Political movements, however muscular their institutions, ultimately wither without a cultural anchor. Statecraft is downstream of culture; an establishment failing to capture the popular imagination cannot govern long.
When successfully harnessed, a cultural force becomes an unstoppable political engine.
Bangladesh offers a masterclass in this dynamic. Consider the Awami League. Between 1972 and 1975, the young nation was beset by catastrophic mismanagement, institutional corruption, a devastating famine, and systemic poverty.
Following the tumultuous events of 1975, the party practically vanished from the political firmament. Yet, by 1996, it had clawed its way back to power, and by the mid-2000s, its influence permeated every organ of the state. This resurrection was an act of deliberate cultural reconquest.
When General Ziaur Rahman assumed power and sought to construct an ideological alternative through the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), he recognized that raw administrative power was insufficient. Bangladeshi nationalism required a robust cultural architecture.
Zia did not isolate himself within a garrison; instead, he populated the corridors of power with leading philosophical and artistic minds, granting them creative autonomy to forge a new national narrative.
Many of these intellectuals, largely from right-wing or centrist dispensations, had been politically sidelined after the 1971 Liberation War due to their anxiety regarding Indian hegemony rather than opposition to independence. Zia defied the risk of being accused of rehabilitating wartime "Razakars."
He prioritized merit, integrating these alienated elites into the state's apparatus for narrative-building.
This was calculating statecraft. When Zia recalled Fazle Lohani, brother of the prominent secular leftist icon Fateh Lohani, from London, it was a deliberate move to manufacture a sophisticated cultural discourse.
Similarly, cultural titans like the lyricist Gazi Mazharul Anwar and the filmmaker Amjad Hossain were not decorative appendages; they were foundational figures of the BNP's cultural counter-offensive.
Zia methodically nurtured talent across every artistic discipline, understanding that a political party without an army of poets, writers, singers and directors is built on sand.
The supreme manifestation of this phenomenon remains the enduring legacy of February 21st and the Shaheed Minar. The Language Movement is frequently romanticized, yet an objective historical audit reveals a stark disparity between the event itself and its subsequent mythos.
On that fateful day in 1952, four individuals were killed. In the turbulent history of the subcontinent, far larger massacres have occurred with barely a footnote in collective memory. Moreover, those who fell were not all committed ideologues; some were mere bystanders, and historical footnotes even suggest one may have been a police informant.
Yet, they were transfigured into immortal national heroes.
This secular canonization succeeded because a powerful, sophisticated national narrative was painstakingly constructed around their sacrifice. From 1952 through the liberation struggle of 1971, and persisting into the contemporary era, this narrative has acted as the twin pillars of Bengali identity and Bangladeshi Muslim nationalism.
It prevented the linguistic assimilation that befell other Muslim communities across South Asia. From Uttar Pradesh and Punjab to Sindh and Tamil Nadu, distinct regional Muslim populations progressively abandoned their indigenous linguistic heritages in favor of Urdu.
Bangladesh avoided this homogenizing trajectory because the spirit of Ekushey February erected an impenetrable cultural fortress around the Bengali language, providing a psychological armor that preserved it for generations.
This was achieved through the continuous, systemic institutionalization of memory. The Shaheed Minar was not confined to Dhaka; replica monuments were systematically constructed in every administrative division, district headquarters, university, college, and primary school across the land.
Consequently, the state ensured that a child’s initial encounter with formal education was framed by the physical geometry of sacrifice. Through the annual ritual of the Prabhat Pheri, this memory was internalized, cultivating an emotional tether to the state that transcended shifting political tides.
Today, a similar existential imperative confronts the contemporary political landscape regarding the spirit of July Uprising. While the Bengali language thrives in Bangladesh, it faces institutional dilution in West Bengal under the weight of Hindi hegemony.
Bangladesh’s past survival offers a template for its present crisis. The spirit of July Uprising requires an identical cultural infrastructure. Without it, the deeply entrenched cultural hegemony of the Awami League, nourished by years of Indian patronage and aggressive activism, will inevitably reassert itself, dragging political dominance in its wake.
A solitary museum in the capital is a drop in the ocean. The memory of July must be democratized and decentralized. Every provincial town, village square, and schoolyard from Rangpur to the Chittagong Hill Tracts must feature a July memorial.
A century from now, a child entering school should confront these monuments, inheriting the memory of July long after this generation passes.
The contemporary BNP must mimic Zia’s pragmatism by recruiting external cultural giants like filmmaker Mostofa Sarwar Farooki, actress Azmeri Haque Badhon, and singer Nancy to guard this new narrative.
Farooki has already proven his mettle, rapidly redesigning national events to be radically inclusive of all faiths and ethnicities, while executing the July Museum project. Ultimately, politics is a battle of cultural narratives; if abandoned, the precious ideals of July will dissolve, inevitably paving the exact path for an impending Awami League cultural and political comeback.
—
Rumi Ahmed is a Physician based in the US. He writes occasionally