What's new

General Zia and Our History

eastwatch

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
7,503
Reaction score
1
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Japan
General Zia . . . and our history | The Daily Star

WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2013
GROUND REALITIES
General Zia . . . and our history
SYED BADRUL AHSAN

Ziaur Rahman’s moment of glory came on the evening of March 27, 1971. At a time of intense darkness in the life of the Bengali nation, the young major, having repudiated the Pakistan army of which he had been a loyal officer since joining it in the 1950s, persuaded the country that there was light at the end of the tunnel.

In the name of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, he proclaimed to the world that the people of Bangladesh were a free nation, that to dub the majority segment of the population of Pakistan was ‘a cruel joke’ which ought to ‘befool none,’ that indeed the world’s powerful nations should be according recognition to a nation struggling to be born out of calamitous darkness.

There is little question that Ziaur Rahman’s place in history was assured through that coruscating declaration of Bengali political intent. In the nine months of war that followed, he became an inevitable part of the process of the guerrilla struggle against Pakistan. In free Bangladesh, as deputy chief of army staff, he was careful to maintain professionalism in the way he performed his duties.

His patriotism was never in doubt. Neither was his loyalty to the Father of the Nation, whom he extolled in an article for a Bangla journal. He hardly ever smiled. He was one of those who rarely fraternised with his fellow officers or with others. Discipline was the first word which came to mind when Zia was the object of study.

The Zia character, all these years after his assassination on May 30, 1981, remains a complex one. And it does because of the acts he undertook in the five or so years in which he wielded authority as Bangladesh’s first military ruler. He certainly did not bring the army to power.

Khondokar Moshtaque and his assassin majors and colonels did. And then Khaled Musharraf’s bid to restore political and military discipline collapsed in a matter of days. You could argue that Zia’s rise to power was a fortuitous circumstance, a question of unintended consequences.

Had he not been freed by Colonel Taher and his suddenly radicalised band of soldiers in the early hours of November 7, 1975, Zia would have remained a footnote, like so many other footnotes, on the pages of Bangladesh’s tortured history. Had he chosen not to part ways with the principles of the War of Liberation, his reputation as a soldier would be on a scale that would arouse the envy of others.

History is all too often a study of riddles wrapped in enigmas couched in mystery. General Ziaur Rahman’s years in power were a study in the destabilisation of the state caused by individuals he was unable to put the leash on. Hundreds of soldiers as also airmen perished through the eighteen failed coup attempts made against him.

Troops loyal to the left-oriented Taher tried pushing him into circumstances where the army would undergo radical change. Zia knew he needed to emerge from Taher’s shadow in order to be his own man. That was all understandable. What was not was the precipitate, ruthless manner in which he disposed of the man who had caused the so-called sipahi-janata biplob. It was suddenly a harsh Zia who sent Taher to the gallows in July 1976.

There was somewhat a kind Zia only months before July 1976. Informed by Captain Nawazesh early on November 7, 1975 that Khaled Musharraf, Najmul Huda and ATM Haider, beaten in the power game, had taken refuge at second field artillery in Shere Banglanagar, Zia gave out the clear message: ‘Please see to it that they are not harmed.’ In the end, the three officers were killed, only minutes after Taher had left the room where they were in the captivity of soldiers they had thought were loyal to them.

For perhaps that rare moment in his life, there were tears in Zia’s eyes. The bodies of the three men had been shown to him. He was unable to act against their killers, for he was not yet in a position to bring the army under his full command.

If that was a compassionate Zia, there was that other side to him as well. Informed that Bangabandhu had been murdered, his response was almost flippant. There was the vice president to take charge, said he. In his years as the nation’s first military ruler, Zia never claimed that he had declared independence in March 1971.

On one occasion, he had some radio officials bring to him, at Bangabhavan, the audio tape of his March 27 speech from Kalurghat. In their presence, he heard his old speech no fewer than five times. When one of the officers, in clear sycophantic mood, suggested that all references to Bangabandhu could be edited out of the tape, Zia had a quick, brief reply: ‘History cannot be changed.’ He then walked out of the room.

But history did go through convulsions on Zia’s watch. Bangabandhu and the Mujibnagar leaders were airbrushed out of it; the Pakistan army was never mentioned in the state’s recapitulation of the 1971 war; the Indemnity Ordinance, designed to protect the August 15 killers from prosecution, was inserted into the constitution; and many of Bangabandhu’s assassins were sent off on diplomatic assignments abroad.

Zia turned the country away from Baksal and then, curiously, replaced it with politics that left old, unrepentant collaborators of Pakistan free to re-emerge into sunlight. As he struggled to restore order in the army, he failed to note that it was his wartime soldier friends who were dying one by one, that officers repatriated from Pakistan were in the ascendant.

In the end, Zia died the way others had died before him. Then General Manzoor died. Within months, Mohsenuddin was executed. The wartime generation of brave soldiers was gone within a decade of liberation.

*General Ziaur Rahman: freedom fighter, military ruler and president of Bangladesh. He was assassinated on May 30, 1981.
 
. .
With all his deficiencies Zia was the best president Bangladesh ever had. He was a great administrator, dreamer but wasn't a great politician+leader like Sheikh Mujib.

I dont agree. Gen Zia had dreams of being all powerful which is dangerous for any country. He politicized the Bangladesh army, crushed the opposition and created sympathy for them.

Destroyed bangladesh's institutions and did not devolve powers which is what a developing country needs.
 
.
I dont agree. Gen Zia had dreams of being all powerful which is dangerous for any country. He politicized the Bangladesh army, crushed the opposition and created sympathy for them.

Destroyed bangladesh's institutions and did not devolve powers which is what a developing country needs.

Are you talking about Gen. Ziaul Haq or Gen. Ziaur Rahman? If Ziaur Rahman than you are wrong. Ziaur Rahman saved the country from the ruination of the Mujib years. Under Zia the country and economy recovered and democracy was restored. Zia may have been ruthless but he got the job done in the national interest.
 
.
Are you talking about Gen. Ziaul Haq or Gen. Ziaur Rahman? If Ziaur Rahman than you are wrong. Ziaur Rahman saved the country from the ruination of the Mujib years. Under Zia the country and economy recovered and democracy was restored. Zia may have been ruthless but he got the job done in the national interest.

Off course Gen Zia of Bangladesh.

And Why do assume that anyone who was against Zia has to be an Awami League supporter?

Stand by every word I said about Gen Zia of Bangladesh.
 
.
I dont agree. Gen Zia had dreams of being all powerful which is dangerous for any country. He politicized the Bangladesh army, crushed the opposition and created sympathy for them.

Destroyed bangladesh's institutions and did not devolve powers which is what a developing country needs.

Lol at you know nothing yet big talk. Please do some study on ZIA then give your opinion. MBI Munshi said it in a nutshell and thats the truth. I don't support many of his decisions but yet he was the savior at that time.
 
.
If he was so good a leader, why there were so many coups against him in just 5 years of his rule and why did he has to execute thousands of army personnel?

Don't bother to reply if you think RAW staged all those coups.
 
.
If he was so good a leader, why there were so many coups against him in just 5 years of his rule and why did he has to execute thousands of army personnel?

Don't bother to reply if you think RAW staged all those coups.

cold war era was very different. there were coups after coups in identical muslim countries. . for example - in syria socialist hafez al asad used the popularity of naser for the coup .. but later neutralized nasserist officers. other muslim countries also suffered repeated coup attempt from officers loyal to socialism... like syria, similar thing happened in Bangladesh. colonel taher, a radical socialist tried to exploit zia's popularity and used officers loyal to zia to overthrow khaled musharraf ! zia was the next target obviously like hafez al asad did ( neutralized the previous regime with nasserists, then killed nasserists, then neutralized sócialist baath party leaders who were backing him and at the end killed 4 other military officer who were his friends , helped him in the coup ). taher had similar plan and followers in army. but at the end of the coup, zia took control and tried to re-establish multi-party democracy and punished every officers who tried to take power through coup. at the end he succumed to monjur a power hungry officer who was angry for his transfer from center to chittagong cant.
 
.
If he was so good a leader, why there were so many coups against him in just 5 years of his rule and why did he has to execute thousands of army personnel?

Don't bother to reply if you think RAW staged all those coups.

History of Bangladesh after independence was always in turmoil.neither mujibur nor his successors tried to build a strong nation,most of them tried to create an all powerful chain of command.Mujib created his own "Army" to protect himself and to crush all his opponents.strangely,that "Army" never even buzzed when he was killed.all the successors tried to do the same thing..so,everytime a new govt forms,some coup starts to dislodge it.
 
.
Personally I grew up in a Zia idolizing environment, I find him honest to the point but as mentioned ruthless and strict all at once,but he was a mare man after all,we not forget his flaws when we discuss his good side.
Worst decision he ever made - bringing back the hag which currently sucking us to death.
 
.
.
History of Bangladesh after independence was always in turmoil.neither mujibur nor his successors tried to build a strong nation,most of them tried to create an all powerful chain of command.Mujib created his own "Army" to protect himself and to crush all his opponents.strangely,that "Army" never even buzzed when he was killed.all the successors tried to do the same thing..so,everytime a new govt forms,some coup starts to dislodge it.

so you are saying bd members are right when they say bd is a country of traitors.. :chilli:
 
.
so you are saying bd members are right when they say bd is a country of traitors.. :chilli:

its no traitors,but Democracy doesn't always work everywhere..and small countries like BD,its only worse as whenever a political party get the power,they just want to suppress the opponent,even by using state power like Army.see,when BNP was in power,they used state power to bash Al.now as Al in power,they are bashing BNP(though I'm not telling everyone in the opposition is innocent).just repeating the history.
 
.
If he was so good a leader, why there were so many coups against him in just 5 years of his rule and why did he has to execute thousands of army personnel?

Don't bother to reply if you think RAW staged all those coups.
So many coups because everyone (specially having arms) considered themselves as the ruler of the country.Out of law.
Zia was ruthless and executed thousands. Thats why Bangladesh got a disciplined Armed Forces
 
.
Many are saying that Zia was ruthless and strict. Yes but he loved the country. Someone has to dirty his hands to purify the land. It was for the greater good.
Ofcourse since he was restoring democracy, he had to bring back the hag but is it really his fault that we, the people elect AL? i really don't think so.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom