Over time, nationalism took two different forms in the ideologies of Bangladesh’s political parties. The Awami League has retained Bengali nationalism as part of the cultural legacy of the Liberation War, while the BNP has based Bangladeshi nationalism on a state-centered civic identity. Both forms of nationalism have influenced the country’s political culture. However, the conflict between them has been a major cause of Bangladesh’s political divisions. This conflict is not merely cultural; it is largely political and has had a profound impact on state policies.

In the eyes of the Awami League and those aligned with it, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is the “Father of the Nation.” This phrase is repeatedly invoked in their speeches and writings. The question is: Father of which “nation”? Bangladesh is not the state of all Bengalis, is it? If he is to be regarded as the Father of the Nation, then one would have to say that he is the “Father of the Bangladeshi Nation.”

Bangladesh was born in 1971. The emergence of the Bengali national identity did not begin in 1971. It has a history spanning a thousand years. Can the father of a Bengali-speaking population that has lived for ages in eastern India emerge in 1971? It is true that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was the principal leader of the politics that led to the establishment of the state of Bangladesh. He was the architect of this state. The Liberation War was fought under his name.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the “Father of the Nation” of Pakistan. We created Bangladesh. We replaced Jinnah with Mujib. The idea that a country must have a “Father of the Nation” is a kind of emotionally driven patriarchal notion. We have been having a political “quarrel” over this for 55 years.

But the geography of our state was not created by Mujib. Nor was it created by Jinnah. It was created in 1947 by the stroke of the pen of Sir Cyril John Radcliffe, chairman of the Punjab and Bengal Boundary Commissions appointed by the British government. Jinnah and Mujib later inherited that geography. So should we call Radcliffe the father of this nation-state? I raised this question during a discussion on a television channel. A daily newspaper made a photo card about it. That was enough. Immediately, a group of people descended on me on social media—people who read and listen to nothing beyond photo cards. Many of those who dominate the political arena and the media do not understand sarcasm. What are we to do with such a nation?

* Mohiuddin Ahmad is a writer and researcher
* This article appeared in Prothom Alo print and online and has been rewritten by Ayesha Kabir for Prothom Alo English Online
The views expressed are those of the author.