Why his ‘Kagojer Phul’ has yet to bloom

A filmmaker remembered not only through his films, but also through a landmark legal battle and a dream that never reached the screen

When I was an undergraduate student struggling to hold on to my interest in law, it was after a few classes that Tort Law truly began to capture my attention. Our course instructor, Ms Nazia Wahab, introduced us to a case that, at first glance, seemed far removed from the world of cinema: Catherine Masud and others v. Kashed Mia (Miah) and others, reported in 67 Dhaka Law Reports 527.

The name “Tareque Masud” immediately stood out. Until then, he was known to me primarily as the filmmaker behind Matir Moina.

But the case introduced another dimension of his legacy-the legal struggle that followed his tragic death and the wider question of accountability for road crashes.

It was a reminder that Tareque Masud’s influence extends beyond the cinema hall and into the legal arena.

Yet perhaps the most poignant part of his legacy is a film that he never completed. On 13 August 2011, Tareque Masud and cinematographer Mishuk Munier were killed in a road crash on the Dhaka-Aricha highway while returning from Manikganj, where they had been scouting locations for Masud’s next film, ‘Kagojer Phul’. Fifteen years later, the film remains unfinished.

‘Kagojer Phul’ was conceived as a prequel to Masud’s internationally acclaimed Matir Moina. While Matir Moina drew heavily on his childhood experiences in East Pakistan in the late 1960s, the new film was intended to travel further back-to the 1940s and the period surrounding the Partition of Bengal.

Tareque, Catherine and their team had been working on preparations for ‘Kagojer Phul’. They travelled to Manikganj to explore locations, including areas in Shibalaya that were being considered for filming.
That journey became Tareque and Mishuk’s final journey.

The filmmaker who had travelled to find locations for a story about Bengal’s past never returned to complete it.
Why was ‘Kagojer Phul’ never completed?
The screenplay had reportedly been completed before Tareque’s death, but the film itself was still at the preparation stage. After his death, Catherine expressed her intention to preserve and eventually complete the project.

But completing ‘Kagojer Phul’ was never simply a question of having a script and finding another director.

From the courtroom to the cinema the story of Tareque Masud therefore has two remarkable unfinished chapters.

One unfolded in the courtroom, where Catherine and the other plaintiffs pursued a legal battle following his death. The case eventually became an important reference point in discussions about compensation and liability arising from road accidents.

The other remains in the world of cinema-the story of Kagojer Phul, a film that was supposed to carry Tareque’s artistic journey into the history of Partition but was left incomplete by the very accident that gave the film its tragic legacy.

For a law student, Catherine Masud and others v. Kashed Mia (Miah) and others may introduce Tareque Masud through a legal textbook. For generations of Bangladeshis, however, his name will continue to be associated with something much larger: a filmmaker who turned personal memory, history and ordinary Bangladeshi life into cinema.

15 years after his death, the question remains: Will ‘Kagojer Phul’ ever bloom on the screen?
Perhaps that is the enduring poignancy of Tareque Masud’s legacy.

His films continue to speak, his name continues to appear in courtrooms and classrooms, and his unfinished dream continues to remind us of what Bangladeshi cinema lost on that August morning.Tareque Masud left behind films that shaped a generation-and one unfinished film that still waits for its ending.