The credit for the establishment of Pakistan as a nation state goes to the people of East Bengal. Yet, from the very beginning, Pakistan’s ruling elite subjected these same people to neglect, suspicion, humiliation, exploitation and deprivation.
As well as gross economic inequalities, there was continued oppression by the military authoritarian regime, deep-seated anti-Bengali prejudice and persistent suspicion and stigmatization about the religious identity of Bengali Muslims.
Bengalis were systematically marginalized in administration, commerce and both civil and military state institutions. An attempt was even made to separate them from their own language and literature by labeling them “Hinduani” (Hindu-influenced).
Sociologist Hamza Alavi has rightly described Pakistan as an underdeveloped military-bureaucratic state. This heavy machinery of civil and military bureaucracy was further strengthened by Pakistan’s association with the imperial strategy of the United States in the post-World War II global order.
Due to this, Pakistan was included in the SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) and CENTO (Central Treaty Organization) military alliances in 1954 and 1955 respectively. Additionally, Regional Development Cooperation (RDC) was formed with US-aligned states such as Türkiye and Iran. Thus Pakistan became a pillar of American imperialist interests. Concurrently, economic inequality deepened, culminating in the rise of the infamous “22 families”.
This situation provoked popular resistance. Democratic movements expanded in both parts of Pakistan. The increasing pressure led to the fall of one military ruler in 1969 and forced another to hold elections. In 1970, approximately 23 years after its establishment, Pakistan held its first general elections, creating the possibility of creating a constitution through an elected National Assembly.
Recalling the insights of Frantz Fanon, one could argue that national consciousness is important in the struggle against colonial or occupying powers, but it becomes hollow if it does not develop into a transformative social consciousness.
However, the Awami League’s landslide victory destabilized the ruling establishment. 22 families, the military-bureaucratic elite and the US-backed Pakistani ruling class were unwilling to accept any meaningful change.
The first session of the elected National Assembly was scheduled for 3 March 1971. When President Yahya Khan adjourned the parliament session on 1 March, it became clear that democratic change within Pakistan was impossible. The death knell of the state had started ringing.
At this time, Awami League President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, as leader of the majority party, emerged as the central political figure. Other leaders and parties came behind him, including Maulana Bhashani, Mani Singh and Siraj Sikdar, with Siraj Sikdar also calling for the formation of an all-party committee to lead the freedom struggle.
Although Sheikh Mujib kept the door open to negotiations, the military regime effectively sealed Pakistan’s fate by launching a brutal massacre on the night of 25 March 1971. This brutal attack made it clear that liberation could only be achieved through war.
Two narratives related to the liberation war remain problematic. The first associates the Liberation War solely with the Awami League, using it as a shield to legitimize all actions by the party. The other dismisses the war as a conspiracy, claiming that Bangladesh’s independence served only Indian interests. Both narratives undermine the extraordinary courage, unity and sacrifice of the people.
Even after the fall of an autocratic regime through a 2024 mass uprising, the balance of social and political power, combined with support for the interim government, has enabled pro-imperialist forces, religious fascists, and the far right to thrive. Bangladesh has been included in several potentially harmful agreements, including those with the United States.
It is true that India had its own geopolitical considerations, and the Awami League leadership faced internal tensions and limitations. Yet, despite these obstacles, the scale of the people’s resistance, their courage, unity and willingness to sacrifice everything in the face of the barbaric occupation army cannot be overstated.
However, the great hopes for independence soon began to fade away. Differences also emerged between the two central personalities of the time, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Tajuddin Ahmed, over issues such as the trial of war criminals, dependence on the United States and the World Bank, and the establishment of BAKSAL.
Tajuddin was deeply dissatisfied with the announcement of general amnesty, widespread corruption, nepotism and ultimately the transition to one-party rule. At one point, he reportedly told Sheikh Mujib, “Have we fought for more than 24 years? At this rate, neither you nor I will survive, and the country will fall into the hands of the Razakars and Al Badr (local affiliates of the Pakistan Army).” (Tajuddin Ahmed: Leader O Father, by Sharmin Ahmed).
Over the past five decades, Bangladesh has seen the assassinations of two presidents, two terms of direct military rule and 16 constitutional amendments. The regime has gradually become more authoritarian. Large-scale rebellions overthrew two autocratic regimes in 1990 and 2024, and a newly elected government took office in early 2026.
During this time, the economy expanded significantly, with growth in gross domestic product, trade and infrastructure, as well as changes in income patterns and occupations. At the same time, wealth concentration and inequality have also intensified, with a handful of groups exercising political and economic dominance reminiscent of Pakistan’s “22 families”.
Recalling the insights of Frantz Fanon, one could argue that national consciousness is important in the struggle against colonial or occupying powers, but it becomes hollow if it does not develop into a transformative social consciousness. In Bangladesh, we have seen how a nation state born of resistance to national oppression has, in turn, perpetuated oppression against others. Efforts to challenge economic concentration have instead given rise to even more powerful oligarchs. Resistance to imperialism and militarization has not prevented their reorganization into new forms. Many agreements have been signed contrary to national interests.
Even after the fall of an autocratic regime through a 2024 mass uprising, the balance of social and political power, combined with support for the interim government, has enabled pro-imperialist forces, religious fascists, and the far right to thrive. Bangladesh has been included in several potentially harmful agreements, including those with the United States.
In 1971, we witnessed a people’s war – a grand national awakening. With the exception of a small number of collaborators, the people on the whole demonstrated extraordinary strength of resistance and a spark of creativity. That legacy continues to inspire ongoing struggles for independence.
For this reason, today it is imperative to revive and develop the invincible power and spirit of the liberation struggle by strengthening efforts to establish people’s control over national resources and policy and by intensifying the struggle against imperialism, foreign domination, and class, gender, ethnic and religious inequality and oppression.