By Dr. Sheikh Akram Ali
History is useful to a nation only when it is allowed to speak without political supervision. For leaders who genuinely want to understand their country and prepare it for the future, the past can offer a difficult but necessary guide. But history loses that value when historians become servants of political parties, governments or personal ambition. A serious national history must be based on evidence, open inquiry and a willingness to acknowledge uncomfortable truths, whoever they implicate.
Bangladesh has struggled with this principle since its creation in 1971. Political power has repeatedly shaped the way the country remembers its past, leaving important parts of its history contested, neglected or reduced to competing political narratives. Historians have often worked in an environment where professional advancement and political allegiance could influence scholarship. Some became closely associated with ruling parties, while others avoided politically sensitive subjects altogether. The result has been a fragmented understanding of Bangladesh’s past.
This problem is particularly serious because the history of Bangladesh did not begin in 1971. The country’s political, cultural and social inheritance stretches across centuries. The history of Bengal is inseparable from the wider history of South Asia, including the centuries of Muslim rule, the Mughal period, the rise of European colonial power, the resistance to British rule and the political struggle that eventually produced Pakistan and, later, Bangladesh.
Those chapters deserve neither romanticisation nor erasure. Muslim rulers should not be judged collectively through the narrow political categories of the present, just as their achievements should not be turned into an uncritical celebration. Their record should be examined through evidence, including their administrative policies, cultural contributions, economic institutions, relations with different communities and failures. The same standard must apply to Hindu, Muslim, British, nationalist and secular political movements. History becomes meaningful only when it is prepared to judge everyone by the same measure.
The events of 712, 1192, 1204 and 1757 remain important milestones in the history of the region. Muhammad bin Qasim’s arrival in Sindh, Muhammad Ghori’s victory at the Second Battle of Tarain, Bakhtiyar Khalji’s conquest of Bengal and the Battle of Plassey all contributed to political transformations whose consequences continued for generations. But their significance should be studied in their full historical context rather than presented simply as heroic or villainous episodes.
The same applies to the Pakistan Movement. The political arguments surrounding Muslim political identity, the Two-Nation Theory and the creation of Pakistan are fundamental to understanding how the political geography of South Asia changed. Yet Bangladesh’s emergence cannot be explained by one theory or one political actor alone. The failures of the Pakistani state, the political and economic grievances of East Pakistan, the language question, the struggle for autonomy, military repression, the leadership of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the calculations of India and the wider international environment all formed part of a complicated chain of events.
A mature national history should be capable of holding these truths together. There is also value in examining the intellectual climate of the Pakistan period without reducing it to a single political narrative. Historians and academics in East Pakistan produced important scholarship despite the political tensions of the time. Figures such as A.B.M. Habibullah, Abdul Karim, Mamtazur Rahman Tarafdar and others contributed to historical research and academic institutions. Some scholars held political positions opposed to the government of the day, demonstrating that intellectual life could not simply be reduced to the preferences of those in power.
At the same time, the political system itself carried deep contradictions. The failure to establish a durable democratic culture, military rule, economic disparities between the two wings and the mishandling of political demands progressively weakened the federation. The authoritarianism of the Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan periods, together with the political crisis surrounding the 1970 election and the military operation of 1971, helped turn a constitutional dispute into catastrophe.
India’s intervention was an important factor in the final stages of the conflict, but attributing the birth of Bangladesh exclusively to an external conspiracy would be as inadequate as ignoring India’s role altogether. Bangladesh emerged from a combination of domestic grievances, political failures, popular mobilization, military violence and Indian military and diplomatic support. A credible history must examine all of these forces rather than select only those that reinforce an existing political position.
The decades after independence require the same intellectual honesty. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman remains one of the central figures in Bangladesh’s history, but his legacy should be assessed through both his contribution to independence and the failures of his administration. Ziaur Rahman, Hussain Muhammad Ershad and Khaleda Zia likewise deserve examination based on their policies, achievements, mistakes and political consequences. None should be turned into either a flawless hero or an uncomplicated villain.
(The author served as a history instructor and Faculty Head at the Bangladesh Military Academy (BMA) and has been working as a Professor of Law at a private university for the past twenty years. He can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com)
