Dr. Tariq Rahman
E K U S H E
Ekushe is the 21st of February which is celebrated as the anniversary of the day when some students of Dhaka University clashed with the police and lost their lives. This is called the Shaheed day and today is the 50th anniversary of this day. It is also declared as the International Mother Language Day and is of significance for all those who demand language rights. Indeed, lack of such rights leads to bitterness and increases ethnic consciousness as my own research and that of other people reveals.
I first heard of Ekushe a long time back and wanted to know more about it when I started doing research for my book Language and Politics in Pakistan (OUP, 1996). At that time I found almost no details of Ekushe---the events of 21 February 1952 which eventually contributed to the development of Bengali nationalism and finally the emergence of Bangladesh as a separate country in 1971. Having combed the libraries I decided to go the Dhaka for my research. In Dhaka I found a lot of material and interviewed many people which enabled me to reconstruct the events of that historic day. To cut a long story short, the students of Dhaka university had been resenting the perceived domination of West Pakistanis since 1948. This was expressed in 1948 and again in 1952 through the symbol of language. Thus, in February 1952 students were taking out processions demanding Bengali as one of the national languages of Pakistan. The district administration imposed Section 144 and all night the students sat down and planned what to do. An old men, now bleary-eyed, told me in 1984 when I interviewed him that finally they decided to be defiant. The atmosphere was electrified and even after decades I felt the vivid force of that moment in the eyes of my informant. Anyway the next day was the 21st of February.
On this day, students gathered on the campus of Dhaka University and, after some discussion, decided to defy Section 144. They started to come out in batches of four and five. Accounts of what happened after this vary.
The official version, given in a government circular and in the statement of the Chief Minister, Nurul Amin on the floor of the provincial legislature was that the students used ‘filthy language’ to policemen, attached vehicles, and forced shopkeepers to close their shops. It also stated that they threw brickbats at the police, injuring some policemen. The District Magistrate finally ordered the police to open fire. Even then, the crowd did not disperse but attacked the police. Thereupon, ‘some more rounds were fired’, killing one and injuring nine persons. Two of the injured died later.
However, in an inquiry held by Justice Ellis of the Dhaka High Court into the firing, the police said that it had used 39 gas grenades and 72 tear-gas shells, and fired 27 rounds, which had led to ‘nine casualties of whom three were students and six outsiders’. Tajuddin Ahmad wrote in his diary of 21 February that there had been ‘4 spot deaths of bullets. 30 injured. 62 in jails’. But he had not actually witnessed the deaths. Other accounts, purporting to be those of eyewitnesses, are given in detail by Bashir al-Helal in his huge tome upon the subject.
The firing did not cow down the protestors. The immediate reaction was, indeed, the opposite. The protest grew stronger and more bitter as several sources revealed. Moreover, many people from the Muslim League or of conservative, pro-Muslim League views also became alienated from the ruling elite. For instance, Abdul Kalam Shamsuddin, who was working in the office of the Azad when he received the news, resigned his membership of the Legislative Assembly immediately.
The same evening, the Legislative Assembly held one of the stormiest sessions of its life. Nurul Amin defended the government, while Dhirendranath Datta, Maulana Turkabagish, Khairat Hosain and Shamsuddin Ahmad opposed it vociferously. The students held a condolence meeting at which Abdul Kalam Shamsuddin delivered a speech, and a monument (shaheed minar) was hurriedly erected in honour of the martyred victims. The students again clashed with the police who demolished their minar. Meanwhile, within the Assembly, Nurul Amin tried to limit the damage by moving the following motion:
This Assembly recommends to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan that Bengali be one of the state languages of Pakistan.
But this motion came too late to pacify the students. They wanted Nurul Amin’s insensitive administration to come to an end. Now their favourite slogan was:
Khuni Nurul Amin Bichar Chai
Khuner Bangla Khun Chai
(We want justice, i.e vengeance against bloody Nurul Amin. We want blood for Bengali blood)
The next few days brought violence and agitation. The state’s coercive power was used against the protestors again and again. For their part, the protestors too went to the extreme: government installations were stoned and offices of the Morning News, which had always opposed Bengali, were burnt. The government responded by arresting prominent anti-government politicians and intellectuals.
The official point of view of the ruling elite and of West Pakistanis in general was so different from that of the Bengalis that they failed to understand the language movement. They asserted that the movement was inspired by communists, Hindus, and Indian agents. Abdul Haq (Baba-e-Urdu) declared that the Bhasha Ondolan was inspired by a few ‘self-seeking gentlemen’, while another writer called them ‘traitors to Islam and the enemies of our nation’. Nurul Amin expressed similar views in detail in the Provincial Legislature on 24 March 1952. He asserted that the language movement was an attempt to overthrow the government and ‘deal a blow at the very security of Pakistan’. He also claimed that it was organized by the communists, who claimed to have made it into a mass movement. Such a claim was, indeed, made by Swadhinata, a Calcutta newspaper, in its issue of 11 March 1952. It is also true that the Action Committee of the Bhasha Ondolan had four communist (Youth League) members out of twelve. Moreover, many communists had become teachers and could presumably influence young people, though probably more were lawyers. Thus, the ideas of the leftists did inspire Bengali nationalism. But the Communist Party itself was weak and remained in an embattled position because it was suppressed by the government. It operated mainly through other organizations, such as the National Awami Party (NAP) and the Students Union. The ideas which caught the imagination of the intelligentsia as well as the masses were those that related to the distribution of power and wealth. If the people had not been made to feel cheated, exploited, and marginalized, it is arguable that these ideas would have had less appeal for them. As it happended, the government continued to be manifestly unjust, making people more and more receptive to radical ideas. Hence, the official conspiracy theory still widely believed in Pakistan that the communits cleverly manipulated most of the Bengalis---is simplistic and uninformed.
This day, Ekushe as it is called, has become a barometer of the political climate of Bangladesh. During Ayub Khan’s days whenever the Bengalis were feeling resentful of Ayub’s unjust economic or cultural policies, the number of people present in the rallies of 21 February swelled up significantly.
But why is EKUSHE relevant today? It is, and will remain, relevant for Bangladesh because it laid the foundations of Bangladeshi identity. It is relevant for Pakistan because it teaches us the lesson that identity can change because of new political and economic realities. The Bengalis emphasized their Muslim identity when they feared being dominated by the Hindus. They joined the Muslim League and helped create Pakistan. However, when they felt dominated by the West Pakistani elite they emphasized their Bengali identity of which language and culture were crucial markers. In both cases they did not want to be dominated; they did not want to be exploited; they did not want to be looked down upon; they did not want to be deprived of good jobs and wealth and power. If our ruling elite had been wise it would have agreed to treat them justly and save Pakistan. As it is, it was not. The question now is whether the power elite has learned the lesson that if it wants to eliminate the ethnic threat then it must share wealth and power justly? The point is to give every community a stake in Pakistan. Justice not suppression can keep multilingual and multiethnic states intact---this is what EKUSHE teaches us!