From: hossain@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Moazzem)
Subject: Re: The word "liberation"
Organization: Western Michigan Univ. Comp. Sci. Dept.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:17:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.185551.14137@udel.edu> kazi@dobie.cis.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.175912.7198@sol.cs.wmich.edu> hossain@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Moazzem) writes:
>
>This was a private comment made by the Bangobondhu which was overheard by
>this highly placed official who was standing next to him. This was never
>publicised, and this same "highly placed official" only told this story
>to a few members of his family/friends. I have no reason to doubt the
>veracity of his story; but since I have no proof of the quote other than
>having heard it first hand from that offcial, I can only say is that what
>I have written is a conjecture based on a statement of some dubious nature. :)
>I hope this satisfies most people.
>
In that case, I would say we should drop this part from the discussion.

>>>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. 
>>>
>>First of I would like to see the actual quote and its proper reference.
>
>That is something I am unfortunately unable to do.
>
>>I do not agree with your hypothesis. You are right, the 6-point movement 
>>did not have any word on liberation. I don't think starting the movement right
>>from the beginning with liberation would have been a good political movement.
>>Although the then movement started with the autonomy and then 
>>Pakistan government started the war, Pakistan govt. was trying to display 
>>to the whole world that it was a civil unrest that was started by few 
>>"terrorists" of then east pakistan. Now we would have been real terrorists!
>>From that point, I would give an A to then AL leaders for their vision.
>
>I doubt whether this was a visionary act by the Awami League. While there
>was always a concurrent nascent nationalism running in Bangladesh's body
>politic while under Pakistan's yoke, I do not think that the AL's main
>intention when they started out the whole movement was outright independence.
>I believe autonomy was the initial goal, but succeeding events made absolute
>independence the only acceptable goal. 
>
Well, whether that was a visionary act by Awami League or not can be debated 
either way. However, the 6-point movement was the main reason for the 
succeeding events.

>>I would say, it was a liberation movement started with the 6-point movement.
>
>I agree. The 6-point movement, and prior to that anti-Ayub, and the Bangla
>Bhasha Andolon, were all precursors to the ultimate movement that gave us
>our independence. The question I am asking is, did Awami League have the
>independence of Bangladesh in bind when they formulated the 6-point plan?
>Somehow, I do not think so. 
>
I would say yes. One might ask what if then Pakistan government would have agreed on the
autonomy or given the power to the elected AL. Given Pakistan's interest and 
intention that would never happen and it did not. The only interest of Pakistan
on Bangladesh was its economy. At one point (I do not recall the date),
Yahya Khan said "we are only interested in the land on East Pakistan, not the 
people". Agreeing on the 6-point would have been giving up all the interest and 
they did not. 6-point movement was made to happen that. 

In the same context, let me ask another question. Do you think that 
liberation should have the direct agenda of that movement from the very beginning?

>
>-- Zunaid
>

---Moazzem