Bangladesh plan to redefine ‘muktijoddha’ yet again stirs a debate in West Bengal | India News

KOLKATA: Fifty-four years after the Bangladesh Liberation War broke out on the night time of March 25, 1971, deliberations are on to modify the definition of “bir muktijoddha (valiant freedom fighter)”, elevating a debate. According to media experiences, solely battlefield fighters could possibly be recognised as valiant freedom fighters, whereas others could possibly be categorized as ‘Liberation War Associates’.
Kolkatans with ancestral hyperlinks to Bangladesh or skilled expertise throughout the border have a nuanced strategy in the direction of the deliberation. The definition of muktijoddhas has been altered over 10 instances by now.
“During the Awami League’s tenure, many fake freedom fighters were enlisted. Communist and Leftist freedom fighters did not receive recognition. The National Freedom Fighters’ Council even decided to revoke Ziaur Rahman’s ‘Bir Uttam’ title in 2021,” mentioned Arka Bhaduri, an unbiased journalist who has been writing on modern Bangladesh affairs.
“Amid numerous fake claims of being muktijoddhas, there have been instances of genuine people being ignored and not granted this recognition as many were reluctant to publicise their contributions,” mentioned Abhijit Dasgupta, director of ‘Invincible Bravura’ on the Indian Navy’s formation of the primary ‘Nau Commando’ that included eight Bengali escapees from a Pakistani submarine in 1971 in the course of the conflict.
Dasgupta referred to as the modification “after so many decades” an try to “deliberately confuse the contemporary youth”. Bhaduri believes all those that participated in the wrestle are “freedom fighters”. “Mujib’s role in the post-1971 era was problematic, but it is undeniable that although he did not physically participate in combat, the war was fought in his name. Calling him or Tajuddin Ahmad mere supporters would be a distortion of history,” he mentioned.
Cultural activist Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar, who’s from a refugee household of 1947, described it as a “ploy to subvert the real essence of liberation struggle”.