Explore

Chapter 16- The Struggles for Democracy- Political Turmoil and Military Coups (1975–Present)

⁠

Chapter 16: The Struggles for Democracy: Political Turmoil and Military Coups (1975–Present)

Introduction

The political evolution of Bangladesh since its hard-won independence in 1971 presents a narrative replete with stark contrasts and persistent struggles. Emerging from the jubilant yet devastating nine-month Liberation War against Pakistan, the nation initially soared on the wings of newfound freedom, only to plummet into the depths of political assassination, recurrent military interventions, and a seemingly unending cycle of instability. This trajectory has been consistently marked by a tenacious, albeit often frustrating, pursuit of a stable and genuinely functioning democracy. Bangladesh was founded upon a constitutional commitment to the core principles of parliamentary democracy, secularism, nationalism, and social justice – ideals forged in the crucible of a brutal liberation struggle. However, the initial euphoria that accompanied independence was swiftly tempered by the daunting and multifaceted challenges of nation-building. The nascent state, ravaged by war, burdened by widespread poverty, and deeply scarred by social divisions, faced an immensely challenging path towards achieving lasting stability and sustainable prosperity.

The charismatic leadership of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the widely revered "Father of the Nation" (Bangabandhu), initially offered a beacon of hope and the promise of a unified and prosperous future for the newly independent nation. His powerful oratory, unwavering commitment to Bengali nationalism, and his pivotal role in leading the independence movement had earned him immense popular support and political legitimacy. Yet, his increasingly centralized style of governance, culminating in the highly controversial establishment of the one-party BAKSAL (Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League) system in 1975, gradually sowed the seeds of discontent, alienated key segments of society, and ultimately paved the way for a tragic series of events that would irrevocably alter the course of Bangladeshi history. The BAKSAL system, while presented by Mujib as a necessary measure to unify the nation and accelerate development, was widely perceived as a move towards authoritarianism, suppressing political opposition and curtailing fundamental freedoms.

The assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and most of his family on August 15, 1975, was far more than a mere change in government; it represented a violent and traumatic rupture that shattered the fragile foundations of Bangladesh's nascent democracy and ushered in an extended era of profound political instability. This heinous act, perpetrated by a faction within the armed forces, constituted a decisive break from the ideals of the Liberation War and a stark rejection of civilian supremacy, a principle considered fundamental to any functioning democratic system. The immediate aftermath of the assassination plunged the nation into a state of chaos and uncertainty. Martial law was swiftly imposed, civilian political institutions were dismantled, and a series of coups and counter-coups underscored the extreme fragility of the state and the ascendant dominance of the military in political affairs. This period marked the ominous beginning of a long and cyclical pattern of military intervention in Bangladeshi politics, a pattern that would profoundly shape the nation's political culture, severely impede the consolidation of democratic norms and institutions, and cast a long shadow over its future.

The subsequent regimes of General Ziaur Rahman and General H.M. Ershad, both of whom seized power through military coups, represent extended periods of military-backed authoritarian rule in Bangladesh. While these regimes exhibited certain differences in their styles of governance and their specific policy orientations, they shared a common and defining feature: the subordination of civilian political processes to military authority. Ziaur Rahman, initially presenting himself as an unwilling leader thrust into power by circumstance, gradually consolidated his control, established the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), and implemented a series of significant economic and political reforms. These reforms notably shifted the country away from its initial socialist leanings towards a more market-oriented economic approach. Ershad, building upon the foundations laid by Zia, further entrenched military influence in politics, established the Jatiya Party, and pursued an even more explicitly market-oriented economic policy agenda. While both regimes oversaw periods of relative stability and, at times, measurable economic growth, these advancements came at a significant cost: the suppression of fundamental democratic freedoms, the restriction of political pluralism, and the absence of accountable governance.

Despite the pervasive authoritarianism of these military regimes, the resilient spirit of democracy persisted within Bangladeshi society. Throughout the 1980s, pro-democracy movements, encompassing student organizations, civil society groups, and political parties, continually challenged military rule, often facing severe repression and operating under duress. These movements persistently advocated for a return to civilian governance, the restoration of fundamental rights, and the establishment of a genuinely democratic political order. The mass uprising of 1990, a culmination of years of sustained struggle and widespread popular discontent, finally forced Ershad's resignation and paved the way for a transition to parliamentary democracy. However, this transition, while representing a significant achievement and reflecting the unwavering will of the people, did not mark the definitive triumph of democracy or the end of political strife in Bangladesh.

The post-1990 era has been predominantly characterized by the intense and often acrimonious rivalry between the Awami League (AL), now led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's daughter, Sheikh Hasina, and the BNP, led by Ziaur Rahman's widow, Khaleda Zia. This enduring rivalry, deeply rooted in ideological differences, historical grievances, and personal animosities between the leaders, has profoundly shaped the contemporary political landscape of Bangladesh. Elections, ostensibly the cornerstone of democratic legitimacy, have frequently been marred by controversies, allegations of rigging, boycotts, and outbreaks of political violence, raising serious and persistent questions about the quality and depth of democratic consolidation in Bangladesh. The ongoing struggle between these two dominant political forces has often overshadowed critical national issues, hindered effective governance, and contributed to a pervasive sense of political instability that continues to challenge the nation's progress and its prospects for a stable democratic future.

This chapter provides a comprehensive and nuanced analysis of this turbulent period in Bangladesh's political history, spanning from 1975 to the present day. It examines the complex interplay of historical, political, economic, and social factors that have contributed to the nation's protracted and often arduous struggle for democracy. By analyzing the key events, figures, and political forces that have shaped this era, the chapter seeks to provide a deeper understanding of the challenges and complexities that continue to define Bangladesh's democratic trajectory. It argues that the legacy of military coups, political violence, and unresolved ideological cleavages has fundamentally shaped the contours of modern Bangladeshi democracy, creating a political culture that remains in a state of dynamic tension. This tension is characterized by a constant navigation between authoritarian tendencies and the persistent, yet often elusive, aspiration for genuine, stable, and resilient democratic governance.

Furthermore, the chapter explores the enduring impact of the 1971 Liberation War, the persistent and multifaceted challenges of poverty and inequality, the nuanced role of external actors in Bangladeshi politics, and the concerning rise of religious extremism as critical factors influencing the political landscape. The chapter emphasizes the paramount importance of strengthening democratic institutions, promoting inclusive political dialogue among all stakeholders, and fostering a national culture of tolerance and inclusivity as essential and indispensable steps towards building a more stable, prosperous, and genuinely democratic future for Bangladesh. The experience of Bangladesh offers valuable, albeit often cautionary, lessons for other developing nations grappling with the complexities of democratic transition and consolidation.

⁠

Section I: The Assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (1975) and Its Aftermath

1.1 Events Leading to the Assassination

The assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on the morning of August 15, 1975, remains a pivotal and deeply traumatic event, a watershed moment that continues to cast a long shadow over Bangladesh's political history and national consciousness. This tragedy was not an isolated or spontaneous act of violence; it was the culmination of a complex and multifaceted confluence of factors that had been gradually accumulating in the years immediately following the nation's hard-won independence in 1971. To fully understand the assassination and its profound consequences, it is essential to delve into the immense and unprecedented challenges faced by post-liberation Bangladesh, the evolving political dynamics under Mujibur Rahman's increasingly centralized leadership, and the palpable and growing discontent within various segments of society, including, crucially, within the ranks of the military.

Post-War Devastation and the Immensity of the Humanitarian Crisis:

The 1971 Liberation War, while ultimately victorious in achieving independence from Pakistan, left Bangladesh a profoundly shattered and deeply traumatized nation. The nine-month conflict had inflicted catastrophic damage on the country's infrastructure, economy, and already fragile social fabric. The Pakistani military's brutal "scorched earth" policy, systematically implemented in the final, desperate months of the war, deliberately targeted key infrastructure elements, including roads, bridges, railways, and ports. Industrial facilities were systematically destroyed or looted, and vital agricultural lands were devastated, leaving the nascent country in a state of near-total ruin. The human cost of the war was equally staggering. Estimates suggest that as many as three million people were killed during the conflict, and a staggering ten million were displaced, becoming refugees in neighboring India. This mass displacement created one of the largest refugee crises in the late 20th century, posing immense humanitarian and logistical challenges. The eventual return of these millions of refugees after the war presented a massive and unprecedented challenge for the newly formed nation, straining its limited resources and administrative capacity to the breaking point.

The scale of the physical destruction was almost incomprehensible. Roads, bridges, railways, and crucial ports were severely damaged or completely destroyed, crippling essential transportation and communication networks that were vital for delivering aid, distributing food, and rebuilding the shattered economy. Factories, the few that existed in the pre-war era, were systematically destroyed or looted, leading to rampant unemployment and economic paralysis. Agricultural production, the backbone of the predominantly agrarian economy, plummeted due to the widespread disruption of farming activities, the deliberate destruction of crops and livestock by the Pakistani military, and the critical shortage of seeds, fertilizers, and other essential agricultural inputs. The newly independent nation faced the immediate and overwhelming task of providing basic food, rudimentary shelter, essential medical care, and other basic necessities to a deeply traumatized, displaced, and impoverished population, many of whom had lost everything in the war. The government's capacity to effectively respond to this immense crisis was severely limited by a critical lack of financial resources, a dearth of trained personnel, and the absence of effective administrative structures – all legacies of colonial rule and the devastating nine-month war.

Economic Crisis and the Failure of Initial Policies:

The economic situation in post-liberation Bangladesh was nothing short of catastrophic. The war had completely devastated the already weak and underdeveloped economy, and the global oil crisis of 1973, which sent oil prices soaring worldwide, further exacerbated the existing problems, pushing the nation to the brink of economic collapse. Inflation soared to unprecedented levels, reaching triple-digit figures in some years, eroding the purchasing power of ordinary citizens and creating widespread economic hardship and social unrest. Severe shortages of essential goods, including basic food staples like rice and wheat, fuel for cooking and transportation, and desperately needed medicine, were widespread and created a climate of scarcity, desperation, and social instability. The government's initial economic policies, largely based on socialist principles and heavily influenced by Soviet-style economic planning models, proved to be largely ineffective, and in some cases even counterproductive, in addressing the multifaceted and deeply entrenched economic crisis.

The nationalization of major industries, including the crucial jute mills (jute being the country's primary export earner), textile factories, and the banking sector, was intended to promote state control over the economy and ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth, a core tenet of the socialist ideology espoused by the Awami League. However, these nationalized industries often suffered from severe mismanagement, endemic corruption, a critical lack of skilled labor and experienced management, and outdated technology. This led to rapidly declining productivity, chronic inefficiency, mounting financial losses, and a further drain on the already depleted state treasury. The government's attempts to rigidly control prices and regulate the market through bureaucratic means were often circumvented by widespread smuggling, rampant black marketeering, and pervasive hoarding of essential goods by unscrupulous traders, creating artificial scarcity and further driving up prices in the informal economy. The heavy dependence on foreign aid, while providing some much-needed short-term relief, also created a long-term dependency that would significantly shape Bangladesh's economic trajectory and limit its economic sovereignty in the years to come. The devastating 1974 famine, triggered by catastrophic floods that inundated vast swathes of agricultural land and destroyed standing crops, further deepened the already severe economic crisis and led to widespread starvation, disease, and death. Estimates of the death toll from the famine range from tens of thousands to, tragically, over a million, highlighting the extreme vulnerability of the newly independent nation to both natural disasters and economic mismanagement.

Political Centralization, Authoritarian Tendencies, and the Erosion of Democratic Norms:

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, rightly revered as the "Father of the Nation" (Bangabandhu) for his undisputed and courageous leadership in the arduous independence struggle, enjoyed immense popularity and widespread legitimacy in the immediate aftermath of the war. However, his leadership style and governance approach gradually became increasingly authoritarian, and his government steadily centralized power in the hands of the executive branch, often at the expense of democratic institutions and established political processes. The Awami League, the party that had spearheaded the liberation movement and enjoyed overwhelming public support in the initial post-independence period, became the dominant and virtually unchallenged political force, often suppressing legitimate political opposition and dissent through increasingly heavy-handed and undemocratic methods.

The constitution of Bangladesh, adopted in 1972, was initially lauded for establishing a parliamentary democracy with fundamental rights and freedoms constitutionally guaranteed. However, in practice, these cherished democratic principles were often undermined and progressively eroded under Mujib's increasingly centralized rule. Political opponents, including those from leftist parties and religious groups who had different visions for the nation's future, were systematically harassed, arbitrarily arrested, and, in some documented cases, even subjected to extrajudicial killings by state security forces. Freedom of the press, a cornerstone of any functioning democracy, was increasingly curtailed, and independent newspapers were brought under ever-tightening government control through censorship, intimidation, and the threat of closure. The formation of the Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini (National Security Force) in 1972, a paramilitary force directly loyal to Mujib and operating outside the regular military chain of command, further fueled growing concerns about the government's authoritarian drift and its increasing reliance on force to maintain political control. The Rakkhi Bahini was quickly accused of widespread human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings of suspected political opponents, torture of detainees, and arbitrary arrests and detentions without due process. It soon became a potent symbol of the government's increasing reliance on force and intimidation to suppress dissent, rather than upholding the rule of law and democratic principles.

The BAKSAL System: A Decisive Shift Towards One-Party Rule:

In January 1975, facing mounting political and economic challenges, and increasingly frustrated by what he perceived as the ineffectiveness and slow pace of the parliamentary system in addressing the nation's pressing problems, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman took a drastic and ultimately fateful step. He declared a state of emergency, citing the deteriorating economic situation and the need for national unity to overcome the country's myriad challenges. He then introduced the Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League (BAKSAL) system, effectively transforming Bangladesh into a one-party state and dismantling the nascent multi-party democracy that had been established after independence. All existing political parties, including even the Awami League itself, were formally dissolved, and BAKSAL became the sole legal political entity, eliminating any semblance of political pluralism or meaningful opposition.

The parliamentary system, painstakingly established after independence, was abruptly replaced with a presidential system, concentrating vast executive powers in the office of the President, which Mujib himself assumed. He further centralized power by appointing governors for each district, who were directly accountable to him, effectively bypassing and undermining existing administrative structures and local governance institutions. The judiciary, a vital pillar of democracy and the rule of law, was brought under tighter executive control, compromising its independence and impartiality. The powers of the parliament, already weakened, were further significantly curtailed, rendering it a largely symbolic and rubber-stamp legislature, lacking any real power to hold the executive accountable. The stated aims of the BAKSAL system, as articulated by Mujib and his supporters, were to establish national unity, combat rampant corruption, accelerate economic development through centralized planning, and ensure social justice for all citizens. Mujib argued that a strong, centralized, and unified government, under a single national party, was absolutely necessary to effectively overcome the immense challenges facing the newly independent nation and to rapidly implement his vision of "Sonar Bangla" (Golden Bengal) – a prosperous, equitable, and just society.

However, the BAKSAL system was met with widespread and intense criticism, both domestically from various political factions and internationally from democratic governments and human rights organizations. It was widely condemned as a blatant move towards authoritarianism and a profound betrayal of the democratic ideals and aspirations that had fueled the Liberation War. Opposition political parties, intellectuals, students, and even sections of the military, who had initially supported Mujib, viewed it as a naked power grab and a dangerous slide towards dictatorship, reminiscent of autocratic regimes elsewhere in the developing world. The BAKSAL system, by design, concentrated virtually unchecked power in the hands of Mujib and a small, unelected circle of loyalists, further alienating potential allies and fueling widespread resentment among those excluded from the new power structure. It effectively silenced all legitimate political dissent and eliminated any meaningful political opposition, creating a climate of fear and political repression. The move also severely damaged Bangladesh's international image and strained relations with Western countries, particularly the United States and Western European nations, that had initially supported its independence and its democratic aspirations.

Military Discontent: A Complex Web of Grievances and Ambitions:

The military, which had played a heroic and indispensable role in the 1971 Liberation War, felt increasingly marginalized, neglected, and disillusioned in the post-independence political order under Mujibur Rahman's increasingly civilian-centric and personalized rule. Several complex and interconnected factors contributed to this growing sense of discontent and resentment within the armed forces, creating fertile ground for dissent and, ultimately, conspiracy:

Factionalism within the Military: Deep and persistent divisions existed within the ranks of the Bangladesh military, primarily along the fault lines of those who had actively participated in the Liberation War as Mukti Bahini freedom fighters and those who had remained in, or been repatriated from, Pakistan after the war ended. These pre-existing divisions, rooted in differing experiences, loyalties, and perspectives, often led to intense rivalries and tensions over promotions, coveted appointments to key positions, and the allocation of scarce resources within the military. This factionalism undermined unit cohesion, eroded esprit de corps, and created a climate of mistrust and suspicion within the armed forces.

Perceived Neglect of the Military: Many officers, particularly those who had fought in the Liberation War and risked their lives for the nation's independence, felt strongly that the government, under Mujib's leadership, was not giving sufficient attention, resources, or recognition to the military. They believed that the government was prioritizing civilian needs and development projects over defense spending and military modernization, neglecting the needs of the armed forces. This perceived neglect fueled resentment and a sense of being undervalued despite their crucial role in achieving independence.

The Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini: The controversial formation of the Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini, a paramilitary force directly loyal to Mujib and the Awami League, was deeply resented by many in the regular army officer corps. They viewed the Rakkhi Bahini as a parallel force, essentially a private army for Mujib, that undermined their professional authority, institutional prestige, and access to resources. The Rakkhi Bahini was also widely perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being better equipped, better funded, and better treated in terms of salaries and benefits than the regular army, further exacerbating resentment and feelings of unfair treatment among regular army officers. The existence of a parallel security force, independent of the military's chain of command, was seen as a direct threat to the military's institutional integrity and its monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

Political Interference: The increasing politicization of the military, with appointments to key command positions and promotions often perceived as being based more on political loyalty to Mujib and the Awami League than on professional merit, competence, or seniority, fueled deep resentment and disillusionment among professional officers who valued meritocracy and institutional autonomy. This perceived political interference undermined the professional ethos of the military, eroded its institutional integrity, and created a sense of injustice and unfairness among officers who felt passed over for promotion or sidelined due to their lack of political connections.

Economic Grievances: Some officers, particularly junior and mid-level officers, were also motivated by personal economic grievances. They were resentful of the perceived widespread corruption within the government and the rapid wealth accumulation by some politicians, Awami League party officials, and their close associates, while they, as military officers, struggled with relatively low salaries and limited economic opportunities. The stark contrast between the perceived lavish lifestyles of some political elites and the economic hardships faced by many military personnel fueled resentment and a sense of economic injustice.

Ideological Disagreements: Ideological disagreements also played a significant role in fueling military discontent. Some officers, particularly those with socialist or leftist leanings, fundamentally disagreed with Mujib's increasingly authoritarian policies, his establishment of the one-party BAKSAL system, and his perceived shift away from the socialist ideals of the Liberation War and towards a more centralized, personality-driven form of rule. Others, with more conservative or right-wing views, were deeply concerned about Mujib's close relationship with India, his perceived secularist policies that they felt alienated religious conservatives, and the growing influence of pro-Indian elements within the government and the Awami League. These ideological divisions within the military reflected broader societal divisions and contributed to the growing polarization within the armed forces.

The Conspirators: Profiles and Motivations:

The key figures in the meticulously planned conspiracy to assassinate Sheikh Mujibur Rahman were a relatively small but tightly knit group of middle-ranking army officers, primarily majors and captains, who occupied strategic positions within the military. These officers came from diverse backgrounds, held varied motivations, and harbored a range of personal and political grievances. However, they were united by a shared conviction that Mujib's increasingly authoritarian government was leading the country towards disaster, political chaos, and economic collapse, and that a decisive military intervention was absolutely necessary to "save" Bangladesh from what they perceived as an impending catastrophe.

Major Syed Faruque Rahman: A highly ambitious, charismatic, and outspoken officer, Major Faruque was known for his strong anti-Indian sentiments and his deep-seated belief that Mujib's government was excessively subservient to India, compromising Bangladesh's sovereignty and national interests. He was also a vocal and public critic of the BAKSAL system, denouncing it as a dictatorship, and was highly critical of the government's ineffective and often corrupt economic policies, which he believed were failing the nation. His motivations were a complex mix of personal ambition, ideological opposition to Mujib's policies, and a strong sense of nationalism that fueled his anti-Indian sentiments.

Major Khondaker Abdur Rashid: Major Rashid, a relative of Khondaker Mushtaque Ahmed (who would later opportunistically become President in the immediate aftermath of the coup), was another key figure and central planner in the conspiracy. He shared Faruque's strong anti-Indian views and was also significantly motivated by personal ambition and a desire for greater political influence. His close family ties to Mushtaque Ahmed likely played a role in his involvement in the plot, and he may have seen the coup as an opportunity to advance his own career and influence within the military and the new political order.

Major Shariful Haque Dalim: Major Dalim harbored a deep and personal grudge against the government and the Awami League stemming from a highly publicized incident in which his wife and other family members were allegedly harassed and publicly humiliated by Awami League members, reportedly close to Mujib. This deeply personal incident fueled his intense resentment and made him a particularly willing and ruthless participant in the assassination plot. His motivations were driven by a combination of personal revenge, a sense of injustice, and a broader disillusionment with the political direction of the country under Mujib's rule.

Major S.H.M.B Noor Chowdhury: A close and trusted associate of Dalim, Major Noor shared many of his grievances and motivations. He was also deeply critical of Mujib's authoritarian tendencies and the perceived corruption within the government. He likely saw the coup as an opportunity to rectify what he perceived as the injustices and failures of the Mujib regime.

These officers, along with a number of other like-minded junior and mid-level officers, meticulously planned the coup in complete secrecy, operating entirely outside the formal military chain of command and without the knowledge or authorization of their senior officers. They skillfully exploited the existing widespread discontent within the military, the broader political environment of instability and resentment, and the perceived legitimacy crisis of the Mujib government to garner tacit support and acquiescence for their plot from within certain factions of the military. They also possibly received support from some disgruntled civilian politicians who were vehemently opposed to Mujib and the BAKSAL system. They reportedly sought and received assurances of at least tacit support, or non-interference, from some civilian politicians who were known to be opposed to Mujib's increasingly authoritarian rule, suggesting a degree of coordination or at least shared understanding between the military conspirators and certain civilian elements.

The Role of External Actors: Speculations and Unanswered Questions:

The highly sensitive and still debated question of whether external actors, particularly foreign intelligence agencies, played a direct or indirect role in the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman remains a subject of intense debate, scholarly speculation, and persistent unanswered questions. There have been persistent allegations and conspiracy theories, though lacking definitive and publicly declassified proof, of possible involvement by foreign intelligence agencies, particularly the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). These theories, while often lacking concrete evidence, are fueled by the geopolitical context of the time, the Cold War rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union, and the regional tensions between India and Pakistan.

CIA Involvement (Allegations): Some persistent theories suggest that the CIA, deeply concerned about Mujib's socialist leanings, his close and growing relationship with India (a key US rival in the region at the time), and his developing ties with the Soviet Union (the United States' primary Cold War adversary), may have provided tacit support or even actively encouraged the coup plotters. These theories often point to the broader Cold War geopolitical context, the intense rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union, and the US government's well-documented history of involvement in regime change operations in other countries, particularly in Latin America and Southeast Asia, during the Cold War era. Proponents of this theory argue that the US saw Mujib's government as increasingly aligned with the Soviet bloc and a potential threat to US interests in South Asia. However, concrete, publicly verifiable evidence to definitively support these claims of direct CIA involvement remains circumstantial and limited. The allegations largely rely on historical context, the known US policy of opposing left-leaning governments during the Cold War, and the presence of US embassy officials in Dhaka who had contacts with some of the coup plotters. However, no declassified documents or irrefutable evidence has emerged to definitively prove direct CIA involvement.

ISI Involvement (Allegations): Other persistent theories and allegations point to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's powerful military intelligence agency, as a possible instigator or facilitator of the coup. These theories suggest that the ISI, seeking to destabilize Bangladesh, avenge Pakistan's humiliating defeat in the 1971 war, and potentially reintegrate Bangladesh back into Pakistan or at least undermine its independence, may have provided financial resources, logistical support, and possibly even training or operational planning assistance to the coup plotters. Proponents of this theory point to the historical animosity between Pakistan and Bangladesh, the ISI's known history of covert operations in the region, and the fact that some of the coup plotters had served in the Pakistan Army before 1971. Again, definitive and publicly verifiable proof of direct ISI involvement remains elusive, and the evidence is largely circumstantial, based on historical context and the known strategic interests of Pakistan in the region.

Indian Intelligence Failure: Conversely, there are also persistent questions and criticisms about why Indian intelligence agencies, particularly the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), which had historically maintained close ties to the Awami League government and had provided significant support during the Liberation War, apparently failed to detect, preempt, or prevent the meticulously planned coup. Some speculate that Indian intelligence may have been aware of the coup plot in its nascent stages but deliberately chose not to intervene or warn Mujib, perhaps due to concerns about being perceived as interfering in Bangladesh's internal affairs, or perhaps due to a miscalculation of the actual threat posed by the conspirators. Others suggest that RAW may have suffered a significant intelligence failure, underestimating the level of discontent within the Bangladesh military and the seriousness of the coup plot.

The persistent lack of conclusive, publicly declassified evidence makes it exceedingly difficult to definitively determine the precise extent, if any, of direct external involvement in the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. However, the undeniably complex geopolitical context of the time, including the intense Cold War rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union, regional tensions between India and Pakistan, and the strategic importance of the South Asian region, undoubtedly influenced the volatile political dynamics in Bangladesh. This complex context may have inadvertently or deliberately created an environment that was more conducive to regime change, whether directly instigated or simply opportunistically exploited by internal actors with their own grievances and ambitions. The role of external actors remains a subject of ongoing debate and speculation, highlighting the complexities and lingering unanswered questions surrounding this pivotal event in Bangladesh's history.

1.2 The Coup and Its Immediate Consequences

The coup d’état of August 15, 1975, meticulously executed with brutal precision and ruthless efficiency by a group of disgruntled army officers, stands as a stark and tragic watershed moment in Bangladesh's short but turbulent history. It was far more than simply a routine change of government through unconstitutional means; it was a violent and traumatic overthrow of the existing political order. This profound rupture would have far-reaching and devastating long-lasting consequences for the nascent nation, fundamentally altering its political trajectory, shattering its fragile democratic foundations, and ushering in an era of prolonged instability and military dominance.

Chronology of Events: A Detailed Account:

In the pre-dawn hours of August 15, 1975, under the cover of darkness, a carefully selected and highly motivated group of army officers, led by Majors Syed Faruque Rahman, Khondaker Abdur Rashid, and Shariful Haque Dalim, launched a meticulously coordinated and swift military assault on multiple pre-determined targets throughout Dhaka, the capital city. The entire operation was planned in minute detail and executed with chilling military precision and ruthless efficiency, catching the government and the security apparatus completely by surprise. The level of coordination and the speed of the operation suggest extensive prior planning and a high degree of operational competence among the coup plotters.

Attack on Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's Residence: The primary and most symbolic target of the coup was Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's personal residence, located at Dhanmondi Road 32, in the heart of Dhaka. A heavily armed and numerically superior contingent of soldiers, equipped with automatic weapons, rocket launchers, and even heavy artillery pieces, effectively surrounded the house, cutting off any possibility of escape or outside assistance. They quickly and brutally overwhelmed the small and lightly armed security detail assigned to the residence. The soldiers then stormed the building, systematically searching for their targets. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman himself, along with his wife Begum Fazilatunnesa Mujib, and tragically, his sons Sheikh Kamal, Sheikh Jamal, and even his youngest son, Sheikh Russel, a mere ten-year-old boy, were all brutally murdered inside the house. Several other family members and loyal staff who were present were also killed. The killings were carried out with extreme and gratuitous violence, reflecting a deep-seated rage and a desire to not just remove Mujib from power but to completely eliminate his entire lineage. There were credible reports of widespread looting and wanton destruction of property within the house following the assassinations, further underscoring the brutality and lawlessness of the coup. Tragically, only Mujib's two daughters, Sheikh Hasina and Sheikh Rehana, who were fortuitously abroad in Europe at the time of the coup, narrowly escaped the massacre and survived to carry on his political legacy.

Assassination of Other Key Figures: Simultaneously, while the assault on Mujib's residence was underway, other smaller but equally ruthless teams of soldiers were dispatched to assassinate other key figures in the government, the Awami League leadership, and Mujib's extended family. This systematic elimination of the top echelon of the ruling party was clearly intended to decapitate the Awami League and prevent any organized resistance to the coup. Sheikh Fazlul Haque Mani, Mujib's influential nephew and a prominent and powerful Awami League leader, was brutally killed at his residence along with his pregnant wife, adding to the overall brutality of the operation. Abdur Rab Serniabat, Mujib's brother-in-law and a senior cabinet minister, was also assassinated in a separate attack at his home, along with several other members of his family, including women and children, demonstrating the indiscriminate nature of the violence and the intent to eliminate any potential centers of opposition within Mujib's inner circle.

Seizure of Key Installations: In parallel with the assassinations, other strategically deployed units of the army swiftly seized control of key installations and strategic locations throughout Dhaka. These included Radio Bangladesh, the state-controlled television station, the strategically vital Zia International Airport (now Shahjalal International Airport), and the central telephone exchange, effectively cutting off external communication and controlling the flow of information. This rapid and coordinated seizure of key infrastructure ensured that the coup plotters could completely control the flow of information to the public, prevent any organized resistance or counter-coup from loyalist elements within the military or civilian security forces, and project an image of unchallenged authority and control. By controlling the media, the airport, and communications, the coup plotters effectively isolated Dhaka from the rest of the country and the world.

The speed, precision, and ruthless coordination of the entire military operation were truly remarkable, indicating meticulous planning and a high degree of operational effectiveness. Within a matter of hours, the coup plotters had effectively seized complete control of the capital city, eliminated the entire top leadership of the country, and neutralized any potential centers of resistance. The conspicuous lack of any organized resistance from the regular army, the Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini, or any other security force suggests that the coup plotters had either successfully neutralized potential opposition within the armed forces through pre-emptive actions or had, at the very least, secured their tacit support or acquiescence, possibly through a combination of intimidation, appeals to shared grievances, and promises of future rewards.

Seizure of Power and Declaration of Martial Law:

Shortly after the successful assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the decisive seizure of key installations, Major Dalim, one of the key coup plotters, went on air at Radio Bangladesh, the state radio station now under military control. He dramatically announced the overthrow of the Awami League government, declaring that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had been killed and portraying him as a corrupt and authoritarian leader. He claimed that the armed forces had been compelled to intervene to "save the nation" from chaos, misrule, and impending collapse. Martial law was immediately imposed throughout the country, suspending the constitution of 1972, dissolving the parliament, and effectively abrogating all fundamental rights and civil liberties that had been constitutionally guaranteed. This declaration marked the formal end of Bangladesh's brief experiment with parliamentary democracy and the beginning of a prolonged period of military rule.

The New Government and Khondaker Mushtaque Ahmed: A Puppet Regime?

Khondaker Mushtaque Ahmed, a former cabinet minister in Mujib's government and a long-time, though often disgruntled, associate of the Awami League, was swiftly and opportunistically sworn in as the new President of Bangladesh in the immediate aftermath of the coup. Mushtaque had reportedly been deeply disgruntled with Mujib's increasingly authoritarian rule, particularly the establishment of the BAKSAL one-party system, and had been secretly in contact with the coup plotters prior to the assassination, possibly even offering them tacit encouragement or assurances of political support. His long-standing association with the Awami League, combined with his known dissatisfaction with Mujib's later policies, made him a seemingly suitable figurehead for the new regime, providing a veneer of civilian legitimacy to the military takeover.

However, Mushtaque's hastily assembled government was widely perceived, both domestically and internationally, as essentially a puppet regime, completely controlled and manipulated by the group of military officers – the majors – who had orchestrated and executed the coup. Real power on the ground resided not with the civilian President Mushtaque but with the majors, who occupied strategically crucial positions within the new government and the military command structure, effectively dictating policy and controlling the levers of state power. The hastily formed cabinet included a mix of civilian politicians, many of whom were opportunistic defectors from the Awami League or figures from marginal political groups, and senior military officers directly involved in the coup. However, it was abundantly clear that the military, specifically the majors, held the ultimate authority and made all critical decisions, with Mushtaque serving as a civilian facade for military rule. He was largely seen as a figurehead, lacking real power or independent authority, and beholden to the military officers who had installed him in power.

Mushtaque's very first official act as President, even before forming a full cabinet, was to issue a highly controversial indemnity ordinance. This draconian legal decree granted blanket immunity and complete legal protection to the coup plotters and all those involved in the assassinations and the coup itself, shielding them from any form of prosecution or legal accountability for their actions, regardless of their severity or illegality. This indemnity ordinance, later controversially incorporated into the constitution of Bangladesh, remains a deeply contentious and politically divisive issue in Bangladeshi politics to this day.

It symbolizes the impunity enjoyed by military coup leaders and undermines the fundamental principle of the rule of law, a cornerstone of any democratic society. The ordinance effectively placed the coup plotters above the law, ensuring that they would never be held accountable for their actions, regardless of how egregious or unlawful they were.

Immediate Political Purges and Repression: Crushing Dissent:

The immediate aftermath of the military coup was characterized by widespread, systematic, and brutal political purges and intense repression, aimed at completely dismantling the Awami League and crushing any potential resistance to the new military-backed regime. The Awami League, the party that had led the country to independence and dominated politics for its first few years, was effectively decapitated and politically paralyzed. Its top leadership had been systematically eliminated through assassinations, and its organizational structure, painstakingly built over decades, was shattered and dismantled by the military regime. Thousands of Awami League leaders, party activists at all levels, and suspected supporters were arbitrarily arrested, detained without charge or trial, subjected to brutal torture in military detention centers, or forced to go into hiding to escape arrest and persecution. The scale and intensity of the crackdown were unprecedented in Bangladesh's short history, targeting not only prominent political figures but also grassroots activists, student leaders, and ordinary citizens suspected of loyalty to the Awami League.

The Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini, the paramilitary force that had been directly loyal to Mujib, was immediately disbanded and forcibly dissolved by the new military regime. Its members were either forcibly integrated into the regular army, often in subordinate and demeaning positions, or summarily dismissed from service, facing an uncertain future and potential persecution. The disbanding of the Rakkhi Bahini removed a potential source of resistance to the coup and further consolidated the military's control over the security apparatus. All political parties, without exception, were officially banned from operating, and all forms of political activity, including even peaceful assembly and free speech, were strictly suspended under martial law regulations. This effectively eliminated any organized political opposition and stifled any possibility of open dissent or resistance to the new regime. Freedom of the press, already severely curtailed under Mujib, was further drastically restricted, and all newspapers and media outlets were brought under even stricter government control and subjected to stringent censorship, ensuring that only pro-regime narratives were disseminated to the public. This tight control over information was crucial for the military regime to maintain its grip on power and prevent the spread of anti-regime sentiment.

A pervasive climate of fear, intimidation, and political repression descended upon Bangladesh. The coup plotters and their military and civilian supporters moved swiftly and ruthlessly to consolidate their newly acquired power and eliminate any and all potential sources of opposition or dissent. The sheer brutality of the assassinations of Mujib and his family, coupled with the subsequent widespread political purges and repression, sent a chilling and unambiguous message to the entire nation: any form of dissent or opposition to the new military-backed regime would not be tolerated and would be met with swift and brutal consequences. This climate of fear effectively silenced many potential critics and opponents of the regime, at least in the short term.

Institutional Disruption and the Erosion of the Rule of Law:

The military coup of August 15 dealt a devastating and near-fatal blow to Bangladesh's already fragile democratic institutions and nascent rule of law. The constitution of 1972, the supreme law of the land and the foundation of the nation's legal framework, was immediately suspended, effectively rendering it null and void. The parliament, the legislative body representing the people and a cornerstone of representative governance, was summarily dissolved, eliminating any semblance of democratic accountability or legislative oversight. The judiciary, the guardian of justice and the rule of law, was effectively sidelined and subordinated to military authority, losing its independence and ability to act as a check on executive power. Martial law, decreed by the military junta, became the supreme law of the land, replacing the constitution and civilian legal framework. Military tribunals, operating outside the purview of the civilian justice system and lacking due process guarantees, were hastily established to try political opponents and perceived enemies of the regime, further undermining the rule of law and eroding fundamental legal protections. These tribunals were often used to silence dissent and punish political opponents, with little regard for fair trial procedures or basic human rights.

The civil bureaucracy, already weakened by corruption and political interference under Mujib's rule, was systematically purged of officials and civil servants who were perceived as being disloyal or unsympathetic to the new military regime or associated with the ousted Awami League government. This purge further weakened the capacity and impartiality of the civil service, replacing experienced administrators with individuals loyal to the new regime. The police force and other civilian law enforcement agencies were effectively militarized and used as instruments of political repression, tasked with suppressing dissent and enforcing the will of the military rulers, rather than upholding the law and protecting citizens' rights. The police were often used to arrest, detain, and torture political opponents, creating a climate of fear and intimidation. The fundamental principle of civilian supremacy over the military, a cornerstone of democratic governance, was completely and decisively overturned, replaced by the stark reality of military dictatorship.

The coup effectively reversed any and all progress made in establishing a functioning democratic system of governance in Bangladesh since independence. It set a dangerous and enduring precedent for military intervention in civilian politics, demonstrating that political power could be seized and maintained through force and extra-constitutional means, a precedent that would have profoundly negative and long-lasting consequences for Bangladesh's political development. The coup effectively normalized the use of violence and military force as tools for resolving political disputes, undermining the foundations of a peaceful and democratic political order.

Psychological Impact and National Trauma: A Deep Scar:

The assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the revered "Father of the Nation," and the subsequent chain of events had a profound and deeply traumatic psychological impact on the entire nation of Bangladesh. The brutal and utterly senseless killing of Bangabandhu and most of his immediate family, along with other prominent national leaders, created a pervasive sense of shock, profound disbelief, collective grief, and deep national trauma. The nation, still reeling from the devastation of the Liberation War, was plunged into a new period of uncertainty and fear. The assassination of the nation's founding father was a deeply symbolic event, shattering the hopes and aspirations of many Bangladeshis for a peaceful and prosperous future.

The coup shattered the fragile sense of national unity and shared purpose that had tentatively emerged after the hard-won Liberation War and the initial euphoria of independence. It drastically deepened already existing political divisions within Bangladeshi society and created entirely new and often irreconcilable ones, poisoning the political atmosphere for decades to come. The legacy of political violence, military intervention, and profound political instability unleashed by the coup would continue to haunt Bangladesh for decades, casting a long shadow over its political development, hindering the establishment of a stable and democratic political order, and fueling a cycle of political conflict and retribution.

The traumatic events of August 15, 1975, remain a deeply sensitive, politically charged, and highly controversial issue in Bangladeshi politics and national memory. The assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is officially commemorated annually as National Mourning Day, a day of national grief and remembrance. However, paradoxically, his killers, the coup plotters, are viewed by some segments of Bangladeshi society, particularly those who opposed his increasingly authoritarian rule and the BAKSAL system, as misguided patriots who, in their view, "saved" the country from impending dictatorship and political collapse. This stark division in historical interpretation and national memory tragically reflects the deep and enduring political polarization of Bangladeshi society and the still unresolved and deeply contested legacy of the 1975 coup. The events of that day continue to be a source of intense debate and division, with different political factions holding vastly different interpretations of the coup and its consequences.

1.3 Political Chaos and Successive Coups

The assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on August 15, 1975, far from ushering in an era of political stability and national unity, as perhaps some of the coup plotters may have naively hoped, instead unleashed a protracted period of intense political chaos, rampant instability, and a bewildering series of coups and counter-coups. These events further destabilized Bangladesh, deeply entrenched the military's dominant role in national politics, and set a dangerous precedent for future military interventions. The immediate aftermath of the assassination was marked by a power vacuum, intense military infighting, and a rapid succession of violent power struggles that further eroded the fragile foundations of the state.

Power Vacuum and Intense Military Infighting:

The August 15th military coup, while initially successful in seizing power and eliminating the top leadership of the Awami League government, inadvertently created a profound and dangerous power vacuum at the very apex of the Bangladeshi state. While Khondaker Mushtaque Ahmed, a civilian figurehead, was hastily installed as President to provide a veneer of civilian legitimacy, real and effective power resided precariously with the loosely organized and ideologically disparate group of majors who had audaciously orchestrated the assassination and the coup. However, this group of majors was by no means a cohesive, unified, or ideologically homogenous entity. They were a collection of individuals driven by a complex and volatile mix of personal ambitions for power and influence, deeply felt political grievances against the Mujib government, and often conflicting ideological differences regarding the future direction of Bangladesh. They lacked a clear and unified plan for governing the country, and their personal ambitions and rivalries quickly came to the fore.

Within mere days, and even hours, of the successful coup, simmering tensions, personal rivalries, and conflicting agendas began to rapidly emerge among the majors themselves. They fundamentally disagreed on the future political trajectory of the country, the distribution of power and spoils within the new regime, the appropriate role of the military in governance, and even on basic ideological questions regarding the nation's identity and direction. This intense and escalating infighting within the coup leadership created a highly volatile and unpredictable environment of profound political instability and deep uncertainty, making it exceedingly difficult for the fledgling new regime to consolidate its control, establish any semblance of legitimacy, or effectively govern the country. The majors, who had initially acted together to overthrow Mujib, quickly turned against each other in a struggle for dominance.

The broader military establishment, beyond the immediate circle of coup plotters, was also deeply and dangerously divided. Many senior officers, particularly those who had not been directly involved in the August 15th coup plot, deeply resented the majors' audacious and unauthorized seizure of power, their blatant violation of the established military chain of command, and the resulting damage to military discipline and institutional integrity. They viewed the majors' actions as a dangerous precedent that threatened the stability of the armed forces and the nation as a whole. Furthermore, the pre-existing and long-standing divisions within the military between the Mukti Bahini freedom fighters and those who had repatriated from Pakistan after the war were further exacerbated by the coup and its aftermath, creating new layers of mistrust and antagonism within the armed forces. These divisions, based on differing experiences during the Liberation War, created deep-seated resentments and rivalries that further fueled the instability within the military.

The November 3rd, 1975, Jail Killings:

In a further act of shocking brutality and political barbarism that deepened the cycle of violence and instability, four prominent and highly respected Awami League leaders – Syed Nazrul Islam, Tajuddin Ahmad, A.H.M. Qamaruzzaman, and Captain Mansur Ali – who had been arrested and imprisoned in Dhaka Central Jail immediately after the August coup, were brutally murdered in their prison cells on the night of November 3, 1975. These four leaders, all close associates of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and key figures in the Liberation War and the early Awami League government, were systematically assassinated by a group of soldiers acting under the direct orders of, it is now widely believed based on subsequent investigations and testimonies, senior figures within the coup leadership, most likely including President Khondaker Mushtaque Ahmed himself and the core group of majors. The precise motives behind the jail killings remain a subject of debate, but they were likely intended to eliminate any potential rivals to the new regime and to further weaken the Awami League.

The politically motivated jail killings effectively eliminated any remaining potential civilian leadership within the already decimated Awami League, further deepening the existing political crisis and making any prospect of a peaceful political transition even more remote. These extrajudicial murders also chillingly demonstrated the utter ruthlessness of the new regime and its willingness to employ extreme violence, including the cold-blooded assassination of unarmed political prisoners, to eliminate any perceived or potential political opponents and consolidate its grip on power through fear and intimidation. The killings sent a clear message that the new regime would not tolerate any dissent or opposition. They also further damaged Bangladesh's international reputation and fueled international condemnation of the coup and its aftermath.

Brigadier Khaled Mosharraf's Counter-Coup (November 3-7, 1975):

On November 3, 1975, in direct response to the jail killings and the escalating political chaos, Brigadier Khaled Mosharraf, a highly respected and professionally competent freedom fighter and the then Chief of General Staff of the Bangladesh Army, launched a carefully planned counter-coup against the group of majors who had carried out the August 15th assassination and were now perceived as destabilizing the country. Mosharraf, supported by a significant number of other senior officers who were deeply concerned about the erosion of military discipline and the descent into anarchy, sought to decisively restore the military chain of command, re-establish institutional order within the armed forces, and bring an end to the prevailing political chaos and lawlessness. He believed that the majors had gone too far and that their actions were damaging the reputation and integrity of the military.

Mosharraf's well-disciplined forces swiftly seized control of key installations and strategic locations throughout Dhaka, including Radio Bangladesh and the strategically important Zia International Airport. Khondaker Mushtaque Ahmed, the civilian President installed by the majors, was placed under house arrest, effectively removing him from power, and the group of majors responsible for the August 15th coup were forced to flee the capital city to avoid arrest, seeking refuge initially in the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) headquarters. Mosharraf, in an attempt to project civilian legitimacy and avoid the appearance of outright military rule, appointed Justice A.S.M. Sayem, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, as the new President and Chief Martial Law Administrator, effectively transferring nominal power to a respected civilian figure, albeit under continued military control. This move was intended to reassure the public and the international community that the counter-coup was not simply another military takeover but a step towards restoring civilian rule.

However, Mosharraf's counter-coup, while initially successful in restoring a semblance of order, was ultimately short-lived and lacked broad-based support within the deeply fractured military. He failed to secure the unequivocal support of the entire military establishment, particularly from key units and sectors outside of Dhaka, and his actions were misconstrued by some elements within the armed forces, particularly those sympathetic to the majors or opposed to the Awami League, as a veiled attempt to potentially restore the Awami League to political power, a highly controversial and politically sensitive issue within the military at that time. This perception, fueled by rumors and misinformation, undermined Mosharraf's support base and paved the way for his downfall.

The "Sepoy Biplob" (Soldiers' Revolution) of November 7, 1975:

On November 7, 1975, just four days after Khaled Mosharraf's counter-coup, a new and completely unexpected development dramatically and violently altered the political landscape once again. A group of soldiers and junior officers, led by the charismatic and politically ambitious Colonel Abu Taher, a popular freedom fighter with known socialist and leftist leanings, launched a mutiny, which they audaciously and ideologically grandiosely called the "Sepoy Biplob" (Soldiers' Revolution), further plunging the country into chaos and bloodshed. This mutiny represented a radical and unpredictable turn of events, driven by a different set of ideological motivations and grievances than the previous coups.

Taher and his followers, who included a diverse mix of rank-and-file soldiers and junior officers, had been deeply critical of both the August 15th coup orchestrated by the majors, which they viewed as a right-wing power grab, and also of Mosharraf's subsequent counter-coup, which they suspected of being a move to restore the old political order and potentially reinstate the Awami League. They fundamentally believed that both the majors and Mosharraf represented the narrow interests of the elite officer corps and the entrenched political establishment, and that a far more radical and transformative change was urgently needed to establish a truly just and egalitarian society in Bangladesh, based on socialist principles and the empowerment of the common soldier and the working class. They envisioned a revolutionary transformation of Bangladeshi society, with a focus on social justice, economic equality, and the dismantling of existing power structures.

The "Sepoy Biplob" was characterized by widespread unrest, intense violence, and a complete breakdown of military discipline within the armed forces, particularly in Dhaka and surrounding areas. Soldiers loyal to Taher and his radical agenda violently attacked and assassinated a number of senior army officers perceived as being "counter-revolutionary" or loyal to the old guard, including tragically, Brigadier Khaled Mosharraf himself, who was brutally killed during the mutiny, along with several of his close associates. The mutiny spread rapidly through various military units, fueled by a combination of ideological fervor, personal grievances, and a desire for radical change. Amidst the chaos and confusion of the mutiny, the mutineers also forcibly released Ziaur Rahman, then a Major General and Deputy Chief of Army Staff, who had been placed under house arrest by Mosharraf following his counter-coup, from military detention, believing, mistakenly as it turned out, that Zia shared their radical socialist vision and would support their revolutionary goals.

Ziaur Rahman's Ascendance to Power: A Calculated Rise:

Ziaur Rahman, initially appearing to outwardly support the "Sepoy Biplob" and its vaguely articulated demands for a more egalitarian military and a just society, quickly and strategically moved to consolidate his own personal power amidst the prevailing chaos and confusion. He skillfully distanced himself from Taher's radical socialist agenda, which he recognized was ultimately unsustainable and threatened his own ambitions, and began to subtly but decisively assert his personal control over the mutinous military, exploiting the power vacuum created by the violence and the elimination of rival senior officers. Zia, a shrewd and calculating political strategist, recognized the opportunity presented by the chaos and used it to his advantage.

With the crucial support of a core group of loyal officers who had remained steadfastly loyal to him throughout the turmoil, Zia gradually but systematically sidelined Colonel Abu Taher and his radical followers, isolating them politically and militarily. He skillfully re-established a semblance of order and discipline within the deeply fractured military, ruthlessly suppressing pockets of mutiny and consolidating his personal authority as the de facto strongman. He used a combination of persuasion, intimidation, and strategic appointments to regain control of the military and neutralize potential threats to his authority. Zia then strategically appointed himself Chief of Army Staff, the most powerful position in the military hierarchy, and also Chief Martial Law Administrator, effectively becoming the supreme ruler of Bangladesh, bypassing the nominal civilian President Justice Sayem, who was reduced to a mere figurehead. This marked the consolidation of Zia's power and the beginning of his period of military rule.

The Trial and Execution of Colonel Abu Taher:

In a move that remains highly controversial and politically divisive to this day, Ziaur Rahman, having consolidated his power and neutralized his rivals, decisively moved to eliminate Colonel Abu Taher, his former ally turned potential rival. Zia ordered the immediate arrest of Colonel Abu Taher and his key associates and leading figures in the "Sepoy Biplob." They were swiftly and secretly accused of a range of serious charges, including treason, mutiny against the state, and the murder of senior army officers during the mutiny. Taher and his associates were subjected to a highly questionable and widely criticized secret military tribunal, lacking any semblance of due process or transparency. The trial was conducted in secret, with no opportunity for Taher to mount a proper defense or to present evidence in his favor. Predictably, Taher was found guilty on all charges, sentenced to death, and summarily executed by hanging on July 21, 1976, less than a year after the "Sepoy Biplob."

The secret trial and swift execution of Colonel Abu Taher are widely seen by many, particularly on the political left, as a gross miscarriage of justice and a blatant act of political repression by Ziaur Rahman. Many historians and political analysts believe that Zia cynically used the trial as a pretext to eliminate a charismatic and potentially popular rival who posed a threat to his own unchallenged consolidation of power. Colonel Abu Taher is still regarded by many in Bangladesh, particularly among leftist and progressive circles, as a national hero and a martyr who genuinely fought for the rights of the common people, for social justice, and for a truly egalitarian society, and who was ultimately betrayed and unjustly executed by Ziaur Rahman in his ruthless pursuit of power. The execution of Taher marked a decisive end to the radical socialist movement within the military and solidified Zia's control over the armed forces.

Consolidation of Military Rule and the Aftermath:

The tumultuous and bloody events of November 1975, culminating in the brutal suppression of the "Sepoy Biplob" and the decisive rise of Ziaur Rahman, solidified Zia's position as the dominant and unchallenged figure in Bangladeshi politics. He effectively established a firm and enduring military dictatorship, ruling the country under the iron fist of martial law for several years, gradually transitioning to a more civilianized form of government in later years, but always maintaining ultimate and unchallenged control over all aspects of state power and policy making. Zia's regime, while initially marked by violence and repression, eventually brought a degree of stability to the country, albeit at the cost of democratic freedoms.

The protracted period of intense political chaos, successive military coups, and widespread violence in 1975 had a profoundly devastating and long-lasting impact on Bangladesh. It further destabilized the already fragile country, eroded what little institutional integrity remained, and deeply entrenched the military's dominant and interventionist role in national politics, setting a dangerous precedent for future military interventions. The widespread violence, political assassinations, and pervasive bloodshed during this period deepened existing political divisions within Bangladeshi society and created entirely new cleavages, fostering a pervasive climate of fear, political uncertainty, and deep-seated mistrust that would continue to haunt Bangladeshi politics and society for decades to come, hindering the development of a stable, democratic, and civilian-led political order. The chaotic events also tragically highlighted the deep ideological and social divisions within Bangladeshi society, particularly between those who favored a more secular, socialist, and Bengali nationalist vision for the nation and those who advocated for a more conservative, Islamic-oriented, and "Bangladeshi" nationalist approach. These fundamental ideological divisions, exacerbated by the violence of 1975, would continue to fuel political conflict, instability, and polarization in the years and decades to come, shaping the political landscape of Bangladesh.

1.4 Long-term Impact on Bangladesh’s Political Culture

The tumultuous and profoundly traumatic events of 1975 – the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the subsequent series of coups and counter-coups, and the firm establishment of military rule under Ziaur Rahman – had a deep, pervasive, and long-lasting impact on Bangladesh's political culture. These events fundamentally altered the norms, values, and practices of political engagement for generations, reshaping the political environment and creating a political culture tragically characterized by endemic violence, chronic instability, deep-seated mistrust among political actors and institutions, and a persistent and often frustrating struggle for genuine democratic consolidation. The legacy of 1975 continues to shape Bangladeshi politics to this day, influencing the behavior of political actors, the functioning of institutions, and the overall trajectory of the nation's democratic development.

Normalization of Political Violence and Extra-Constitutional Change:

The brutal and unprecedented assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding father of the nation, and the subsequent violent coups and counter-coups, established a profoundly dangerous and deeply damaging precedent in Bangladeshi politics: that political power could be legitimately seized and maintained through violence, military force, and extra-constitutional means, completely bypassing and undermining established democratic processes and the rule of law. This normalization of political violence at the highest levels of state power fundamentally undermined the fragile principles of peaceful democratic transitions, respect for constitutionalism, and adherence to the rule of law, replacing them with a culture of political machination, violence, and impunity. The events of 1975 demonstrated that political power could be obtained and held through force, rather than through the ballot box, setting a dangerous example for future generations of political actors.

The use of violence as a routine and accepted tool of political contestation, conflict resolution, and regime change became tragically normalized and deeply ingrained in Bangladeshi political culture. Political assassinations, military interventions in civilian affairs, and the systematic suppression of political opponents and dissent became recurring and deeply disturbing features of Bangladeshi politics in the decades following 1975. This normalization of political violence fostered a pervasive climate of fear, intimidation, and impunity, where political disputes and power struggles were often resolved through the application of brute force and violence rather than through peaceful political dialogue, democratic compromise, and established legal and constitutional mechanisms. Political actors came to view violence as a legitimate, and sometimes even necessary, means of achieving their political objectives.

The enduring legacy of the violent political upheavals of 1975 tragically instilled a deeply damaging sense, particularly within certain segments of the political and military establishment, that violence was not only an acceptable, but sometimes even a necessary or justifiable, component of the political process, particularly in times of perceived national crisis or political deadlock. This deeply corrosive effect on democratic norms, institutional development, and political culture made it exceedingly difficult to subsequently establish a stable and resilient culture of peaceful political competition, constructive dialogue, and genuine respect for differing political viewpoints and democratic principles. The acceptance of violence as a political tool undermined the foundations of a democratic society and created a cycle of instability and conflict.

The Entrenched Role of the Military in Politics:

The series of military coups in 1975 and the subsequent prolonged periods of direct military rule under Ziaur Rahman and H.M. Ershad fundamentally and irreversibly altered the delicate civil-military balance in Bangladesh, tilting it decisively in favor of military dominance and interventionism. The military, which was initially intended to be a professional, apolitical institution strictly subordinate to civilian authority as in any functioning democracy, became deeply and inextricably entangled in the messy and often violent realm of national politics, casting a long shadow over civilian governance. The military's involvement in politics became normalized, and it came to be seen as a legitimate, and even necessary, actor in the political arena.

Military intervention in civilian political affairs, once considered anathema to democratic principles, became a tragically recurring pattern in Bangladesh, often cynically justified by military leaders and their civilian apologists as a supposedly "necessary" measure to restore order and stability in times of perceived political chaos, to "correct" perceived failures of civilian governance, or to "safeguard" vaguely defined "national interests" from civilian mismanagement or political instability. This repeated military interventionism fundamentally undermined the foundational principle of civilian supremacy over the military, a cornerstone of democracy, and created a deeply problematic and enduring situation where the military was increasingly perceived, both by itself and by segments of the civilian political elite, as a potential political arbiter, possessing the inherent right and capability to unilaterally intervene in civilian politics to "correct" perceived political missteps or failures, effectively holding a veto power over civilian governance. The military came to see itself as the guardian of the nation, entitled to intervene in politics whenever it deemed it necessary.

Even after the formal, and somewhat precarious, restoration of parliamentary democracy in 1990, following the mass uprising against Ershad, the ominous shadow of military influence continued to loom large over Bangladeshi politics. The military, despite officially returning to the barracks, continued to wield significant, though often subtle and behind-the-scenes, power and influence in national affairs, subtly but effectively influencing critical political decisions, maintaining close and often informal relationships with various political parties and factions, and remaining a potent, if often unspoken, factor in the political calculus of civilian governments. This persistent and pervasive military influence, even in ostensibly democratic periods, profoundly hindered the genuine development of a robust and fully functional democratic political culture in Bangladesh and created a persistent and deeply troubling sense of fragility and uncertainty about the long-term viability and future of civilian rule and democratic governance. The military's continued influence ensured that it remained a powerful force in Bangladeshi politics, even when not directly in control of the government.

Erosion of Democratic Institutions and the Rule of Law:

The repeated and systematic imposition of martial law, the prolonged periods of direct military rule under Zia and Ershad, and the systematic suppression of legitimate political opposition and dissent over many years dealt a devastating and near-fatal blow to Bangladesh's already nascent and fragile democratic institutions and the still weak rule of law. The parliament, the judiciary, the civil bureaucracy, and the electoral system, all vital pillars of a functioning democracy, were systematically weakened, deliberately politicized, and often completely bypassed or rendered ineffective by the military regimes. These institutions were deliberately undermined to consolidate military control and prevent any challenges to authoritarian rule.

The constitution of 1972, the foundational document of the nation's democratic aspirations, was repeatedly suspended, selectively amended, or simply ignored by military rulers and their civilian collaborators to suit the narrow political interests of the ruling regime and to legitimize their extra-constitutional seizure and consolidation of power. The rule of law, already fragile, was systematically undermined and eroded, replaced by arbitrary military decrees and executive orders. Democratic accountability, a core principle of democratic governance, was effectively eliminated, replaced by a system of patronage, cronyism, and authoritarian control. This systematic dismantling of democratic institutions and the erosion of the rule of law created a pervasive and corrosive culture of impunity, where those in power, particularly within the military and the ruling political clique, were often perceived as being above the law and unaccountable for their actions, further undermining public trust in governance. The lack of accountability fostered corruption and abuse of power.

The deliberate and systematic politicization of key state institutions, such as the police force, the judiciary, the civil bureaucracy, and the election commission, further exacerbated the problem, leading to rampant corruption, widespread abuse of power, and a profound lack of public trust in the impartiality and effectiveness of these institutions. The deep-seated lack of institutional integrity and the pervasive politicization of state apparatus made it exceedingly difficult to subsequently establish a stable, genuinely accountable, and effectively functioning democratic system, as the very institutions designed to uphold democracy were themselves compromised and weakened. This politicization ensured that these institutions served the interests of those in power, rather than the interests of the people.

Deep Political Polarization and a Culture of Mistrust:

The traumatic events of 1975 and the subsequent political realignments, particularly the emergence of the Awami League and the BNP as the two dominant political forces, created deep and enduring ideological and partisan divisions within Bangladeshi society. The long and violent history of political assassinations, military interventions, and systematic institutional erosion tragically contributed to a pervasive and deeply entrenched lack of public trust in political processes, democratic institutions, and political leaders across the spectrum. This lack of trust undermined the legitimacy of the political system and made it difficult to build consensus on national issues.

The intense and often bitter rivalry between the Awami League, representing a more secular, Bengali nationalist, and historically socialist-leaning political tradition, and the BNP, representing a more conservative, "Bangladeshi" nationalist, and market-oriented political platform, became the dominant and defining feature of Bangladeshi politics in the post-1975 era. This deep-seated rivalry often manifested in intense political animosity, deeply confrontational and often violent political tactics, and a near-complete lack of political cooperation or consensus-building on critical national issues, hindering effective governance and national progress. The rivalry became a zero-sum game, with each party seeking to undermine the other at every turn.

The dominant political discourse, particularly in the context of the AL-BNP rivalry, became increasingly and alarmingly polarized, often characterized by personalized attacks, inflammatory and often unsubstantiated rhetoric, and a marked lack of substantive and policy-oriented political debate. This pervasive political polarization tragically hindered the development of any semblance of national consensus on even the most pressing national issues, contributing directly to chronic political instability, frequent social unrest, and a deeply dysfunctional political system. The focus on personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric diverted attention from important policy issues and further divided the nation.

A Culture of Fear and Self-Censorship:

The long and disturbing history of political violence, systematic repression of dissent, and egregious human rights abuses under military rule and subsequent civilian governments created a pervasive and deeply ingrained culture of fear and pervasive self-censorship within Bangladeshi society. Journalists, political activists, academics, human rights defenders, and even ordinary citizens often hesitated to freely express dissenting political views, publicly criticize those in power, or openly challenge government policies for fear of potential reprisal, intimidation, arbitrary arrest, or even physical violence. This fear of reprisal stifled open debate and prevented the free expression of ideas.

This pervasive climate of fear and self-censorship tragically stifled robust public debate on critical national issues, hindered the organic development of a vibrant and independent civil society, and fundamentally undermined the foundational democratic principles of free expression, freedom of the press, and open and uninhibited political participation. The cynical and often politically motivated use of defamation laws, sedition statutes, and other vaguely worded legal instruments by successive governments to silence legitimate political criticism and suppress dissent further contributed to this deeply ingrained culture of self-censorship and political timidity. The legal system was often used as a tool to suppress opposition and silence critics.

Impact on International Image and Foreign Relations:

The chronic political instability, persistent patterns of human rights abuses documented by international organizations, and the evident lack of genuine democratic governance associated with the long period of military rule and subsequent political turmoil severely damaged Bangladesh's international image and standing in the global community. The country's tarnished reputation as a fragile and often dysfunctional democracy, prone to political violence and military intervention, made it significantly more difficult to attract much-needed foreign direct investment, build strong and mutually beneficial diplomatic relationships with key international partners, and play a constructive and respected role in regional and international affairs, hindering its overall development and global integration. The negative international perception hampered Bangladesh's ability to attract foreign investment and build strong diplomatic ties.

The deeply negative legacy of the tumultuous events of 1975 and their long-term consequences continue to significantly shape Bangladesh's political culture and its ongoing and often arduous struggle for genuine democratic consolidation. Overcoming this deeply entrenched and damaging legacy requires a concerted, sustained, and multi-pronged effort to systematically strengthen democratic institutions, firmly establish the rule of law, foster inclusive and constructive political dialogue among all stakeholders, and diligently build a national political culture rooted in tolerance, inclusivity, respect for human rights, and a genuine commitment to democratic principles. This requires a fundamental shift in the mindset of political actors and a commitment to building a more democratic and inclusive society.

⁠

Section II: The Military Regimes: Ziaur Rahman and H.M. Ershad

2.1 Ziaur Rahman’s Rise to Power and Policies

Ziaur Rahman's dramatic emergence as the dominant political figure in Bangladesh was a direct, and in many ways, almost inevitable consequence of the chaotic and violent aftermath of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's assassination. The subsequent intense power struggles and military infighting that engulfed the nation in 1975 created a power vacuum that Zia, through a combination of strategic opportunism, military backing, and political maneuvering, was able to exploit. His calculated rise to power, his subsequent consolidation of authoritarian authority, and the range of policies he implemented fundamentally reshaped the political, economic, and social landscape of Bangladesh. His rule marked a significant, and often controversial, departure from the initial ideals and early policies of the post-independence era under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, setting the stage for a new political era characterized by military influence and a shift towards market-oriented economics.

Background and Role in the Liberation War: A Military Hero:

Ziaur Rahman was a career military officer who had joined the Pakistan Army in 1953, prior to the independence of Bangladesh. He received rigorous military training at the prestigious Pakistan Military Academy at Kakul and served in various command and staff positions within the Pakistan Army, gaining valuable professional experience and demonstrating military competence. During the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War, Zia commanded a company of soldiers in the fiercely contested Khemkaran sector on the Western Front, earning a reputation for bravery, tactical acumen, and leadership under fire, further enhancing his military credentials and solidifying his standing within the army.

However, Ziaur Rahman's most historically significant contribution, and the defining moment of his career, came during the tumultuous 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh. On March 27, 1971, in the immediate aftermath of the Pakistan Army's brutal crackdown on Bengali civilians in what became known as "Operation Searchlight," Major Ziaur Rahman, then stationed in Chittagong as the Second-in-Command of the 8th East Bengal Regiment, made a historic and momentous declaration of independence on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who had already been arrested and taken into Pakistani custody by the Pakistan Army. This courageous and unauthorized declaration of independence, broadcast from the clandestine Kalurghat radio station in Chittagong, played a crucial and catalytic role in galvanizing the Bengali population, mobilizing widespread popular resistance against the Pakistani military occupation, and providing a crucial rallying cry for the nascent Mukti Bahini (Liberation Army). In his iconic radio address, Zia declared, in clear and forceful terms, "I, Major Zia, Provisional Commander-in-Chief of the Bangladesh Liberation Army, hereby proclaim, on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the independence of Bangladesh." This singular act of defiance against the Pakistan Army, and his unequivocal declaration of independence, indelibly solidified his image in the public consciousness as a national hero and a key figure in the initial stages of the liberation struggle. His declaration provided a much-needed boost to morale and helped to galvanize the resistance movement.

During the protracted nine-month Liberation War, Zia commanded a strategically important sector of the Mukti Bahini in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and later commanded a brigade-level force, actively participating in several key battles and military campaigns against the Pakistan Army. He earned a widespread reputation as a courageous, resourceful, and highly effective military leader, both among his troops and among the civilian population supporting the liberation effort. His leadership and military skills were crucial in several key victories against the Pakistani forces. His undeniably crucial role in the Liberation War provided him with a strong and enduring base of support within the newly

formed Bangladesh military and a significant degree of political legitimacy in the eyes of a substantial segment of the Bangladeshi public. This widespread popularity and respect, earned through his wartime service, would prove to be a crucial asset in his subsequent political ascent.

Navigating the Post-Coup Chaos: A Strategic Opportunist:

Following the violent and chaotic August 15, 1975 coup that resulted in the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Ziaur Rahman, who was then serving as the relatively low-profile Deputy Chief of Army Staff, initially and deliberately maintained a cautiously low political profile in the immediate aftermath of the upheaval. While he was not directly involved in the planning or execution of the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, there is evidence to suggest that he was at least generally aware of the growing discontent and conspiratorial murmurings within certain factions of the military officer corps. He was acutely conscious of the pervasive political instability and power vacuum that had emerged in the country, and he carefully positioned himself to take advantage of the situation.

During the highly volatile and chaotic period of coups, counter-coups, and military infighting that followed the August 15th coup, Ziaur Rahman skillfully and strategically navigated the treacherous and unpredictable political landscape with remarkable political acumen and strategic opportunism. He avoided taking sides in the initial power struggles, carefully observing the unfolding events and biding his time. He initially and publicly appeared to cautiously support the "Sepoy Biplob" (Soldiers' Revolution) of November 7, 1975, led by the radical socialist Colonel Abu Taher, which ostensibly sought to establish a more egalitarian military and a more just and equitable society. He was briefly and unexpectedly elevated to the largely symbolic position of Chief of Army Staff by the mutineers amidst the chaos of the "Sepoy Biplob," a position that provided him with a crucial platform to project authority and consolidate power, even though he did not fully share the mutineers' radical ideology.

However, Zia, a shrewd, pragmatic, and ultimately highly ambitious political and military strategist, quickly and correctly realized that Colonel Taher's radical socialist agenda, with its emphasis on class warfare, revolutionary upheaval, and the empowerment of rank-and-file soldiers at the expense of the officer corps, was fundamentally unsustainable, deeply divisive within the military, and posed a direct threat to his own personal political ambitions and long-term strategic objectives. He therefore gradually but decisively distanced himself from Taher and his radical agenda, strategically using the chaos of the "Sepoy Biplob" to his own advantage. He subtly but effectively began to consolidate his personal authority and control within the military, skillfully using his influence and network of loyal officers to outmaneuver, isolate, and ultimately neutralize his potential rivals and consolidate his unchallenged grip on power. He recognized that Taher's radicalism would alienate many within the military and the broader population, and he positioned himself as a more moderate and stabilizing force.

Consolidation of Power and Martial Law: A Ruthless Pragmatist:

Within mere days of the tumultuous "Sepoy Biplob," Ziaur Rahman moved decisively, ruthlessly, and with calculated precision to firmly assert his personal control over the military and the state apparatus. He strategically ordered the arrest of Colonel Abu Taher and his key associates and leading figures in the "Sepoy Biplob," effectively and brutally crushing the nascent socialist and radical leftist movement within the military officer corps and eliminating a potential future political rival. He then systematically re-established strict order and hierarchical discipline within the armed forces, ruthlessly purging military officers who were perceived as being associated with either the August 15th coup plotters or the radical "Sepoy Biplob," consolidating his own power base and eliminating potential sources of future dissent or challenges to his authority. This purge ensured that the military was firmly under his control and loyal to his leadership.

Zia strategically assumed the powerful position of Chief Martial Law Administrator, effectively and unequivocally becoming the supreme ruler of Bangladesh, governing through military decrees and unchallenged executive authority. He ruled the country under the iron fist of martial law for several years, maintaining tight, centralized, and authoritarian control over all aspects of the government, the military, the intelligence agencies, and the heavily censored media. He systematically suppressed all forms of political dissent, arbitrarily imprisoned political opponents, banned political activities, and ruthlessly used the military and intelligence agencies to maintain his firm grip on power, silencing any voices of opposition and consolidating his autocratic rule. This period was marked by a significant curtailment of civil liberties and political freedoms.

Transition to Civilian Rule (Ostensibly): A Calculated Move:

While Ziaur Rahman initially and effectively ruled Bangladesh through direct military decrees and martial law, he was acutely aware of the inherent lack of long-term legitimacy and sustainability of purely military rule in a nation that aspired to democracy. He also recognized the pressing need to project a more civilianized image of his regime, both domestically and to the international community, and to strategically broaden his narrow base of support beyond the military. He understood that to maintain power in the long term, he needed to cultivate broader popular support and establish a semblance of legitimacy. He therefore gradually and strategically moved towards a more ostensibly civilianized form of government, although he always meticulously maintained ultimate and unchallenged control over all levers of power, ensuring that the military remained the ultimate arbiter of political authority. This transition was carefully managed and controlled, ensuring that Zia remained firmly in charge.

In a carefully orchestrated and widely criticized move to legitimize his presidency and consolidate civilian authority, in 1977, Ziaur Rahman organized a national referendum to ostensibly endorse his continued presidency. The referendum, which was widely criticized by opposition groups and international observers as being heavily rigged and lacking any genuine democratic credibility, predictably resulted in a landslide victory for Zia, with officially reported figures of over 98% of voters endorsing his presidency. This provided him with a carefully manufactured semblance of popular mandate, although the legitimacy of the referendum was highly questionable. He further cautiously lifted the ban on political parties in 1978, strategically allowing for the resumption of carefully controlled and monitored open political activity, although still operating under strict conditions and the ever-present shadow of martial law. This calculated and gradual transition to a more civilianized political structure was a shrewd political maneuver designed to create a more stable and predictable political environment, project a more internationally acceptable and democratic image of his regime to the outside world, and subtly co-opt or neutralize potential civilian opposition. However, it was clear that Zia maintained ultimate control, and the transition was carefully managed to ensure his continued dominance.

Economic Policies: A Shift Towards Market Liberalization and Private Enterprise:

Ziaur Rahman fundamentally reoriented Bangladesh's economic policies, implementing a series of significant economic reforms that marked a decisive and irreversible departure from the socialist-leaning, state-controlled economic policies that had characterized the initial years of independence under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's government. He strategically embraced a more market-oriented economic approach, prioritizing private sector development as the primary engine of economic growth, actively promoting export-oriented industries to generate foreign exchange, and aggressively seeking foreign aid and private investment from Western nations and international financial institutions to bolster the struggling economy. This represented a major shift from the previous emphasis on state control and socialist principles.

His government systematically pursued a policy of economic deregulation, privatization of state-owned enterprises, and trade liberalization, dismantling many of the socialist-inspired economic controls and regulations of the previous era. He initiated the denationalization of several key industries that had been nationalized by Mujib's government, including jute mills, textile factories, and banks, returning them to private ownership, often at significantly undervalued prices, benefiting a select group of politically connected businessmen and industrialists. This privatization drive was controversial, with critics arguing that it led to increased inequality and benefited a select few at the expense of the majority. He also strategically created special economic zones (EPZs) to actively attract foreign direct investment and promote the rapid growth of export-oriented industries, particularly the burgeoning ready-made garment (RMG) sector, which would become the mainstay of the Bangladeshi economy. The creation of EPZs was a key element of his strategy to attract foreign investment and boost exports.

Zia's fundamental shift in economic policies was significantly influenced by the prevailing global ideological trend towards market liberalization and neoliberal economic orthodoxy, and also heavily influenced by the persistent policy advice and conditionalities attached to financial assistance from powerful international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. These institutions advocated for market-oriented reforms as a condition for providing loans and aid. He genuinely believed, or at least publicly argued, that a robust market-based economy, driven by private sector initiative and open to global trade and investment, was demonstrably the most effective and pragmatic way to promote sustained economic growth, generate employment opportunities, and accelerate overall economic development in resource-constrained Bangladesh. He saw market liberalization as the key to unlocking Bangladesh's economic potential.

The "19-Point Program": A Blueprint for National Development:

Ziaur Rahman strategically launched a comprehensive "19-Point Program" in 1976, which he presented as a detailed blueprint for national development and a roadmap for transforming Bangladesh into a modern and prosperous nation. This ambitious program encompassed a wide range of policy initiatives and development goals aimed at comprehensively addressing the myriad economic and social challenges facing the country in the aftermath of war and political upheaval. The program was intended to provide a framework for his government's policies and to mobilize public support for his vision of a "new Bangladesh." The key points of this ambitious program included:

Boosting Agricultural Production: Prioritizing a dramatic increase in domestic food production to achieve food security and reduce reliance on imports, primarily through the widespread adoption of modern agricultural technologies, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, and the provision of subsidized fertilizers and high-yielding seed varieties to farmers. This was seen as crucial for addressing the widespread food shortages and famine conditions that had plagued the country.

Developing Rural Infrastructure: Recognizing the crucial importance of rural infrastructure for agricultural development and rural economic growth, the program emphasized the construction and improvement of rural roads, bridges, irrigation canals, and rural electrification networks to improve rural connectivity, facilitate access to markets for agricultural produce, and enhance the overall quality of life in rural areas. This was intended to improve the living standards of the majority of the population, who lived in rural areas.

Promoting Family Planning: Acknowledging the urgent need to address rapid population growth as a major impediment to sustainable development, the program prioritized the expansion and strengthening of national family planning programs to promote smaller family sizes and reduce the rate of population increase, aiming to alleviate pressure on scarce resources and improve living standards. This was seen as a crucial step towards achieving sustainable development.

Expanding Education: Recognizing education as a fundamental pillar of national development and social progress, the program emphasized increasing access to education at all levels, particularly primary education in underserved rural areas, improving the quality of education, and promoting vocational and technical training to enhance human capital development and skills enhancement. This was intended to create a more skilled and educated workforce.

Developing the Garment Industry: Strategically identifying the nascent ready-made garment (RMG) industry as a key sector for export-led growth and employment creation, the program prioritized providing targeted incentives, policy support, and infrastructure development to facilitate the rapid expansion of export-oriented garment factories, aiming to capitalize on Bangladesh's low labor costs and access to international markets. This proved to be a highly successful policy, leading to the rapid growth of the garment industry.

Encouraging Private Sector Investment: Central to Zia's market-oriented economic philosophy, the program emphasized creating a more favorable and enabling environment for both domestic and foreign private sector investment across various sectors of the economy, reducing bureaucratic red tape, streamlining regulations, and offering tax incentives to attract private capital and stimulate economic activity. This was a key element of his strategy to shift away from state control and towards a market-based economy.

Privatizing State-Owned Enterprises: Consistent with his market liberalization agenda, the program advocated for the gradual privatization of inefficient and loss-making state-owned enterprises (SOEs), arguing that transferring ownership to the private sector would improve efficiency, reduce the burden on the state treasury, and attract private investment and management expertise. This was a controversial policy, but it was consistent with the global trend towards privatization at the time.

Strengthening Local Government: Recognizing the importance of decentralized governance and local participation, the program aimed to strengthen local government institutions, particularly at the Union Parishad level, by devolving some administrative powers, financial resources, and development responsibilities to local councils, promoting grassroots democracy and local development initiatives. This was intended to empower local communities and improve the delivery of public services.

Combating Corruption: Acknowledging corruption as a major impediment to development and good governance, the program included a commitment to launching sustained anti-corruption campaigns to tackle endemic corruption at all levels of government and society, although the actual effectiveness and sincerity of these anti-corruption efforts were often questioned by critics. Corruption remained a persistent problem throughout Zia's rule.

Promoting self-reliance: The Program included points designed to promote self-sufficency and reduce reliance on foreign aid.

Upholding National Security: Strengthen national defence capabilities and maintain internal law and order.

The ambitious 19-Point Program was presented as a comprehensive and integrated plan that broadly reflected Zia's overarching vision for a modern, economically prosperous, and socially progressive Bangladesh. While some aspects of the program, such as the expansion of the garment industry and agricultural modernization efforts, achieved considerable success and had a positive impact on economic growth, other aspects, particularly those related to social justice, poverty reduction, and combating corruption, faced persistent challenges related to ineffective implementation, bureaucratic inertia, endemic corruption, limited resources, and often a lack of genuine political commitment. The program was a mix of ambitious goals and practical challenges.

Foreign Policy: Diversification, Non-Alignment, and Regional Cooperation:

Ziaur Rahman fundamentally reoriented Bangladesh's foreign policy, strategically pursuing a policy of diversification of international relations and non-alignment in the context of Cold War geopolitics. He consciously sought to strategically move away from Bangladesh's perceived over-reliance on close alignment with India and the Soviet bloc, which had characterized the early foreign policy of the Mujib era. He actively sought to build broader and more balanced relationships with a wider range of countries across the ideological spectrum, including Western nations, particularly the United States, China, and oil-rich Middle Eastern states. This represented a significant shift from the previous foreign policy orientation.

He consistently emphasized Bangladesh's sovereign independence, national interests, and territorial integrity in his foreign policy pronouncements and sought to project a more assertive and independent image of Bangladesh on the regional and international stage, distancing himself from the perception of being overly influenced by India. He pragmatically improved diplomatic and economic relations with Pakistan, addressing some of the lingering and contentious issues from the 1971 Liberation War, such as the repatriation of stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh and the sharing of assets and liabilities. This was a controversial move, given the history of the Liberation War, but Zia saw it as necessary for regional stability. He also strategically prioritized strengthening relations with Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East, seeking economic assistance, concessional loans, and investment from oil-exporting nations, and projecting Bangladesh as a moderate and stable Muslim nation. This was partly driven by economic necessity, as Bangladesh needed foreign aid and investment.

Ziaur Rahman was a strong and vocal advocate of regional cooperation in South Asia. He played a key and often underappreciated role in actively promoting the concept of regional cooperation and was instrumental in the eventual formation of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in 1985, although tragically, he was assassinated in 1981, before SAARC was formally launched. He firmly believed that enhanced regional cooperation among South Asian nations was absolutely essential for promoting lasting peace, regional stability, and accelerated economic development throughout the South Asian subcontinent, and actively worked towards realizing this vision. His efforts laid the groundwork for the establishment of SAARC, which remains an important regional organization.

Constitutional Amendments and the Incorporation of Islamic Identity:

Ziaur Rahman introduced a series of significant and often controversial amendments to the secular constitution of Bangladesh, adopted in 1972. In a notable and symbolically significant move, he officially removed secularism as one of the fundamental state principles enshrined in the constitution, replacing it with the ambiguous phrase "absolute trust and faith in Almighty Allah." This move was widely interpreted as a concession to religious conservatives and a departure from the secular ethos of the Liberation War, which had emphasized the separation of religion and state. He also controversially inserted the invocation "Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim" (In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful), a common Islamic invocation, at the very beginning of the constitution, further signaling a shift towards a more overtly Islamic orientation of the state. These changes were highly symbolic and had a lasting impact on the political discourse in Bangladesh.

These constitutionally enshrined changes reflected a deliberate and politically calculated shift towards a more explicitly Islamic-oriented national identity and a greater accommodation of religious sentiments in national politics and public life. These amendments were widely welcomed and celebrated by some segments of the Bangladeshi population, particularly religious conservatives, Islamist political parties, and those who felt alienated by the secularist orientation of the early Awami League government. However, they were also strongly criticized and vehemently opposed by other segments of society, particularly secularists, minority religious groups, progressive intellectuals, and those who viewed these amendments as a betrayal of the secular principles of the 1971 Liberation War and a dangerous step towards religious fundamentalism and sectarianism. The amendments remain a source of controversy and debate in Bangladesh to this day.

Assassination and Legacy: A Controversial Figure:

Ziaur Rahman was tragically assassinated on May 30, 1981, in Chittagong, during a poorly planned and ultimately unsuccessful attempted military coup led by a disgruntled military officer, Major General Abul Manzur. The precise circumstances surrounding his death remain shrouded in mystery, speculation, and persistent controversy to this day. There are conflicting and often contradictory accounts of who was ultimately responsible for orchestrating the assassination, and some persistent conspiracy theories suggest that it may have been orchestrated by elements within the military or political establishment who opposed his policies or his continued rule. His assassination, like that of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, further destabilized the country and highlighted the fragility of the political system.

Ziaur Rahman's political legacy in Bangladesh remains complex, deeply contested, and sharply divided along partisan lines. His staunch supporters and admirers credit him with restoring a semblance of political stability after a prolonged period of intense political chaos and military infighting, promoting significant economic growth through market-oriented reforms, and skillfully asserting Bangladesh's national independence and sovereign identity on the international stage. They often portray him as a strong, decisive, and pragmatic leader who brought much-needed discipline, direction, and a sense of national purpose to the country after the turbulent early years of independence. They also point to his role in establishing the BNP as a major political force.

However, his critics and political opponents vehemently point to his authoritarian and undemocratic rule, his systematic suppression of political dissent and fundamental freedoms, his documented human rights abuses under martial law, and his controversial erosion of secular principles enshrined in the original constitution. They argue that he consolidated and maintained power through undemocratic and often brutal means, and that his economic policies, while generating some growth, also led to increased economic inequality, social division, and a weakening of social safety nets for the most vulnerable segments of society. They also criticize his role in rehabilitating some individuals associated with the Pakistani regime during the Liberation War.

Despite the controversies and criticisms, Ziaur Rahman is undeniably remembered in Bangladeshi history for founding the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) in 1978, which rapidly emerged as a major and enduring political force in Bangladesh and became the principal and long-term political rival to the Awami League, shaping the contours of Bangladeshi politics for decades to come. His widow, Khaleda Zia, later inherited his political mantle and became a prominent political leader in her own right, serving as Prime Minister of Bangladesh multiple times, continuing his political legacy and perpetuating the enduring rivalry between the BNP and the Awami League. His legacy remains a subject of intense debate and political contestation in Bangladesh.

2.2 Formation and Ideology of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)

The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), strategically formed by President Ziaur Rahman in 1978, rapidly emerged as a major and transformative political force in Bangladesh, fundamentally altering the established political landscape and establishing a long-lasting and deeply consequential political rivalry with the Awami League. The BNP's formation was a shrewd and calculated political move by Ziaur Rahman to consolidate his personal power, strategically legitimize his military-backed regime through civilian political means, and create a durable political vehicle for advancing and institutionalizing his vision of a "new Bangladesh," distinct from the secular and socialist vision of the early Awami League. The BNP provided a political platform for Zia's supporters and offered an alternative to the Awami League's dominance.

Context: Political Vacuum and the Need for a New Political Force:

Following the traumatic assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975 and the subsequent prolonged period of direct military rule and political instability, Bangladesh found itself in a significant political vacuum, lacking a strong, broadly representative, and unified civilian political force capable of effectively mobilizing public support and providing political direction. The Awami League, the historically dominant party that had led the country to independence and enjoyed immense popular support in the early years, was severely weakened, politically demoralized, and organizationally fragmented by the violent events of 1975, the assassination of its top leadership, and the subsequent political repression under military rule. Its leadership was decimated, and its organizational structure was severely damaged. Other existing political parties on the Bangladeshi political spectrum were largely small, fragmented along ideological lines, or operating under severe restrictions imposed by the martial law regime, unable to effectively fill the political void or challenge the military's dominance.

Ziaur Rahman, recognizing the inherent limitations and long-term unsustainability of purely military rule, and acutely aware of the pressing need to strategically transition from direct military governance to a more civilianized form of government to gain broader political legitimacy and domestic and international acceptance, astutely saw a unique political opportunity to create a completely new political party that could effectively fill this existing political vacuum. He strategically aimed to build a broad-based, nationally oriented political party that could appeal to a wide and diverse range of social groups, economic interests, and political ideologies, consciously transcending the pre-existing and increasingly divisive ideological divisions that characterized the Bangladeshi political landscape, particularly the secular-religious divide and the Bengali nationalist-Bangladeshi nationalist dichotomy. He sought to create a party that would unite diverse elements of society under his leadership.

Launch and Composition: A "Big Tent" Party:

The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) was officially and strategically launched on September 1, 1978, following Ziaur Rahman's calculated decision to cautiously lift the ban on overt political activities, albeit still operating under the overarching umbrella of martial law regulations. The BNP rapidly gained significant political momentum in its initial phase, attracting a remarkably diverse and often ideologically disparate array of political actors, interest groups, and individuals. This broad appeal was a key element of Zia's strategy to build a powerful political force. The party's initial composition included:

Former Awami League Members: A notable contingent of former members of the Awami League, particularly those who had become disillusioned with the party's post-independence trajectory, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's increasingly authoritarian style of rule, and the perceived failures of socialist economic policies, strategically joined the newly formed BNP, seeking a new political home and an alternative to the weakened Awami League. These individuals saw the BNP as a more viable political force and a potential vehicle for their own political ambitions.

Leaders from Smaller Political Groups: Ambitious leaders and cadres from various smaller and often marginal political parties across the ideological spectrum, including leftist, rightist, and centrist groups, opportunistically saw the BNP as a potentially powerful and rapidly growing political vehicle for achieving greater political influence, access to resources, and a pathway to national political prominence that had previously eluded them in their smaller, less influential parties. The BNP offered them an opportunity to gain a greater share of power and influence.

Individuals from the Anti-Mujib Coalition: A diverse array of individuals who had actively opposed Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's increasingly authoritarian policies, particularly the controversial BAKSAL one-party system and the suppression of political opposition, found a welcoming political home and a shared sense of purpose in the BNP, uniting against what they perceived as the legacy of Awami League dominance. These individuals saw the BNP as a way to challenge the Awami League's grip on power.

Business Leaders and Professionals: Prominent business leaders, industrialists, entrepreneurs, and professionals from various sectors of the economy, seeking political stability, a predictable policy environment conducive to economic growth, and a market-friendly economic policy framework, were naturally attracted to the BNP's pro-business economic policies and its emphasis on private sector development. They saw the BNP as a party that would promote their economic interests.

Religious Conservatives: Socially and religiously conservative individuals and groups, who often felt politically marginalized and culturally alienated by the Awami League's pronounced secularism and perceived pro-Indian stance, were strategically drawn to the BNP's more explicit emphasis on Islamic values, Bangladeshi national identity, and a more cautious approach to relations with India, seeing it as a political party that better represented their cultural and religious sentiments. The BNP offered them a platform to express their views and influence policy.

Former Military Officers: Given Ziaur Rahman's own distinguished military background and his continued close ties to the armed forces, a significant number of retired and former military officers, particularly those who had served under Zia's command or shared his political outlook, naturally joined the BNP, further reinforcing its image as a disciplined and nationally oriented political force. The BNP provided a natural political home for many former military personnel.

This deliberately broad-based and ideologically heterogeneous composition of the BNP was a carefully calculated political strategy consciously pursued by Ziaur Rahman to create a "big tent" political party, capable of strategically uniting diverse segments of Bangladeshi society, encompassing a wide range of social classes, economic interests, and ideological viewpoints under his personal leadership and political direction. He strategically sought to build a truly national political party that could effectively transcend narrow ideological or sectarian divides, appeal to a broad swathe of the electorate, and establish itself as a dominant force in Bangladeshi politics, capable of challenging the Awami League's historical dominance. This "big tent" approach was designed to maximize the BNP's appeal and build a broad coalition of support.

Core Ideology: Bangladeshi Nationalism, Islamic Values, and Market Economics:

The BNP's core ideology, as initially articulated by Ziaur Rahman himself and subsequently developed and refined by party ideologues and intellectuals, was strategically built around several key and interlinked tenets, designed to differentiate it from the Awami League and appeal to a distinct political constituency. These tenets reflected Zia's vision for Bangladesh and his desire to create a political party that would represent a clear alternative to the Awami League.

Bangladeshi Nationalism: This was consciously presented as the central and defining pillar of the BNP's political ideology, strategically distinguishing it from the Awami League's emphasis on Bengali nationalism. Bangladeshi nationalism, as articulated by the BNP, emphatically emphasized national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the assertion of a distinct and unique Bangladeshi national identity, culturally, politically, and historically separate from a broader Bengali identity that might encompass West Bengal in India. This concept of Bangladeshi nationalism was consciously contrasted with the Bengali nationalism that had been historically and ideologically closely associated with the Awami League and the Liberation War. Bangladeshi nationalism, as strategically promoted by the BNP, sought to be more explicitly inclusive, encompassing all citizens of Bangladesh, regardless of their specific ethnic origin, linguistic affiliation, or particular religious beliefs, emphasizing a shared national citizenship and a collective destiny within the sovereign borders of Bangladesh. It deliberately emphasized the unique cultural, historical, and geographical heritage of Bangladesh as a distinct and independent nation-state, separate from both India and Pakistan. This emphasis on Bangladeshi nationalism was intended to appeal to a broader range of citizens and to distinguish the BNP from the Awami League's focus on Bengali identity.

Islamic Values: The BNP strategically placed a significantly greater and more explicit emphasis on Islamic values, principles, and cultural traditions in public life and national identity than the historically secular-leaning Awami League. While the BNP officially maintained that it was not advocating for the establishment of a theocratic Islamic state or the implementation of strict Sharia law, it consistently stressed the fundamental importance of Islam as a core component of Bangladeshi society, national culture, and collective moral identity. This strategic emphasis on Islamic values was prominently reflected in Ziaur Rahman's controversial constitutional amendments, which officially removed secularism as a state principle and inserted explicit references to "absolute trust and faith in Almighty Allah" in the constitution. This carefully crafted appeal to deeply held Islamic values and religious sentiments resonated strongly with a significant segment of the Bangladeshi population, particularly in the more religiously conservative rural areas and among those who felt that the Awami League's secularism was alienating or culturally insensitive. The emphasis on Islamic values was a key differentiator from the Awami League and helped the BNP to build support among religiously conservative voters.

Free Market Economics: In sharp contrast to the Awami League's historical socialist leanings and emphasis on state-led economic development, the BNP strategically adopted and consistently advocated for a distinctly free-market oriented economic policy framework. The BNP vigorously promoted private sector investment as the primary engine of economic growth, deregulation of the economy to reduce bureaucratic hurdles, trade liberalization to integrate Bangladesh into the global economy, and a significantly reduced role for the state in direct economic activities, emphasizing the efficiency and dynamism of private enterprise. This pro-market economic stance directly contrasted with the Awami League's more interventionist and socialist-leaning approach to economic management. The BNP's consistently articulated economic policies were strategically aimed at attracting both domestic and foreign private investment, actively promoting export-oriented industries like garments, and stimulating overall economic growth through market mechanisms and private sector dynamism. This emphasis on free-market economics appealed to the business community and those who favored a less interventionist role for the state.

Social Justice (Rhetorically): While strategically prioritizing private enterprise and market-led growth as the core drivers of economic development, the BNP also rhetorically paid lip service to the principle of social justice, publicly promising to address poverty, reduce income inequality, and improve social welfare for the less privileged segments of society. However, in practice, the BNP's actual policies, with their emphasis on deregulation, privatization, and reduced state intervention in the economy, were often criticized by leftist and progressive groups for inadvertently exacerbating existing income disparities, widening the gap between the rich and the poor, and weakening social safety nets for vulnerable populations. The rhetoric of social justice was often used to appeal to a broader electorate, but the actual policies often favored the wealthy and powerful.

Multi-Party Democracy (Officially): The BNP, despite its origins in a military regime and its initial establishment under martial law, officially and publicly embraced the principles of multi-party democracy, at least in rhetoric, and formally committed to holding periodic free and fair elections as the legitimate mechanism for transferring political power. However, the BNP's actual commitment to genuine democratic principles and practices was often questioned and viewed with skepticism by its political opponents and civil society groups, particularly during periods when the BNP held state power and was accused of manipulating elections and suppressing political opposition. The commitment to multi-party democracy was often more rhetorical than practical.

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.