By Md. Kamal Uddin
\nHistory of Independence versus the Politics of State Power The history of human civilization is, in many ways, the history of freedom. Behind the existence of every nation and every state lies a long and often painful struggle marked by sacrifice, bloodshed, resilience, and collective determination. No country has achieved independence overnight. Political movements, cultural awakening, public mobilization, and visionary leadership have all played crucial roles in shaping the path to freedom. At the center of these historic struggles have stood political parties and organizations that transformed popular aspirations into organized political force. They championed the causes of language, rights, dignity, and self-determination. Their leaders endured imprisonment, exile, persecution, and, in many cases, paid the ultimate price for the aspirations of their people. Yet history also contains a less-discussed paradox: some political parties that led national liberation movements and played decisive roles in state formation were later banned, suppressed, or subjected to attempts at political eradication. It is one of history\u2019s profound ironies that a party may help create a state, only to find itself declared undesirable by that same state at a later stage. Such situations have emerged under military regimes, revolutionary governments, ideological conflicts, and political vendettas. South Africa provides one of the most notable examples. The African National Congress (ANC), the principal force behind the struggle against apartheid, was banned in 1960. The apartheid regime believed that legal restrictions, administrative measures, and security forces could permanently suppress the movement. History proved otherwise. Three decades later, the ANC led South Africa\u2019s democratic transition, and Nelson Mandela became the country\u2019s first democratically elected president. The apartheid government also enacted the Prohibition of Political Interference Act in 1968, ostensibly as an administrative measure but fundamentally aimed at weakening political opposition. Multi-racial political organizations were effectively neutralized, and the Liberal Party of South Africa was forced to dissolve. Today, that legislation is widely regarded as discriminatory and anti-democratic, while those who were suppressed are remembered with honor. Myanmar offers a similar lesson. The National League for Democracy (NLD), despite being repeatedly targeted by military authorities, continues to occupy a respected place in the country\u2019s democratic history. State power may weaken organizations, but it cannot erase them from public memory. The experiences of Algeria, Zimbabwe, Angola, Mozambique, and numerous other African nations reveal a recurring pattern. After independence, tensions often emerged between the ideals of liberation movements and the realities of governing a state. Many liberation organizations faced criticism once in power, yet their contributions to national independence were never erased from history. A fundamental truth emerges from these experiences: state power is temporary, while history endures. Governments may remain in office for five, ten, or even twenty years, but a nation\u2019s history survives for generations. Historians therefore often distinguish between two separate evaluations of a political party. The first concerns its contemporary political conduct; the second concerns its contribution to the nation\u2019s historical development. A party may face criticism, legal challenges, or even official restrictions. However, if it played a defining role in achieving national independence, democracy, or liberation, that contribution becomes an enduring part of history.
\nHistory cannot be rewritten through court verdicts alone. It cannot be altered by government gazettes or administrative decrees. Organizations may be banned, but memories, sacrifices, and collective struggles cannot be outlawed. Bangladesh, the Awami League, and the Debate over Political Prohibition Bangladesh\u2019s current political reality invites reflection through this broader historical lens. The country itself emerged through a political movement, a mass uprising, and a war of liberation. Consequently, debates surrounding the relationship between historical legacy and contemporary political developments are both inevitable and significant. The history of Bangladesh\u2019s independence is deeply intertwined with the Awami League. Since its establishment in 1949, the party gradually became the principal political vehicle for the aspirations of the Bengali people of East Pakistan. Its role in the Language Movement, the United Front election, the autonomy movement, the Six-Point Program, the anti-Agartala Conspiracy Case movement, the Mass Uprising of 1969, and the electoral victory of 1970 positioned it at the forefront of the struggle for self-determination. Most importantly, during the Liberation War of 1971, the leadership of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the political role of the Awami League became integral components of Bangladesh\u2019s journey to independence. The formation of the government-in-exile, efforts to build international support, and the political coordination of the liberation struggle remain recognized chapters in the nation\u2019s history.
\nHowever, Bangladesh\u2019s post-independence political trajectory has never followed a straight line. Military rule, coups, counter-coups, mass movements, and successive changes in government have repeatedly reshaped the country\u2019s political landscape. Throughout this journey, the Awami League has experienced both periods of power and extended periods in opposition. It has received praise as well as intense criticism. In recent years, controversies surrounding electoral processes, opposition rights, freedom of expression, human rights, and the use of state institutions have generated significant debate regarding the party\u2019s governance. Opposition groups, human rights organizations, and various observers have raised concerns and allegations. Conversely, supporters have highlighted achievements in economic growth, infrastructure development, digital transformation, and social progress.
\nAgainst this backdrop, the prohibition of the Awami League\u2019s political activities marks a significant and unprecedented chapter in Bangladesh\u2019s political history. The government maintains that the decision is rooted in legal and judicial considerations, while the party\u2019s supporters argue that it is fundamentally political in nature. This raises an important historical question: should a political party\u2019s contemporary conduct and its historical contribution to national independence be evaluated in the same way? Global experience suggests that these two dimensions should be distinguished. A political party may make mistakes in governance, face criticism, or be held legally accountable. Yet if it played a decisive role in achieving national independence, that contribution remains part of the historical record. The ANC was once banned, but its role in ending apartheid remains unquestioned. Myanmar\u2019s NLD has faced severe repression, yet its place in the struggle for democracy remains intact. Similar examples can be found across the world, where political realities changed but the historical significance of liberation movements endured.
\nThe same principle applies to Bangladesh. Courts may adjudicate legal matters. Governments may adopt administrative measures. Political actors may advance competing narratives. Ultimately, however, history\u2019s judgment is shaped by time, scholarship, evidence, and collective memory. A nation\u2019s history belongs neither to a single individual nor to a single political party. At the same time, the contributions of major political forces cannot simply be erased from that history. This is the enduring strength of history: it eventually rises above partisan divisions and preserves what is historically significant.
\nBangladesh today stands at a critical juncture. Current political decisions, judicial processes, and future democratic developments will all become subjects of historical assessment. Future historians will not only examine the fact of political prohibition but also the circumstances, motivations, consequences, and long-term implications surrounding it.
\nThe lesson of history is therefore clear: political parties can be banned, their activities can be restricted, and their organizational structures can be weakened. But history itself cannot be prohibited. Those who contributed to a nation\u2019s struggle for freedom and identity ultimately retain their place in the historical narrative. Governments change, laws evolve, and political maps are redrawn. Yet history continues on its own course, ultimately determining who merely possessed temporary power and who became a lasting part of a nation\u2019s collective memory.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
By Md. Kamal Uddin History of Independence versus the Politics of State Power The history of human civilization is, in many ways, the history of freedom. Behind the existence of every nation and every state lies a long and often painful struggle marked by sacrifice, bloodshed, resilience, and collective determination. No country has achieved independence […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":16628,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[54],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16625","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-bangladesh"],"yoast_head":"\n