In 1978, a book edited by Guy Hermet, Richard Rose and Alain Rouquie was published with an interesting title, Elections without Choice. The book drew some attention soon after its publication, but little did we know that, decades later, the notion of "elections without choice" would become so relevant to the world in general but more so for Bangladesh. As the country is heading towards an exercise that the incumbent is calling an election, it is imperative that we understand what is in the making.

The edited volume of Elections without Choice was an outcome of a research project initiated by the Committee on Political Sociology, composed of the International Political Science Association and the International Sociological Association. The editors quite rightly noted that political scientists deliberately avoid discussing non-competitive elections, because those elections do not meet the fundamental criterion of a liberal democracy. Not only did they underscore the need for understanding non-competitive elections, but also insisted that such elections are important in tracing the trajectory of each country.

Read more

Placing dummies as alternatives disenfranchises voters

The book was published at a time when the world was witnessing a gradual shift towards democracy, one country at a time. The Carnation Revolution in 1974 in Portugal and the death of Francisco Franco in 1975 in Spain started a wave, identified as the "Third Wave of Democracy" by Samuel Huntington in 1991. In the early days of democratisation, promoted by Western countries, it was assumed that an election was a key indicator of the political liberalisation process.

In the 1990s, with the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, democracy proliferated globally. It was believed that democratic regimes would be the norm and there could be only a few holdouts of autocratic regimes. But within less than a decade, two features became evident. The first one was that elections by themselves do not demonstrate democratisation, because authoritarian regimes also hold elections that are manipulated. The second feature was the emergence of a new kind of regime, with some apparent democratic traits but which are essentially autocratic; they were called hybrid regimes.

The 2014 election was boycotted by the opposition, yet strategies such as packing the Election Commission, or harassing the opposition, or changing electoral rules were used by the incumbent. In the 2018 election, another tool was added—keeping opposition candidates off the ballot—and this was done both by confining leaders and cancelling their nominations on flimsy grounds, making the candidates spend time at the courthouse, which has not been helpful to the candidates.

Subsequently, these regimes, which often hold elections and win at ease, were described as "electoral authoritarianism." These regimes tend to hold regular elections, but these elections are engineered in a fashion that opposition parties have little to no chance to win. In both closed autocracy and hybrid regimes, these exercises are essentially "elections without choice." Consequently, the attention of political scientists and observers shifted to the "quality" of elections.

Evidence mounted in the 2000s that autocrats and rulers of the hybrid regimes manipulate elections. Election manipulation was not a new phenomenon. However, from the 1970s through the 1990s, manipulation of elections was easily detectable: there was blatant rigging, which included capturing polling booths on election day and weapon-wielding party loyalists scaring voters away from polling stations and stuffing the ballot boxes.

But as these hybrid regimes emerged and the despots needed to have some semblance of legitimacy to continue their rule, rigging of an election took a different route. This is the period of regression of democracy, often described as "democratic backsliding," which political scientist Nancy Bermeo defined as "the state-led debilitation or elimination of any of the political institutions that sustain an existing democracy." These political institutions, Bermeo reminded us in an essay, include "all the institutions that enable people to formulate and signify preferences and then have them weighed by their elected representatives."

Two years after Bermeo's essay was published, a seminal book by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt published in 2018, titled How Democracies Die, unequivocally stated that sometimes democracy dies with a bang, with coups, quickly and forcefully. But lately it happens slowly, incrementally; "democratic backsliding today begins at the ballot box." The would-be autocrats rise through the elections, and then they change the rules of the game. Levitsky and Ziblatt use the analogy of a football game. "To consolidate power, the would-be authoritarians must capture the referees, sideline at least some of the other side's star players, and rewrite the rules of the game to lock in their advantage, in effect tilting the playing field against their opponent." When they talk of a referee, in the political context, who are they referring to? "These include the judicial system, law enforcement bodies, and intelligence, tax and regulatory agencies," they write.

Election, in a tilted field, is already rigged in such a manner that it can deliver only one result—a victory for the incumbent. The manipulation of elections, Bermeo told us, is one of the three key features of democratic backsliding. But such manipulation is not like how the classical autocrats used to do it—blatantly. Instead, these are "strategic manipulation," which includes "a range of actions aimed at tilting the electoral playing field in favor of incumbents." Bermeo provides a list of these actions: "keeping opposition candidates off the ballot," "packing electoral commissions," "changing electoral rules to favor incumbents," and "harassing opponents." Usually, these are done "in such a way that the elections themselves do not appear fraudulent" and are intended to fool election observers and the international community.

Read more

How constitutional is the 15th amendment?

As for these practices, perhaps nobody else has identified them better than Nic Cheeseman and Brian Klaas. Their book, published in 2018, is titled How to Rig an Election. The name sounds like a manual. In some measures, it is so. Only that they have dissected the manual or the playbook of the autocrats drawing on elections around the world. Cheeseman and Klaas identified the leaders who go for rigging: "Leaders are most likely to try and stay in power when they believe that their presence is essential to maintain political stability; in cases when they are less committed to plural politics; when they have engaged in high-level corruption and/or human rights abuses; when they lack trust in rival leaders and political institutions; when they have been in power for a longer period of time; and when they control geostrategically important states with natural resources, effective security forces, weak institutions and high levels of distrust."

They looked at six strategies that autocrats use to manipulate elections: gerrymandering (shaping electoral constituencies to the incumbent's benefit), vote buying, repression of opposition, hacking the election, stuffing the ballot box, and playing the international community. Interestingly, while ballot box stuffing is the most effective strategy, considering the risk of exposure, often autocrats use other strategies ahead of the election to ensure a victory. This is how elections are held by autocratic regimes.

Since the 2014 election, none of these strategies have been in short supply in Bangladesh. That election was boycotted by the opposition, yet strategies such as packing the Election Commission, or harassing the opposition, or changing electoral rules were used by the incumbent. In the 2018 election, another tool was added—keeping opposition candidates off the ballot—and this was done both by confining leaders and cancelling their nominations on flimsy grounds, making the candidates spend time at the courthouse, which has not been helpful to the candidates.

Read more

How to judge the Election Commission’s performance

These have delivered victory, not only a hollow one but something more than that, if we borrow from Cheeseman and Klass: "so one sided as to beggar belief, exposing the ruling party to ridicule." The ruling Awami League has not, by any means, abandoned its 2014 and 2018 strategies, but instead has become further audacious. The violent crackdown on opposition since October 28, arrests of BNP leaders, convictions of BNP leaders and activists at lightning speed, and shutting down party offices are testimonies to the continuation of these strategies. They also show how referees have been captured.

But in search of a way to avoid the ridiculous situations of winning 153 seats unopposed in 2014 or winning 96 percent of seats with allies in 2018, and additionally to "play the international community," it has invented a new way called fielding "dummy candidates." The so-called 'dummies" are candidates who belong to the ruling party but are contesting the election as "independents" with the approval of the party. Besides, the smaller parties, "king's parties," and individuals who have been cajoled or coerced into participating in the election, thanks to state apparatuses, would like to run under the symbol of the ruling AL.

Ironically, these have not saved the party from being a subject of ridicule, but made it more embarrassing for it long before a single vote has been cast. Importantly, all these have laid bare that the ruling AL is moving towards an "election without choice."

Ali Riaz is distinguished professor of political science at Illinois State University in the US, non-resident senior fellow of the Atlantic Council, and president of the American Institute of Bangladesh Studies (AIBS). His forthcoming book is titled 'Pathways of Autocratization: The tumultuous journey of Bangladeshi politics.'

Views expressed in this comment are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

Awami League President and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina today announced her party's polls manifesto for the 2024 national election, vowing to build a developed, prosperous and Smart Bangladesh by 2041.

"Bangladesh will be established as a high-middle-income country by 2031 and a developed, prosperous, smart one by 2041 by the Bangladesh Awami League, the bearer of the spirit of the Liberation War, if the people once again allow us to serve them by voting for the boat, the AL's electoral symbol," she said.

The premier said if the people of the country vote for the AL, her party will give them development, peace, and prosperity.

The AL chief made the remarks after unveiling her party's election manifesto at a city hotel this morning, just 10 days before the 12th parliamentary election slated for January 7.

The slogan of the AL's election manifesto is "Smart Bangladesh where Development Shines, Accelerating Employment".

The manifesto has given priorities to 11 issues.

In the manifesto, the AL vowed to show zero tolerance against corruption and terrorism, alleviate poverty, create employment, and ensure service-oriented and accountable administration.

The AL manifesto also put greater focus on infrastructure development, freedom of press and the practice of transparency, accountability, good governance as well as strengthened democratic values in all aspects of state management.

It, as well, promised to be tougher against money launderers, to eradicate bribery and corruption at all levels of the state and society, to establish a universal health system, and introduce health insurance.

"We are responsible for all the mistakes during the last 15 years ... Success is yours. Look at our mistakes with a forgiving eye. We promise to learn from past mistakes and conduct future activities according to your expectations," she said.

Right now, Bangladesh is standing in a transitional period and the country is going to join the ranks of developing countries from the list of least developed countries, she said, adding that this transition is an honour on the one hand and a huge challenge on the other.

"The government to be formed by the January 7 election must have the capacity to face this challenge. Only the Awami League can face this challenge and take the country to new heights," she said.

Looking forward to the 12th election, Sheikh Hasina said they have once again appeared before the countrymen with the election manifesto of Bangladesh Awami League.

"As a continuation of the past, this time, we have prepared an implementable election manifesto by setting specific targets. The continuity of the long-term action plans announced in the 2008, 2014, and 2018 election manifestos has also been maintained in the 12th election manifesto," she said.

The AL chief said they will not claim that they have always been a hundred percent successful in running the government despite sincerity and devotion.

She continued: "Awami League does not believe in the politics of words. We do what we say. The implementation of election manifestos of 2008, 2014, and 2018 is proof of that."

But at times, she said man-made, natural, and global obstacles slowed down Bangladesh's progress, adding that during 2013-16, they had to move forward by confronting the attempts of BNP-Jamaat to spread terrorism and militancy.

Since 2009, they had to deal with several natural disasters while the biggest blow came in 2020 when the global coronavirus pandemic broke out, Sheikh Hasina said, adding that the pandemic devastated economies and health systems around the entire world.

"Our government has successfully handled this terrible pandemic of the 21st century and kept the wheels of the economy running," she said.

However, as soon as the pressure of the coronavirus pandemic stopped, first, the Russia-Ukraine war broke out, and this year the Israel-Palestine war started, she added.

The sanction and counter-sanction against each other have thrown the world economy into turmoil and the least developed and developing countries like Bangladesh are being forced to import products at higher prices, she continued.
The depreciation of the domestic currency has led to an increase in inflation, which has an impact on commodity prices and people's lives, the premier said.

"Several times, despite multifaceted and all-out efforts, we have not been able to curb the rise in prices of daily necessities. This problem is not only for our country, but this problem is also for all rich and poor countries," she said.
However, "We are trying to reduce the plight of the lower and lower-middle class people through various initiatives, including expanding social safety net coverage. We hope that we can overcome this obstacle very soon, In Sha Allah," she added.

Whenever the election comes, the AL chief said an anti-liberation, anti-Bangladesh, and anti-development clique becomes active with a leap of conspiracy.

"They enter the field by using tricks or vote rigging or through the back door to come to power. If they become unsuccessful, they jump on the people to take revenge," she said.

She went on saying that the anti-liberation force wants to intimidate the public through arson attack, burning of vehicle, bombing, sabotage, or terrorist activities.

"This time, there was no exception. This time, they are also making conspiracies from abroad. Realising that they will not get the people's mandate, they have already indulged in terrorist activities," she said.

In the name of the hartal-blockade, the premier said that vehicles are being burnt, people are being killed, railway lines are being rooted up, and various vandalisms are being carried out continuously.

"The charred bodies of the mother and child have deeply shaken everyone's conscience. Such heinous acts can no longer be tolerated. Without getting the response to the people, mercenary forces are continuing this vandalism and damaging the vehicles," she said.

The people of this country will never let them fulfill their dream of disrupting the election through terrorism, she continued.

"As you resisted them in 2013-2016, let us collectively defend them this time. This anti-independence, anti-development vulture party will never be able to wound Bangladesh with their poisonous teeth and claws - let's take this oath in the month of victory," the AL chief said.

She reminded that this country's outstanding achievements- starting from establishing the rights to speak the mother tongue and achieving the motherland's independence, have come through the hands of the Awami League.

The AL president said Bangladesh has been transformed in the last 15 years as today's Bangladesh is by no means poverty-stricken or economically fragile.

"I can unequivocally say that today's Bangladesh is now a 'Changed Bangladesh.' Bangladesh is now a fast-paced country moving forward with its potential. Minor setbacks cannot hinder our economic progress today," she said.

AL General Secretary Obaidul Quader also spoke at the function.

Convener of the Election Manifesto Committee Dr Muhammad Abdur Razzaque gave the address of welcome.

Cabinet members, politicians, foreign diplomats, educationists, journalists and eminent personalities of the country were present.

Two video documentaries highlighting the journey of Bangladesh towards prosperity under the leadership of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina were screened at the function.

THE 11th parliamentary election of Bangladesh will go down in history as the election of simultaneously many firsts and many contrasts. Billed as the country's first "participatory" election in a decade, it gave the incumbent Awami League a landslide victory—and reduced its arch-rival BNP, once again, to irrelevance. While an Awami League win was largely expected, the margin of victory surprised even its most hardcore supporters. To an outsider, an account of the whole electoral spectacle might read like the script of a Jason Statham movie in which there are twists and turns every step of the way, but in the end, it's the bad guy who always gets punished. In Bangladesh's politics, however, the "bad guy" is a relative term that has the same ideological elasticity as the "good guy". This kind of fluidity fuels the confusion with which the many conflicting details of this election were met.

That said, the 2018 election will remain statistically significant. It saw the confluence of a number of electoral records: it was the election in which ex-enclave voters were able to exercise their franchise for the first time; it also won Awami League a record third consecutive term in office, and fourth since democracy was "reinstated" in 1991; Awami League as a party has set a new bar for election victory after 259 out of its 262 candidates won their seats—with an incredible 98.85 percent success rate—which surpassed the 97.66 success rate registered in the 1973 election in which Awami League fielded 300 candidates and fetched 293 wins. On a personal level, AL chief Sheikh Hasina is set to rewrite a personal history as she becomes prime minister again, her third in a row. There were also several other records in terms of voter number, victory margin for the winning candidates, seats won by female and minority candidates, and so on.

These firsts, however, were closely intertwined with the contrasts that dogged the election. Consider, for example, how discussions on the pre-poll atmosphere attracted diametrically opposed views from opposite ends of the political spectrum: one calling the environment "the most peaceful" in the history of Bangladesh, while another rejecting it as the worst that was ever seen. Again, after the election, the AL coalition embraced its result wholeheartedly while the opposition Jatiya Oikyafront coalition rejected it as "farcical", calling for a fresh election. Such contrasting views followed nearly all critical situations as Awami League and BNP painted very different pictures of them. And the scarcity of reliable media reports, which could shed light on them, has created a situation in which an authentic appraisal of the situation has become very difficult.

Between these many firsts and many contrasts, however, there are a few points that merit scrutiny as we try to make sense of an immensely complicated electoral scenario.

How fair was the election?

Perhaps the more pertinent question is, how unfair was it? Or, was there anything approaching unfairness? And how participatory was it? Is an election still "participatory" if large numbers of candidates withdraw from the race midway through it? Or, more importantly, does mere (formal) participation of all parties lend credibility to an election? There are many questions but few, if any, answers. When it comes to elections, there seems to be a dangerous trend to use these words—"fair" and "participatory"—interchangeably, as also was done during this election, although both have distinct requirements. In his post-election briefing, the chief election commissioner appeared satisfied as he said that the 2018 election was a "free, fair, and credible" one. "Nothing happened to feel ashamed of during the election," he claimed. Well, some things did happen, including the deaths of at least 18 people and injuries of over 200 in election-related violence. If this still doesn't qualify as "unfair", it must be the most dangerous form of fairness. According to various media reports, there were also allegations of vote rigging, ballot stuffing, intimidation, and many other irregularities in various constituencies across the country. But the EC continues to bury its head in the proverbial sand, ignoring even legitimate calls for investigation. Its refusal to take action or even investigate the crimes has set a dangerous precedent for election management.

A throwback to 2014 election

Before the election, Awami League had stressed that it didn't want a repeat of the controversial 2014 election. The three key highlights of that election were violence, low turnout and opposition boycott. While the 2014 and 2018 elections should be judged on their own merits, one wonders if they were cut from the same cloth. Like 2018, the 2014 election also saw 18 deaths on the Election Day. Of course, voters came out in larger numbers this time and there was no pre-poll boycott either, but there were large-scale opposition withdrawals on the Election Day, which was preceded by a record number of nomination papers, mostly from the opposition camp, being rejected by the EC and over a dozen BNP contenders being disqualified by the High Court. Not to mention, the results of both elections were rejected by the opposition, and fresh elections were sought. Parallels can also be drawn in terms of the massive victory margin for the ruling party and the artificial make-up of parliamentary opposition (Jatiya Party may again sail on two boats by joining the government and keeping the opposition status at the same time). All in all, it appears Awami League will have to bear its 2014 legacy for a few more years.

What's now for BNP?

Never before has BNP looked so vulnerable than it does after its humiliating defeat in the election, winning a measly five seats and looking set to be out of power for a total of 17 years, which is enough for the disintegration of a party. BNP has been progressively dwarfed by its rival, whether in strategic and tactical planning or in building up a political resistance. While it is expected that politicians will play fair, the fact is, fairness works insofar as everyone has an equal regard for it. Playing by a rulebook of "hook, crook and ballot"—as The Economist summed up the strategy behind Awami League's landslide win—is what wins elections these days. BNP paid dearly for its failure to lead, organise and sustain on its own, and for its questionable association with Jamaat-e-Islami. True, with Awami League using the full might of the state to suppress it, it had few choices but the BNP didn't appear as organised or desperate to win as its powerful counterpart, and couldn't judiciously use the support that it still commands at home or abroad.

Back to square one

With the opposition rejecting its results, the 11th parliamentary election has failed to initiate the process of a return to a functional multi-party democracy with a fully functional parliament, which means that we are back to square one—the "post-2014 days" of one party calling all the shots in parliament. On the plus side, the election gave Awami League an unprecedented mandate—a feat unmatched in Bangladesh's politics. This is simultaneously a huge challenge and a unique opportunity to effect change should the party decide to do so. Importantly, the party has pledged electoral reforms in its manifesto. It will be interesting to see how it does that. But bringing electoral reforms is no easy task. It will require a strong political will at the highest level of the party, a consensus across the political spectrum on issues such as the constitution of an EC or the poll-time government—and no small amount of sacrifice on the part of those who directly or indirectly benefit from a dysfunctional electoral system.

Badiuzzaman Bay is a member of the editorial team at The Daily Star. Email: badiuzzaman.bd@gmail.com

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals.

To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

The necessity that was felt a few days after the Declaration of Independence of Bangladesh was that of a Government which could take upon itself the burden of directing the liberation struggle. Because of the sudden attack and the resultant disorganisation, the Awami League leaders could not get together and work out the formation of such a government. Obviously, as the Awami League had received the mandate from the people, it was the party that could form the government. The necessity of the formation of the government was felt by everybody. The readers are aware that in its first broadcast over Swadhin Bangla Beter Kendra, Major Zia announced himself to be the President of the Revolutionary Government. Later on, he modified his announcement and declared that he was leading the armed struggle in the name and on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Mr. Zia's announcement only asserted the necessity of the formation of a government, but he and his colleagues did not obviously constitute the government.

I always had this belief that such a liberation struggle could not proceed in an organised manner if a top body like a government at the top did not guide the movement in a proper way. This is why I became extremely happy to know that a civilian government had been formed for Bangladesh.

We were sitting at Kishoreganj, like many others eagerly awaiting the formation of a government by the Awami League. Awami League leaders at Kishoreganj were quite vocal about it, and some of them even grew impatient over the issue. All of us were anxious since the movement could not be guided if political forces did not take the lead for proper organisation and confrontation. The directives could only come from the elected representatives. Moreover, the formation of a national government could enhance the prestige of the struggle and raise altogether different hopes in the minds of the people. The foreign powers could then be persuaded better. We felt all these and eagerly waited for the formation of the government.

When Major Safiullah reached Mymensingh and Kishoreganj, he also agreed with us that a government should immediately be formed. There was, at that time, a frantic search for some elderly politicians of the Awami League. Since nobody was sure about the fate of Sheikh, it became obvious that the only man who would be more suitable for the formation of a government was Syed Nazrul Islam, Vice President of the Awami League and the man next in command to the Sheikh. Syed Nazrul Islam happened to be from Kishoreganj P.S. itself and this is why Major Safiullah and all others put pressure on me to locate him so that he could take the initiative for forming a government. I must praise him for the foresight of Major Safiullah and others who rightly foresaw that the job of the armed personnel was simply to fight according to given directions. The directions could only come from a civilian government consisting of the elected representatives of the people.

Cover of the author’s book ‘The Turbulent 1971: My Diary’. It was published by Agamee Prakashani in 2020.

Throughout the beginning of the liberation struggle, one of my aims has thus been the location of Syed Nazrul Islam. The scanty news we used to get from Dhaka implied that Syed Nazrul Islam had fled from Dhaka. But nobody could give details about where he could be. On many occasions, Major Safiullah and Major Nazrul Islam used to inquire about it from Brahmanbaria over wireless. When a few days had passed they became very anxious and repeatedly requested me to locate Mr. Nazrul Islam.

Since Mr. Nazrul Islam's hometown was Kishoreganj, I was confident that he would have to come this way, even in hiding. This is what actually happened. It was possibly on the 6th or 7th of April that Mr. Mustafizur Rahman Khan had secretly approached me and told that Mr. Nazrul Islam was in hiding at the village home of his wife. Mr. Khan came to me with the request for transport and sufficient [sic] to cover Nazrul Islam's journey from Kishoreganj to Durgapur. Mr. Khan told me that Mr. Nazrul Islam was aware that all of us were in the freedom movement, he hesitated to come out in public because that could have many implications. From that day on, I knew the whereabouts and movements of Syed Nazrul Islam but I kept my promises in keeping this as top secret. The only information I gave was to Major Safiullah telling him that I had knowledge Mr. Nazrul Islam had proceeded towards the free zone. I told Major Safiullah that things were gradually broadening up and the formation of a national government was eminent.

Khashruzzaman Choudhury, 1967.

How Mr. Syed Nazrul Islam fled from Dhaka was an interesting story. While proceeding from Kishoreganj towards Durgapur, he was located 10 miles outside the town by my S.I., another Mr. Nazrul Islam. The S.I. was coming back after a survey of the area in the evening. From a distance, he could see that another jeep was coming from the opposite direction. As soon as Mr. Nazrul Islam's jeep saw the other jeep, its travel stopped and Mr. Nazrul Islam tried to hide to avoid identification. S. I. Nazrul disclosed the story to me on his return to Kishoreganj. He told me that soon he could understand that it was possibly Mr. Nazrul Islam who was in the other jeep. So, he cried out, giving his identity and requested them to come out from hiding. After repeated assurance, all of the passengers of the other jeep came out and Syed Nazrul Islam soon left towards Netrokona and Durgapur. He sent a message through S. I. Nazrul to me, thanking me for the cooperation I had extended to him. When I heard the story from Nazrul, I requested him to keep it as a secret and not to disclose it to anyone.

When Mr. Nazrul Islam could reach the free zone, the government was formed. It was possibly on the 10th of April that the All India Radio gave the news of the formation of a civilian government, announcing the names of the Ministers. I was sitting at the local police station when the Awami League Leaders rushed to that place with sweets even in those circumstances of trials and tribulations. All of us were really happy that after all, a government had been formed. I always had this belief that such a liberation struggle could not proceed in an organised manner if a top body like a government at the top did not guide the movement in a proper way. This is why I became extremely happy to know that a civilian government had been formed for Bangladesh.

The identity card of Khashruzzaman Choudhury, Deputy Secretary at the Home Ministry of the Mujibnagar Government, 1971.

The announcement of a government on the 10th of April was after consultation among different leaders of the Awami League. Later on, I came to know the whole story about the background of the government. Mr. Mustafizur Rahman Siddiqui and Zahur Ahmad Choudhury both from Chittagong Awami League escaped to Agartala. At Agartala, they used to sit in meetings discussing the formation of the government. It was after the arrival of Mr. Tajuddin that the talks were finalized and a tentative government was fixed up. Mr. Nazrul Islam's arrival was later, and even though he was absent, he was tipped as Vice President and Acting President in the absence of Sheikh Mujib.

Incidentally, it would be of interest to know that the parleys in this connection used to be held in the residence of one Mr. K. P. Datta, a Deputy Director of Education in the Tripura Government. I later met Mr. K. P. Datta at Agartala. Mr. K. P. Datta was originally from Sylhet District of Bangladesh. During my stay at Agartala, I had come in close contact with him. Mr. Datta used to narrate how all these began and how the ultimate decision of the formation of the government was taken up. Since I myself was from Sylhet, Mr. Datta and I could communicate in our native dialogue, and possibly because of this, we were very close to each other. Mr. Datta is an intelligent man whose wife is also in the education line. I had seldom come across such a nice man during that period. Mr. Datta used to tell me the story about the government. He told me that in his house there used to be sessions which used to last longer than midnight. It was after a lot of discussions, the final decision for the formation of the government was taken up.

Though the announcement of the government was on the 10th of April, it was on the 17th of April that the actual government was placed to the journalists, both foreign and Indian. Few people know that the 16th of April was fixed for the ceremony of swearing in of the government at Chuadanga. This could not be done because of heavy bombing from Pakistani planes and attacks on the towns by the Pakistan army. It is in this context that Baidyanathtala was selected for the ceremony on the 17th of April. I came to know about all of this from my friend Tawfiq-e-Elahi Chaudhury who was then SDO of Kushtia District, within the jurisdiction of which this Baidyanathtala was situated. The place was only a few miles from the Indian border. The journalists were taken there without any notice. The ceremony was simple but impressive. The Ministers were sworn in on the 17th of April, and the actual government started from that day.

Acting President Syed Nazrul Islam addressing attendees at the oath-taking ceremony of the Mujibnagar Government on April 17, 1971.

Captain Murari Ram of BSF told me a story about Syed Nazrul Islam. He told me that his friend Baljit Singh, another adjutant of BSF, one day received information that Syed Nazrul Islam was coming. None of them had seen Syed Nazrul Islam, but they had heard lots about him. They knew that he was an elderly man. Ultimately, the man who landed at Haluaghat was a young man who introduced himself as Nazrul Islam. Baljit Singh was the first, not in confusion, had told everybody Syed Nazrul Islam had come. When other officers of BSF went to meet him, after some time, they would find out that this was not Syed Nazrul Islam, but Professor Nazrul Islam Choudhury, an elected representative from Mymensingh District. The confusion was soon cleared. Captain Murari joked with me that when Syed Nazrul Islam actually arrived this time, Baljit Singh took precaution and started asking him a number of questions. This time the gentleman was none other than Syed Nazrul Islam himself, and possibly he became very confused at such a reaction from the BSF. When Baljit Singh became satisfied after a long time, he sent the message up to his senior officers that Syed Nazrul Islam had come. Captain Murari Ram jokingly told me that Baljit Singh had not first believed, even this time. There were queries from above about how this gentleman looked like and poor Baljit Singh had to talk to so many people, attempting to convince them that this time he had made no mistake and that the gentleman was really Syed Nazrul Islam. When all went to meet Syed Nazrul Islam, they found that he was really Syed Nazrul Islam, and quick arrangements were made for his movement from the border areas to another place where he could meet his other colleagues.

The S.P. Garo Hills, whom we met after coming over to Tura, was from Bihar. We had an interesting story to tell about Maulana Bhasani. As everybody knows, Maulana Bhasani had been hospitalized for bad health. On the 25th of March, Maulana Bhasani was at Mymensingh Medical College itself. Maulana was a clever man and he had his own source of information. This was evident when on the 26th the hospital staff and the doctors found that Maulana had disappeared from the hospital. When Maulana Bhasani entered India through Haluaghat, he was received at the border by the D.C. of Garo Hills, a Khasi gentleman named Mr. Cajee and S. P. Mr. Jha. The Maulana was driven away to Tura. Mr. Jha told me that when Maulana Bhasani sat with them at Tura, he started speaking a lot about massacres. He was all the time speaking against the Biharis who had committed a lot of crimes in Bangladesh. As Mr. Jha himself was from Bihar, he could not possibly join in the discussion in the same manner. When Bhasani saw that Mr. Jha did not sound as enthusiastic, he wondered what might have happened to Mr. Cajee. D.C. had been smiling all through. The Maulana was at his wit's end when Mr. Cajee told him that Bhasani was describing things to a person who was himself a Bihari. Mr. Jha told me later that as long as Maulana Bhasani stayed at Tura, he used to refer to this incident and cut jokes with Mr. Jha telling him that he was a Bihari and thus at the side of the Pakistani.

This article is an excerpt from the author's book "The Turbulent 1971: My Diary" (2020).

Dr. Khashruzzaman Choudhury joined the Liberation War while serving as a Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). He involved himself with the Mujibnagar Government as Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs. Later, he served as a Professor of Economics in the USA. Khashruzzaman Choudhury was honored with the highest civilian award, the 'Swadhinata Padak,' in 2014 for his contribution to the Liberation War.