Before the 13th National Election of Bangladesh, during the epoch of anarchism by an unelected hand-picked council, the country was persistently facing a terrible turmoil by the radical right who were showing unwavering attachment to some specific dogma.
And, simultaneously receiving unprecedented unconstitutional threat from the by-products of those fundamentalists and few fractioned political alliances, inspired and sprouted from the calculated and planned restlessness, for the constitutional system and structures to be replaced otherwise demolished or obliterated.
The state formation process of Bangladesh is a special chapter in the political history of South Asia, where questions of democratic rights, self-determination and ethnic identity came together to create an independent nation. The 1971 war of liberation is the central foundation of the existence of this state, on which the current constitutional framework is built. The question of Bangladesh’s independence is therefore not just a historical discussion; it is an integral part of the legitimacy, sovereignty and legal recognition of the state.
Therefore, denying independence or the war of liberation is not a matter of freedom of political opinion, but rather a serious legal question that falls under the category of unconstitutional activity.
The Constitution itself includes the Liberation War in the origins of the state. The people’s struggle for liberation, the rights of the people as the source of state power, and the rejection of military rule as described in the Preamble are directly linked to the 1971 Liberation War. Article 7(2) of the Constitution clearly recognises the people’s sovereignty as the source of state power, based on the Liberation War.
Similarly, Article 38 declares illegal any organisation, propaganda or activity with anti-state intentions, which provides a legal basis for denial of history or statements against the existence of the state. Within this framework, denial of freedom is in no way protected as ‘freedom of expression’, because freedom of expression never gives the right to destroy the existence and constitutional basis of the state.
The Bangladesh Penal Code also gives special weight to crimes such as treason under Sections 124A, 153A, incitement to communal or hostile hatred, and 505, causing unrest in public mind. Denial of freedom, threats to destroy military installations, or open threats against the security structure of the state can be considered punishable crimes under the scope of these sections.
Disseminating distorted information about the 1971 genocide or the Liberation War is also described as a crime in the Digital Security Act. Anti-state speech, especially threats against military installations and the center of sovereign power, is not just a symbolic crime in law; it is a direct attack on the security structure and constitutional existence of the state.
The right to self-determination is one of the fundamental elements of the international human rights framework, clearly enshrined in the ICCPR and ICESCR treaties. Bangladesh’s independence was recognised by the international community soon after 1971, and its accession to the United Nations in 1974 ensured the legitimacy of statehood in international law.
The documented history of genocide is established by international human rights organisations and various state documents. Therefore, denying the crimes against humanity or the liberation war of 1971 is not only a violation of Bangladesh’s domestic law; it can also be considered a violation of internationally recognised documents and treaties. Genocide denial is a punishable crime in many countries.
Although Bangladesh does not have a specific ‘genocide denial law’, such denial can still be considered an attempt to cover up crimes against humanity under international human rights law.
Public threats against a state’s military installations or cantonments, symbols of the national security structure, are not part of a political statement, but rather preparation for an attack on state security. In most countries, this is considered anti-state crime.
Bangladesh is no exception. Such threats create a strong reaction among the people, because the defense structure and administrative organisation of the state were born out of the achievement of independence. As a result, these threats not only attack the state but also the identity of the people.
Disagreements are normal in a democratic system; criticism of political parties, supporters, or leadership is part of democracy. However, disagreements on the question of independence are not democratic differences of opinion.
Denying the history of a state or rendering its foundations ineffective creates political instability and social division in the long run. By international standards, denying a state’s fundamental identity or independence tears apart the democratic space, because the very existence of democracy depends on a recognised state entity.
1971 was a collective struggle of the people, and since the history of that struggle is included in the constitutional document, it is no longer just history, it is the legal identity of the state. As a result, in Bangladesh, the denial of independence or open threats against the military establishment are not just a matter of politics; they are tantamount to taking a stand against the state’s legal framework, constitution, and international recognition.
Revolution is the name of the illusion of touching the imagination. So even if the revolution is successful, it fails to fulfill the desires of all the participants. The people of Bangladesh have the courage to defend the freedom and independence that the student-population has gifted to the country.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author
The writer is a political analyst and online activist
