Staff Reporter : Some words survive because they describe an event. Others survive because they reveal a mindset. The writing attributed to Pakistan Army Major General Farman Ali— “The green of East Pakistan will have to be painted red”—belongs to the second category.
Whether historians ultimately confirm the exact origin and context of the sentence or not, it has endured because it symbolises the tragedy that unfolded in East Pakistan in 1971.
The green fields of Bengal were indeed stained red—not as a figure of speech, but through the blood of ordinary people who became victims of a brutal military campaign. Students, teachers, professionals, farmers, political activists, and families were caught in a conflict that began with the denial of a democratic mandate and ended with the birth of a new nation.
The story of Bangladesh’s independence is therefore not only a story of nationalism. It is also a story of democracy.
In Pakistan’s first general election in December 1970, the people of East Pakistan gave the Awami League an overwhelming mandate. Under any democratic system, the result should have led to the peaceful transfer of power. Instead, Pakistan’s military establishment refused to accept the verdict. The postponement of the National Assembly session created a political crisis, and on the night of 25 March 1971, Operation Searchlight began.
What followed was one of the darkest chapters in South Asian history.
The Pakistan Army launched widespread operations against civilians and political opponents across East Pakistan. Dhaka University became one of the first targets. Students, teachers, intellectuals, police personnel and ordinary citizens were killed. Across the country, villages were attacked, communities were terrorised, and millions were forced to flee their homes.
The Pakistan Army was the main instrument of this violence, but it did not operate alone.
It relied on local collaborators and auxiliary organisations, including the Razakar, Al-Badr and Al-Shams forces. Historical accounts have documented that many individuals associated with Jamaat-e-Islami and its then student organisation, Islami Chhatra Sangha, were involved in these structures. At the time, Jamaat opposed the independence movement and supported the continuation of a united Pakistan.
The collaboration between the military authorities and these groups remains one of the most painful aspects of Bangladesh’s history.
These auxiliary forces provided local knowledge and assistance to the Pakistan Army. They helped identify people suspected of supporting independence, including political activists, intellectuals, and members of minority communities. Their role was particularly tragic during the final days of the war, when Bengali intellectuals were systematically abducted and killed in December 1971.
The loss of those teachers, doctors, journalists and thinkers was not merely a wartime tragedy. It was an attempt to weaken the foundation of the country that was about to emerge.
For Bangladesh, this history is not an abstract political argument. It is part of the national memory of a people who paid an enormous price for independence.
However, the lessons of 1971 extend beyond the events of the war itself.
Bangladesh was born because people rejected authoritarian rule. It was created because a population demanded respect for its language, identity, political rights and democratic choice. The Liberation War was therefore not only a struggle against external domination; it was also a struggle for the fundamental principle that governments derive legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
That principle remains relevant today. : The greatest irony of Bangladesh’s political journey is that a country born from a fight against authoritarianism has repeatedly struggled with questions of democratic practice. Different governments have faced criticism at different times for weakening institutions, limiting political competition, and concentrating power.
The Awami League occupies a unique place in Bangladesh’s history. Its leadership role in the independence movement cannot be separated from the country’s national story. The sacrifices made by its leaders and supporters in 1971 remain an important part of Bangladesh’s history.
But historical contribution cannot provide permanent immunity from criticism.
Over the years, critics argued that Awami League governments increasingly moved away from the democratic spirit associated with the Liberation War. Concerns were raised about the shrinking space for opposition politics, restrictions affecting sections of the media and civil society, weakening institutional checks and balances, and questions about the credibility of electoral processes.
Such criticism should not be interpreted as a rejection of 1971. On the contrary, it comes from the belief that the values of 1971 must apply to every government.
The Liberation War did not establish the right of one party to rule forever. It established the right of the people to hold every government accountable.
This is why the political changes surrounding the July 2024 uprising require careful reflection.
Like all major moments in history, July 2024 has become the subject of competing interpretations. Different political groups have sought to explain its causes, highlight their own contributions, and claim association with its aspirations.
Such competition is natural in politics. But history also offers a warning: no single group can permanently own a people’s movement.
The strength of a mass uprising comes from ordinary citizens—the students, workers, families and communities who participate because they believe change is necessary. The meaning of such movements should not be reduced to the interests of political organisations alone.
The true measure of July 2024 will not be which party receives the greatest credit. It will be whether Bangladesh succeeds in building stronger institutions, ensuring accountability, protecting civil liberties, and creating a political culture where disagreement is seen as part of democracy rather than a threat to it.
The debate over political forces with controversial historical backgrounds also remains important. A democratic society cannot ignore history. The role of those who opposed Bangladesh’s independence in 1971 must be remembered honestly.
At the same time, democracy cannot depend only on historical judgment. It must depend on institutions, laws and the informed choices of citizens. The strongest defence of Bangladesh’s founding values is not political exclusion, but a democracy confident enough to allow ideas to be challenged openly.
Bangladesh’s history contains many contradictions. : A nation born from resistance to authoritarianism has sometimes struggled with authoritarian tendencies. A movement that fought for democratic rights has sometimes faced criticism for restricting those same rights. A country founded through enormous sacrifice continues to debate how best to preserve the spirit of its independence.
Perhaps this is the unavoidable challenge of nation-building. Independence is not the end of history. Every generation must decide whether it will protect the principles that created the nation.
Writing of the Pakistani General Farman Ali, “The green of EP will have to be painted red” may remain a subject of historical discussion. But the broader lesson of 1971 is beyond dispute.
The tragedy began when a government refused to accept the democratic will of the people and chose force instead.
Bangladesh must never repeat that mistake. : The true legacy of the Liberation War is not the victory of one political party over another. It is the victory of citizens over oppression. It is the belief that governments exist to serve the people, not silence them.
The green of Bengal belongs to all Bangladeshis. Protecting that green requires more than remembering the past. It requires defending democracy, justice and accountability every day.
Because the greatest tribute to those who sacrificed their lives in 1971 is not simply to remember how Bangladesh was born. It is to ensure that the ideals for which they fought continue to shape how Bangladesh is governed.