From: kazi@dobie.cis.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi)
Subject: Re: The word "liberation"
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:10:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.172138.2052@ultb.isc.rit.edu> kas5213@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>The word "liberation" has been bothering me for the past couple of years. It
>seems to me this word does not describe the War of '71 properly.
>We were the majority in 1971, we did not get "liberated", we simply separated
>ourselves from Pakistan. The Webster Dictionary defines "liberate" as "to set
>free, as from bondage". I personally take great offense when people tell me
>that we were "liberated". 
>					ADNAN SIDDIKY
>
>Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are mine and mine only. 
>


         lib-er-ate: tr. v. 1. To set free, as from opressions, confinement, 
                     or foreign control.

                     (The American Heritage Dictionary. 2nd Edition)

         lib-er-ate: vt. 1. To set at liberty : FREE;specific : to free 
                     (as a country) from domination by a foreign power.
 
                     (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. 1989)

Given the definition of the word liberation, I would say Bangladesh was
liberated in 1971. We were under the bondage of a foreign country, we 
were opressed, and hence the War of '71 which set us free WAS a Liberation
War. I have no problems with such an appelation. I have more of a problem
with the phrases "we were liberated" or "we got liberated". Semantically
well-formed, but the true spirit is lost unless we use the phrase "We
liberated ourselves". 

Like Wasif Sattar, I am not at all enamoured with the oft-used term "gondogol"
that a lot of people use to describe the events of 1971. The word abases the
spirit of 1971. It's equivalent to describing the Holocaust as the killing of
some Jews. I can understand the reason the word was used in 1971. For most
people it was a safe way to describe publicly  the events unfolding around them. 
You wouldn't want to use terms like "shadhinota" and "muktijudhho" and end up
being rounded up by rajakars. We are liberated now. I see no reason why peoople
still need to use that word. It's a pity.

Since we are on this thread, here's an interesting but little known fact:

On the airport dias which was set up to receive Sheikh Mujib, (on his truimphant
return to freedom and free Bangladesh in 1972), one of the first words that
Sheikh Mujib uttered were to the then Prime Minsister Tajul Islam. He said,
"A tomrA ki korlay? Desh takey bhengay dilay?" [What have you done? You broke
up the country?]. This is based on a first hand account from someone who was
standing next to Sheikh Mujib at that time. I have no doubts as to the
veracity of the quote; though the actual wordings might have been slightly
different.

What is the implication of the quote? I don't think his intention was the
creation of an independance Bangladesh. I believe he would have been quite
satisfied to work within the framework of a federated Pakistan, that was
spelled out in AL`s 6-point program. The high degree of autonomy that was
inherent in that plan would have sufficed for him. 

But events unfolded too quickly. Even though Sheikh Mujib and the Awami League
would have balked at outright secession (inspite of the speeches; "Ebarer
shongram, shadhinotar shongram"), to many, autonomy was one step shy from
the actual goal. This was especially true of the students, who would stop
at nothing but outright independance. 

But after the terror of the night of March 25, all such discussion is moot.
Too much has happened to ever consider the possibility that there is any path 
other than outright independence. I presume the 10 month long incarceration
of Mujib prevented him from realizing the enormity of the genocide and
destruction inflicted on us. Had he known, the words would never have been
uttered.

- Zunaid Kazi
  kazi@cis.udel.edu