Country's Independence and Political Freedom

Independence is a complex concept that has deep philosophical underpinnings. However, our country's discussion on independence is often limited to an emotional surge, with little room for thoughtful deliberation. When such discussions arise, they are often tied to specific days or events and fade away like a passing breeze. Yet, independence is a matter of daily struggle. Every day, one must navigate life by reconciling independence with the reality of existence and truth. Unfortunately, our lack of philosophical or theoretical engagement with the subject often ends up as a mere ceremonial formality. In this brief piece, we will discuss two aspects of independence.

A.

India’s renowned magazine 'Frontline' published a special issue to commemorate the 70th anniversary of their independence. I want to draw attention to one of the articles from that issue. One of my favourite sociologists, Gopal Guru, contributed to this edition. I have followed his writings before. Not many thinkers can engage in philosophical discussions on contemporary issues. In Bangladesh, we see laughable commentators and columnists. Corporations, media, and celebrities try to define the taste of independence. The more active they become, the more the nation falls into subjugation. Gopal Guru, however, spoke about the convenience and theoretical aspects of independence. I am sharing some of his thoughts, which are simplified in Bengali. He argues that the importance and meaning of the term 'independence' do not remain the same throughout the life of a nation. The significance of 'independence' changes over time. For example, during the struggle for liberation from colonial rule, becoming 'independent' was the primary goal. The idea of independence was then centred on freedom from foreign rule. But what happens after liberation? After a country is free from foreign domination, independence refers to 'political freedom.' This political freedom becomes the primary significance of independence in the life of a nation. He adds that this political freedom gives rise to various terminologies in the process of nation-building, and these terminologies often see rhetorical or superficial use among those in power. For instance, slogans like 'Make in India' (read: Digital Bangladesh, development, consciousness of Bangladesh).

(Source: "Dalit: In a State of Unfreedom" - Gopal Guru, Page 73, Frontline)

B.

Now, let's look at our current situation. What do we understand by 'independence'? The framework we judge 'independence' is outdated and no longer effective. We are still stuck in the initial excitement of the national liberation struggle in 1971. Our understanding of independence and 1971 is cinematic; we get excited momentarily, busy ourselves with commemorative days.

After gaining independence from Pakistan through blood and sacrifice, we failed to create an environment conducive to the struggle and trials required for political freedom. Instead, we followed in Pakistan's footsteps.

The Awami League didn't suddenly find itself in its current position; its history is tied to the nation's birth. We have been carried away by the emotions of 1971 without critically thinking about our 'independence,' which is far removed from the spirit of the Liberation War.

In a country without 'political freedom,' no other form of independence holds any value. Consequently, independence holds no meaning for our country's ordinary people, the working class, and labourers. Their lives have not seen any change; respect and the opportunity to live honestly haven't increased. Instead, they witness dirty competition, black money, and various forms of oppression and exploitation at every level. For them, independence holds no significance.

People who define the extent of independence based on the scale of events and ceremonies are easily recognised as enemies of the people. Instead, the frequent promotion of past independence or the narrative that we are free overshadows the question of political freedom. Through such actions, the entire nation is kept in further political subjugation.

When a group of intellectuals fails to discuss these issues critically and becomes canvassers for political narratives, it exacerbates the problem. We have not developed the vision to see 'independence' separately from the event of the Liberation War of 1971. The glory of the past remains in the past; no one can take that away. However, the question of political freedom is the fundamental question of independence, and it's our critical thinking that can bring this to light.

Why did Bangladesh want to be separate? It wasn't just for a different name. Instead, the people of this country did not consider themselves politically independent.

While liberating the country from the aggression of another nation is a significant achievement, it is just the beginning of our journey towards true independence. The ultimate goal is to ensure political freedom. Without this, the symbolism of a separate name and flag becomes meaningless. A few may become masters and exploiters, but the majority will remain enslaved or exploited. In this context, geographical independence only gains true meaning when political freedom is achieved.

There is no debate that we are still fighting for political freedom. People are still subjected to oppression, live in fear, and endure atrocities in silence. This ongoing struggle is a testament to the persistence and resilience of the people. Bringing the question of political freedom to the forefront is an urgent task. Without achieving this, geographical independence has no value, nor can it have any.

Translated from Rezaul Karim Rony's Op-ed দেশের স্বাধীনতা এবং রাজনৈতিক স্বাধীনতা