& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

An embarrassment between the covers
**As a nation we can't remember anything either at the same time or together. The most recent book written by AK Khandker embodied that tragedy in the controversy surrounding it. Like a knife, it as if severed our collective memory into two mutually exclusive contentions.**
THE Great Western Schism in the Middle Ages had lasted 39 years but ours has lasted longer already, that also to get incrementally worse. In 43 years that schism created a chasm, which has been debased into memory disorder. As a nation we can't remember anything either at the same time or together. The most recent book written by AK Khandker embodied that tragedy in the controversy
surrounding it. Like a knife, it as if severed our collective memory into two mutually exclusive contentions.
In one contention, some of us go blank on what others remember. In another, others go blank on what some of us remember. It's this dichotomy that erupted in boisterous reactions to the book, invoking for us the dilemma of the House of Bourbon. French diplomat Talleyrand defined it when he said the French royal house had learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
For us that dilemma comes with a twist. We remember everything and forget nothing, not so much under inner impulse as external compulsion. We don't know what compulsion Khandker had for writing this book. It could be just the inner urge in his late years that prompted him to clear his conscience.
But he made one mistake in his calculation. When he decided to write about the historic March 7 speech, he should have been more prepared. He should have attached some proof in the appendix, which he did for other less important things. The author also had another chance to address this issue when he penned the preface for the second edition. One of the two corrections he made involved the speech. He wrote that the last words were "Joy Bangla, Joy Pakistan" instead of "Joy Pakistan” mentioned in the first edition.
That tells us that the author consciously decided to stick to his guns despite the harsh criticism he faced for the controversial slogan in the first edition. But he provides no evidence for his conviction, which would have been a more logical response from someone of his reputation. Between lack of proof and primacy of passion, his book has got history slipping through a portentous crack.
According to someone close to him, the author had heard the speech with his own ears on Pakistan Radio. He may also have been influenced by others. Several of our illuminated minds mentioned in their writings that the speech had ended with the same fateful words, many of whom later retracted their claim or cited hearsay as their source. This is where the matter gets murky, pitting facts against figments of imagination.
Because it's hard to ignore when many times more enlightened minds don't have any recollection of those particular words. Many of them must have heard that historic oration on radio, but nobody has so far come forward to confirm that was what they had heard. No documentary evidence, video or audio, has been presented so far that can be thrown in their face to shut them up.
As the saying goes, the burden of proof always lies upon him who affirms not he who denies. But the author isn't showing any sign of so much as lifting a finger. It's not enough to go by one's ears alone when it comes to such a matter of huge national importance. If anything, this ineptitude alone fails to distinguish Khandker's eyewitness account from a work of fiction.
That underscores our national affliction, which, in psychological term, is known as the False Memory Syndrome. It describes a condition in which a person's identity and relationships are affected by memories that they strongly believe although factually incorrect. Our inability to accommodate history within a single frame of mind has led to ditheringand division.
In that sense, the book is a catalyst of controversy, which will be remembered for the contention it ignited but not for its contents. It has made significant observations about the failure of civilian leadership during the run up to the liberation war. The lens on Tajuddin Ahmed has been adjusted so that the readers will know he deserved more credit than he got. It has rejigged the camera rig on late president Ziaur Rahman, giving reasonably fair account of where he stands in the scheme of things. The book also gives valuable insights into how the various forces came into existence to fight for the liberation of Bangladesh.
But those two iffy words are giving it away. It's a pity that the author didn't see that in advance. It's a pity nobody warned him he was heading for a minefield. His hand in history has been its own nemesis as one act of indiscretion now threatens to erase his hard work. If he fails to prove or withdraw the disputed words, his book will be just one big embarrassment between the covers.
The writer is the Editor of weekly First News and an opinion writer for The Daily Star. Email: badrull51@yahoo.com