in August 1947 and even before that secret group of activists were already planning a new state.

By late 1947 protest against Central Pakistan rule had grown strong and rallies and meetings were held in Dhaka. Meanwhile a single state language -Urdu- was proposed by central Pakistan and protests grew immediately. For one thing, entrance into central civil service exams was about to be severely limited for the educated youth of East Pakistan, this time the same cluster, Bengali Muslims. By 1948 -49, various organizations had sprung up to promote Bengali language activism just as organizations had done to promote independent Bengal between 1940 and 1946.

In 1949 Bengal Muslim League became Awami Muslim League under the leadership of Maulana Bhashani and almost the entire political organization changed its signboard and began a new journey. The same people, the same set of identities and the same anger against being marginalized once more rose in politics.

The movement against suppression of East Pakistan was led by the same middle class which had supported 1905 and 1940 and 1946 hoping for gains and later in 1911 and 1947 were disappointed. That is why they wanted a new state where the class that led politics in the region, the education driven job seeking middle class would flourish. Language helps gain jobs and is not an issue of the peasantry.

The legacy of 1905- 1940-1952 -1971

1952 was a critical event but the struggle for a new state began long back. It was a half state in 1905 which was killed in 1911. Hope was raised again in 1940 but received a hit in 1946 but developed a new frame in UBM in 1946. But that too could not be sustained and in 1947 was dashed. In terms of political continuity this process went on and for every party involved the key was the Lahore Resolution of 1940. Whether the many Lahore resolution implementation committees that began in 1948 and continued till 1971, the key issue was the same.

1952 was part of the process but no historical evidence suggests it's the trigger. It's always the same region, same people and same aspiration. The language they spoke didn't matter in 1947 and the faith most practiced didn't in 1971 either. The only identity is that of the socio-economic identity of human aspiration.