Filmmaker Mostafa Sarwar Farooki has accused Bangladesh’s cultural establishment of distorting former President Ziaur Rahman’s legacy through decades of what he called “cultural brainwashing”, portraying him negatively while elevating Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to the status of a deity.

In a lengthy post on his verified Facebook account marking the anniversary of November 7, 1975, Farooki argued that the process intensified after the mid-1990s, gradually replacing firsthand memories of Zia’s presidency and the one-party BAKSAL system with narratives constructed through cultural productions.

“Look at how Zia has been portrayed in our cultural sphere and cultural productions. He has mostly been depicted as a negative character, while Mujib has been portrayed as a deity,” he wrote.

Farooki claimed that these portrayals helped shape public perceptions of Bangladesh’s political history and eventually created intellectual acceptance of the Awami League’s 16-year rule.

“It was this brainwashing that manufactured the intellectual consent behind 16 years of fascism and returned us to a condition of subjugation,” he wrote.

The filmmaker identified Bangladeshi nationalism as Zia’s most significant cultural contribution, arguing that it offered an inclusive national identity transcending religious and ethnic divisions.

“He created a broad umbrella under which people of every ethnic community and religion in the country could stand together,” Farooki wrote.

“He did not seek to build a toxic nation based exclusively on ethnic or religious identity. Nor did he want the nation to suffer from an inferiority complex about its religious or ethnic identity.”

According to Farooki, Bangladeshi nationalism offered an identity rooted in inclusion and national self-respect.

“Bangladeshi nationalism moved beyond these questions to offer an inclusive and self-respecting national identity,” he wrote.

He contrasted that vision with Bengali nationalism, which he described as having a “toxic and dependent character”.

Farooki said he would explain separately why he considered Bengali nationalism dependent and lacking a solid foundation.

He also argued that Bangladesh’s political history required recognition of the contributions of both Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman.

“One must acknowledge Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s contribution as a leader of Bangladesh’s democratic movement up to the Liberation War,” he wrote.

“At the same time, one must recognise Ziaur Rahman’s contributions to state-building and laying the foundations of economic and social progress.”

Farooki claimed that much of Bangladesh’s present economic structure had its origins in policies introduced during Zia’s presidency.

“Almost all the foundations on which Bangladesh’s economy stands today were established during Ziaur Rahman’s tenure,” he wrote.

“The foundations of our education system, women’s advancement and numerous other sectors were also laid under his government.”

The filmmaker said the cultural portrayal of the two leaders had changed significantly after 1990–95.

“This project of cultural brainwashing began operating vigorously after 1990–95,” he wrote.

He argued that before that period, public perceptions had been influenced by people who had directly experienced BAKSAL and Zia’s presidency.

“Until then, the memories of the generation that had witnessed BAKSAL and Ziaur Rahman firsthand continued to dominate our collective unconscious.”

But he claimed that cultural productions subsequently began replacing those memories with constructed political narratives.

“From that point onward, narratives constructed through cultural productions began performing the work of brainwashing,” he wrote.

Farooki linked the alleged transformation of public memory to the political conditions that allowed the Awami League to remain in power from 2009 until its removal in August 2024.

He began his reflections on November 7 by referring to the enormous crowds that attended Ziaur Rahman’s funeral following his assassination in 1981.

“The approval ratings of those who govern a country can be measured in many ways. Ziaur Rahman’s approval rating was reflected in the enormous crowds that attended his funeral prayers,” he wrote.

“I begin my reflections on November 7 with the end of Ziaur Rahman’s life.”

Farooki then drew parallels between the soldiers’ and people’s uprising of November 7, 1975, and the July-August 2024 mass uprising, arguing that both represented resistance to attempts to turn Bangladesh into a subservient state.

“There is a fundamental similarity between November 7, 1975, and July 2024. It is the declaration: ‘This land will be no one’s slave,’” he wrote.

“Embedded in that declaration is another implication: arrangements had already been made to turn Bangladesh into someone’s subordinate state.”

He acknowledged that the two events differed considerably in character, sacrifice and scale, but maintained that they shared a common objective.

“November 7 and July 2024 were very different in character, sacrifice and scale. Yet they shared a common purpose: preventing subjugation or freeing the country from it.”

Farooki said both events remained deeply objectionable to a small section of society.

“Understanding who these people are would reveal who in Bangladesh serves whom,” he wrote.

He then questioned how Bangladesh had, in his assessment, returned to a condition of political subjugation after the events of November 7.

“If November 7, 1975, liberated us from subjugation, how did we become subjugated again between 2008 and 2024?”

“My answer is cultural brainwashing.”

The filmmaker also addressed whether similar efforts to reshape public memory could succeed after the July 2024 uprising.

“So, will brainwashing work again after July?” he asked.

“No, it will not work so quickly.”

Farooki argued that extensive audiovisual documentation of the Awami League’s rule had made it harder to replace public memories with alternative narratives.

“The reason is that the events of those 16 years have already been documented in numerous documentaries, with combined viewership exceeding 200 million,” he wrote.

The viewership figure was cited by Farooki and could not be independently verified.

He said footage and accounts of the July uprising continued to circulate widely through mobile phones.

“Memories of July are circulating from one mobile phone to another.”

Farooki also referred to the July Museum, saying it was documenting the 16 years preceding the uprising as well as the political history of Bangladesh between 1972 and 1975.

“The July Museum is documenting those 16 years, as well as the period from 1972 to 1975,” he wrote.

“The situation is no longer what it used to be.”

However, he warned that the availability of digital records and documentaries was not sufficient to preserve public memory over the long term.

“Does that mean there is nothing left to do?” he asked.

“No. This is precisely when the most important work must be done.”

Farooki called for a coordinated cultural strategy to preserve the experiences of the past and ensure that they remained part of Bangladesh’s collective memory after firsthand recollections had faded.

“We must ensure that these experiences become part of our collective memory so that we do not find ourselves in danger once the memories are no longer fresh,” he wrote.

He said the effort required a carefully planned cultural roadmap.

“That requires implementing a carefully considered cultural roadmap.”

Farooki concluded by linking the preservation of historical memory to Bangladesh’s political future.

“How many years we can keep Bangladesh safe in the future will depend on it,” he wrote.

“The question is: Are we doing that?”

--