Syed Tosharaf Ali :
Barrister Mainul Hosein now rests in eternal sleep. He lies in Dhaka’s Azimpur graveyard beside his father. There is no longer any opportunity to receive advice, instruction, or counsel from him.
Yet his thoughts, his aims and objectives in life—his overall philosophy—are fairly well known to us. He believed in constitutional politics, based on rule of law.
He considered the parliamentary democratic system to be the most suitable for this country. He was courageous, unwavering in matters of principle, but he was not a revolutionary.
He regarded freedom of speech as the core of all rights. He saw press freedom as an integral part of freedom of speech.
In safeguarding individual liberties and fundamental human rights, he viewed an independent judiciary as a strong pillar of democracy.
He repeatedly wrote and spoke about how democracy cannot flourish without the rule of law and tolerance for differing opinions.
However, he never ventured into the analysis that democracy is ultimately a political structure rooted in a capitalist economy, and that in an underdeveloped capitalist order—or where mercantile capital and feudal mentality dominates—establishing sustainable democracy is extremely difficult, even impossible.
One of the reasons democracy could not take root in Pakistan was the influence of its feudal economy. Even a wise political leader like Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy could not bring democracy to the threshold of success.
When Pakistan’s much-discussed “22 families” began contributing to the creation of an industrial economy, Maulana Bhashani of the peasant democrat vocally opposed them.
It was he who played a major role in the split of the Awami League at the Kagmari Conference and pave way to military rule.
The Larkana’s landlord Zulfikar Ali Bhutto became Ayub Khan’s close associate, and later on he gave leadership of the opposition—all become clearer when viewed through the lens of economic interests.
Had an industrial capitalist economy grown, the democratic system suited to it would surely have strengthened. But we did not take that path.
A narrow nationalism shaped by a small-scale economy prevented us from becoming rational. We “looked outward,” but never “looked inward.” We condemned imperialism, but failed to examine our own mistakes.
In his analysis, Mainul Hosein focused more on individual roles than on socio-economic structures.
He walked across multiple fields in life. But he had dreamt of becoming a great lawyer and a political leader—just as Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy had been.
Against his own wishes, after his father’s death, he had to take on the responsibility of editor of The Daily Ittefaq at the request of their family well-wishers.
In his youth, he had accompanied his father during his years in Kolkata. He also supported his father’s work in journalism in Dhaka. But the idea of becoming an editor had never crossed his mind.
Fate, however, pushed him into that role. And in fulfilling that responsibility, he showed such dedication that every journalist could learn from him.
It must be mentioned that for readers, Ittefaq essentially meant “Musafir’s Political Platform.” Tofazzal Hossain Manik Mia wrote this immensely popular column under the pen-name “Musafir.” No other political column of the time matched its influence.
In search of alternatives, Mainul Hosein turned to renowned writer Abul Mansur Ahmed and convinced him to write. Other writers and literary figures also helped.
To meet the challenge, he himself attended the office three times a day—morning, afternoon, and night.
At a time when he had returned from England as a barrister and wished to establish himself in the legal profession, he instead devoted his labour and intellect to uphold the legacy of his father’s institution. As a result, Ittefaq overcame its crisis and stood tall once again.
But on the night of 25 March 1971, the Pakistani army burned down The Daily Ittefaq, the cradle of free thought.
After victory in the Liberation War of1971, Ittefaq began a new birth from those ashes.
Seeing Bangladesh embark on a new journey toward democracy, Mainul Hosein at the request of his “Kaka” contested from Bhandaria as an Awami League candidate in the 1973 election and became a Member of Parliament.
Before joining party politics he made his younger brother Anwar Hossain Manju the Editor of the Ittefaq, while he himself became chairman of the Editorial Board. But due to social and economic instability, the way of democratic life became difficult to sustain.
Industries were suffering huge losses. Smuggling and black-market activities devastated the economy. Deteriorating law and order robbed people of peaceful sleep. Bangladesh turned away from the democratic path. Once again, freedom of the press came under attack.
The government took control of four newspapers including Ittefaq and cancelled the declarations of almost all others. For this reason, 16 June is commemorated as “Black Day” in the history of Bangladeshi journalism.
To understand Mainul Hosein’s personality, one must keep this context in mind.
When the Awami League abandoned the democratic path and moved toward establishing a one-party authoritarian system, many MPs—not just Barrister Mainul Hosein alone—faced an ideological crisis.
But not all had the courage to act. Only two were exceptions: the Commander-in-Chief of the Liberation War, M. A. G. Osmani, and Barrister Mainul Hosein.
Both resigned from Parliament and severed ties with the Awami League. This event bears witness to their integrity, courage, and commitment to ideals.
In the years that followed, the political landscape went through many upheavals. In the changed environment, Mainul Hosein could no longer succeed in party politics.
Following his father’s footsteps, he continued writing political essays to keep politics aligned with democratic principles. For a brief period, he joined the caretaker government as an adviser, hoping to witness the success of democracy.
Instead, the nation saw a form of authoritarianism in Bangladesh that one would not witness even under direct colonial rule.
With the sorrow of a broken dream, he departed from this world. He could not live to see the fall of authoritarian rule. But he left behind the stories of his varied life experiences—stories that will inspire future generations.”
(The writer is Advisory Editor of the New Nation.)
