Ahmed Tepantor :
The biopic of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, directed by acclaimed filmmaker Shyam Benegal, places an exaggerated emphasis on India’s role in the 1971 Liberation War, sidelining key Bangladeshi figures and events in a way that has drawn mixed reactions.
The film’s portrayal of the complex journey from colonial subjugation to self-determination is far from accurate. One key moment omitted is the September 17, 1972 public protest led by freedom fighter ASM Abdur Rab, who declared, “The Awami Leaguers are more corrupt and oppressive than the Pakistanis,” as recorded in Anthony Mascarenhas’ book Bangladesh: A Legacy of Blood.
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, throughout his childhood, adolescence, and youth, was shaped by his upbringing in nature.
Mujib’s courage and political insight quickly brought him under the mentorship of notable leaders like Sher-e-Bangla AK Fazlul Huq, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, Abul Mansur Ahmad, Tofazzal Hossain Manik Miah, and Maulana Bhashani. With their influence, Mujib played a crucial role in the creation of Pakistan based on the two-nation theory, which secured independence from British rule. However, his focus soon shifted towards Bengali self-determination.
History stood against him, as the men who killed Mujib in 1975 regarded him not as a hero, but as a villain.
The biopic, partly funded by India, resulted in a film that seems to amplify India’s involvement in the Liberation War while downplaying the contributions of Bangladesh’s own leadership.
Key figures of the Independence War, such as the four pioneers of the Mujibnagar government-who steered the nation in Mujib’s absence during the war – receive minimal attention. Similarly, the roles of freedom fighters and the Bangladeshi military are overshadowed by scenes glorifying Indian intervention, giving the impression that the war was more of an Indo-Pakistani conflict than a struggle led by Bangladeshis themselves.
The film often centers on Mujib as the sole figure in Bangladesh’s liberation, while other key personalities are not given adequate attention.
Unnecessary elements have been introduced, making the screenplay almost laughable at times. For instance, the character of Shamsul Haque, the founding General Secretary of the East Pakistan Awami Muslim League, is reduced to comic relief, portrayed by Siam Ahmed. This portrayal is disrespectful when considering historical accuracy and transparency.
This imbalance is particularly evident in the film’s handling of the “Declaration of Independence.” While Mujib’s message, though disputed, written on March 25, 1971, is highlighted, the film ignores the fact that Major Ziaur Rahman, then a Sector Commander, read the declaration. As a historian, Benegal could not afford to overlook this.
The March 26, 2021 issue of Prothom Alo highlighted that Ziaur Rahman read the “Declaration of Independence” on behalf of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, a fact also documented in the third volume of Liberation War of Bangladesh: Documents.
This historical detail is supported by reports from international media such as the BBC, Voice of America, The Statesman, and The Guardian from that period.
Additionally, veteran freedom fighters like Kader Siddiqui and Moinuddin Khan Badal have implied in numerous talk shows that Ziaur Rahman was recognised as Bangladesh’s announcer of independence in parliament, on behalf of Sheikh Mujib. However, the biopic forgets this and portrays Ziaur Rahman as a villain in one scene, holding a glass of liquor-a very sad misrepresentation.
Lt. Col. (Retd.) M. A. Hamid’s Tinti Sena Obvutthan O Kichu Na Bola Kotha reveals many overlooked aspects behind the killing of Mujib. Among these are the growing discontent in the military, particularly among freedom fighters like Major Jalil, and the controversial role of the Rakkhi Bahini (a paramilitary force).
The author also discusses corruption, the marginalization of freedom fighters, and their imprisonment, which led to further unrest. Just three days before his assassination, Maulana Bhashani had warned Mujib about these issues in a letter.
One major flaw in the biopic is the absence of the important April 4, 1971 meeting between Tajuddin Ahmad and Indira Gandhi, a critical event in the history of Bangladesh’s freedom. This omission reinforces the idea that the war was solely an India-Pakistan conflict, overlooking the sacrifices of Bangladesh’s military, students, farmers, and workers.
Bangladesh’s archives contain the necessary materials, but many historical events are either poorly emphasized or badly presented, such as Sheikh Mujib’s iconic March 7 speech or his return on January 10.
The film focuses on making Mujib the central figure, but other personalities who played significant roles in the language and independence movements have been neglected.
For example, the 1952 Language Movement’s connection with student and cultural organizations like Tamuddin Majlish is largely excluded. In his book The Unfinished Memoirs, Mujib himself stated that he was not the central figure of the language revolution.
The film’s final scenes also lack the dramatic tension needed to engage the audience. Lt. Col. M.A. Hamid maintains that much more suspense surrounded Mujib’s assassination than the movie portrays, leaving the biopic flat and underwhelming.
This sentiment is reflected in its low rating of 2 out of 5 for narrative execution, despite the historical significance of the subject matter.
With a budget of Tk 83 crore, the film failed to deliver the real depiction of events like the Agartala Conspiracy Case, the 1970 elections, and the formation of the Mujibnagar government.
Therefore, the final product leaves many viewers questioning whether the budget was justified. The film’s ultimate depiction of historical events and its success as a historical film will likely be sidelined.
(The writer is journalist and film critic).