History, narrative and politics of memory

The Liberation War of Bangladesh in 1971 remains one of the most complex historical events in South Asia. It unfolded as three interconnected conflicts: Pakistan’s internal struggle, Bangladesh’s fight for independence, and India’s defensive intervention. Yet today, public understanding of this history is often shaped more by competing narratives than by rigorous evidence.

Over time, these narratives have become deeply embedded in political discourse, influencing how people perceive the past. Rather than examining facts, many now accept stories that align with their beliefs, leaving little room for balanced historical inquiry.

Key figures drove Bangladesh’s independence movement, each playing a distinct role. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman declared independence and later became the nation’s first leader. Tajuddin Ahmad, as acting prime minister, organised the government-in-exile, while Major Ziaur Rahman announced independence on Mujib’s behalf and led military efforts. Political leaders like Syed Nazrul Islam, who served as acting president in exile, and military commanders such as General M. A. G. Osmani, who led the Mukti Bahini, were equally vital. Beyond leadership, civilians—student activists, language-movement martyrs from 1952, and ordinary citizens—formed the backbone of resistance across East Pakistan.

Yet the legacy of 1971 is now often reduced to partisan storytelling, or bayan, where history is repurposed for political gain. Narratives create a moral divide, framing one side as righteous while distorting facts to fit the story. Postmodern critics argue that history itself is a constructed narrative, used to justify particular versions of the past. These accounts spread easily through media and popular culture, unlike academic research, which remains confined to classrooms and journals.

The result is a population more accustomed to consuming emotionally charged stories than questioning evidence. Many invest deeply in these narrative battles, believing they are defending truth. To move forward, historians suggest identifying verifiable facts within popular narratives—acknowledging their validity without endorsing the entire story. Recognising multiple perspectives could help shift discussions from denial to constructive dialogue.

The challenge today lies in balancing accessible history with disciplined inquiry. Emotionally compelling narratives dominate public memory, while academic research struggles to reach wider audiences. Without a shift toward evidence-based discussions, the war of stories will persist, overshadowing the nuanced realities of 1971.

Efforts to bridge this gap must start by separating verifiable facts from political storytelling. Only then can a more inclusive understanding of Bangladesh’s liberation emerge—one that honours its complexity without being confined by partisan divides.