 |
|
Welcome to the Onirbaan Adda forum. You are currently viewing Onirbaan Adda as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! Please note: You must activate your account after you have submitted the registration form by loging into your email account. Check your junk mail folder If you can't find the activation email in your inbox. If you are unable to locate the activation email you can enter you email address here to get the activation code sent to you again. |
| Latest Anouncement: |
|
|||||||
Members currently using Onirbaan Chat: 0
|
|
 |
No one is currently using the chat. |
 |
|
|
Article Tools | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
||||
|
[Are we brave enough to accept that we have had a premature birth and it is this fact alone that is causing all the shadow boxing over history. For thirty-three God forsaken years we have not been able to come out of the faulty incubator placed on us to breathe easy, taste freedom, as we really must. To add to the sore-point of a caesarean baby, the nagging debate as to who ?declared? the Independence of Bangladesh, is equal to two fathers claiming paternity of a single child, little realising that the ?mother? in the course has either been raped or was a two timing flirt, or worse. Surely, Bangladesh our ?motherland.? deserves better.]
What are we really arguing about?
The recent trend is not new, nor is there any chance for anybody accepting anything other than what serves the existing status quo. History as played out in Bangladesh is only for those with a conceited vision of the present in relation to the past. The past again comprises the rehashed moments of our glorious battles and skirmishes.
Winners do not behave as badly as we do. If it was a war that we have won, though prematurely, then the differing and conflicting versions of ?history? would never have occurred. History is a constant search (or is it research?) in trying to put all the coordinates possible in place, more like a modern day football or cricket game with two dozens cameras following every move of the ball and how it is played about. Like it or not, we tend to think history is elastic and simple. Far from it, history is more complex than rocket science, for it has neither a beginning nor an end nor does it have the final words. Half-truths and so-called truth are not the staples of history. History is an inordinately dangerous thing to be left entirely to politicians or their intellectual courtiers (like wars are equally dangerous left in the hands of the Generals alone).
?We are a half-hearted nation, desperately redefining our half-hearted freedom, debating whether it was a handout or arguing passionately, if it was worthwhile for so many to have died.
Little do we realize that this charade of history being played out or the polemics in print do not make any of us look intelligent and only points to our bankrupt morality, our foggy imagination, our constipated egos, our pathological lying, our wasted sense of value, our myopia. And as if all of the above is not enough, we have somehow decided that we will sit back and take it all in stride and clap the sides.
Much of it depends on the side of history you choose to accept as the truth. It is this ?my way or the highway? mentality in play, and while we would write volumes on the Bush caveat of ?Either you are with us or with the terrorist?, there is none among us who would stand up and be counted to say that we are with neither of you, because we have better things to do and neither of the dead and the gone in contention did us a favour. It was a sacred duty that was done, because it had to be done.
Thanking the two leaders, their wives and children and their children?s children and so forth, we have done aplenty over the last thirty-three years, but expecting us to thank them all of the time, is expecting a thanks one too many.
It is not a question of who the bigger hero is; the question is one of duty to the nation. When the enemy attacks and kills your brother or rapes your mother - you have no time to even think how history will record your actions, for when you retaliate, you also know for a fact that you may not even live to see the next morning. You go about annihilating the enemy the best way you think fit, and by that the last thing on your mind is to be decorated for gallantry or some fine ?golden lines? written in a history book. Macabre as this may sound, war is a theatre where the living tramples over the skeletons of the dead and makes the most when they come out alive. Dying is cheap; so living has got to be expensive and the best thing to do is con oneself into becoming a historian or an expert on this or that. That is a lesson from history that we ought not to forget.
The past as told to us in relation to the present is again a brittle material to be handled with care. Consider for instance how history would have been written if Sheikh Mujib and Ziaur Rahman were both killed in 1971? Consider also had the tide of war changed and gone against our aspirations where we would be today? Lest we forget, history typically has never been fair to losers.
None of the major players in the ?real game? of 1971 being alive, what we have been deluged with over the weeks are sidekick versions of the ?real story?, by people who were in the right position at the wrong time or vice versa. Compare that with times in football or cricket?s ?history? before the advent of television; and you would have fifty different versions depending on where in the stadium you managed to place your itchy back during the course of the game. Sidekicks are, well, sidekicks!
The referee being the most important part of the game would usually be the last to know what happened. Today this nation called Bangladesh is positioned to speak up as the ?referee? in the 1971 saga; and to be fair it is not an entirely enviable position to be in.
If we are to accept the analogy reality of the ?referee,? the first and most important thing we need to examine is: Why is Bangladeshi nation belonging to the ?Motherland? has to have a ?Father of the Nation?? Does it mean that we had a ?virgin Mother? all along and just needed a father to ?do us the favour of legitimacy??
The question therefore has fewer answers for it borders on our legitimacy as a nation. Are we brave enough to accept that we have had a premature birth and it is this fact alone that is casting the shadow over history? For thirty-three God forsaken years we have not been able to come out of the faulty incubator placed on us to breathe easy, to taste freedom, as we really must.
To add to the sore point of a caesarean baby, the debate as to who ?declared? the Independence of Bangladesh, is equal to two fathers claiming paternity of a single child, little realizing that the ?mother? in the course has either been raped, or was a two timing flirt, or worse. Surely, Bangladesh, our ?motherland,? deserves better. |
|
|||
|
||||
Attachments
|
|
|
|
#3
bigeWaize
on
10th August 2009
|
|
History 1971
Its difficult to squeeze the history of a nation like Russia in a long paragraph.I believe that the CIA writer did a decent job in giving a general sense of the growth of Russia in a few sentences while dotting the summary with some specific informaton.Khashyar
|
|
|
#4
cattycat
on
17th August 2009
|
|
History 1971
My exchange son from China once saw "our" version of the Tiananmen Square atrocity. He rolled around and looked at me saying "Dad, it didnt happen that way. They were rioting and doing bad things". As I explained to him the "truth" I could tell he didnt want to believe me. I told him, "Victors write history. If the British had won Americas Revolutionary War, the "Boston Tea Party" would have been the act of terrorists, not loyalists". He called his father that night and of course his father couldnt openly talk. His father told him to just learn what was being taught. This isnt much more than a ramble LOL, but it is very interesting the truths that do come out... eventually Dale
|
|
|
|
#5
bukdub
on
26th August 2009
|
|
History 1971
Hello all I want to post a link to my discussion forum which covers European history and more, has regular contributors, and is spam-free. If interested, please visit my site which is listed in my signature.See you thereTo the forum admin: if I am not allowed to post the link to my site, please remove it or notify me and accept my apologies. I have tried to contact you in the past and have received no reply. It just seems this AHF site has been taken over by spammers and is almost abandoned by admins.
|
|
|
|
#8
teererodo
on
7th November 2009
|
|
History 1971
Im currently a high school student who is very interested in American History. My ultimate goal is to go to law school but I have several things to do before I can accomplish this. Im trying to find a general book about American History. I wish to earn a degree in history when I go to college and I need to start doing some reading because I want to be prepared. I need to purchase a book that goes through every part of American History starting from colonial times and the framing of the constitution to the late 1900s. I would prefer a book thats in a college level but that is not overly difficult to read and understand. Again, It doesnt need to be specific because I know that history books can be long when they focus on a particular subject. It just needs to be a general book that goes through all the basic stuff so that Im prepared for college.Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
#9
teererodo
on
9th November 2009
|
|
History 1971
The one person who had the most profound effect on world history while alive, Hitler, unfortunately. Leonardo DaVinci is a close second. Had to squeeze in a non-psychopath.The one person who had the most profound effect on world history in general, Muhammad.Heres one. Who had the most profound effect on world history after death? Ill say its a toss-up between Jesus and Galileo though its unfair to compare the latter with the former directly. Jesus would beat Galileo in everything, even an arm-wrestling tiebreaker.
|
|
|
|
#10
SoormbomJully
on
12th November 2009
|
|
History 1971
I am not sure, I mean we dont have solid proof he existed, the Vatican is hiding the true identity of existance of chirst, or hiding proof that he didnt exist.
I would say, as much as it pains me to say so- Hitler, he changed the world through his madness, for the better or worse, you decide. He caused so much pain and suffering, the world reacted, possibly too slowly, but in history, he is always going to stand out more than others. The other person is Churchill, who relised what Hitler was doing and reacted, against the advice of others, he took us to war, and rightly so. |
|
|
|
#11
Trollolle
on
13th November 2009
|
|
History 1971
Who do you think is the worst person in history? Pretty broad question I know, but probably in the terms of crimes against humanity, mass muder, etc.
Ценность всего условна: зубочистка в бисерном чехле, подаренная тебе в сувенир, несравненно дороже двух рублей с полтиной. |
|
|
|
#12
Zhimomiryanin
on
14th November 2009
|
|
History
it sounds cool to be able to go. im followign the primaries, but i dont know much about the candidates. we had to watch 10 minutes of a debate in school and hillary seemed more poised and happy and confident, but obama seems more, well, political or diplomatic. he seems like he would make good desicions
|
|
|
|
#13
SoormbomJully
on
16th November 2009
|
|
History 1971
Starlin used an artificial famine to break the back of the Ukrainian farmers. The famine was an intentional man made device to destroy a people deemed to be a hindrance to starlin. They harvested the crops and exported the wheat to the west to earn foreign currency for their industrial drive and let the people of Ukraine starve to death to wipe out their resistance to "reform". I also think it is sick the way people apologise for mass murderers just because of politics.The worst guy in history? hummm.I cannot decide between Adolph Hitler and Gangis Khan. Hitler did carry out an attempted genocide but failed Gangis attempted one and succeeded. There was a kingdom in china that rebelled against the Khan when most of his army was away. Gangis called some troops back and made an example of the kingdom by slaughtering everyone and every domestic animal in the kingdom. I do not remember what the name of it was but every man woman and child where eliminated.All Praise The Ancient Of Days
|
|
|
|
#14
chpokerface
on
2nd December 2009
|
|
History 1971
Hey guys just a heads up. I just turned on the tv, and dogfights is on the history channel today for the next three hours. its four o clock pacific time here so some of you may want to check it out. Seems like they dont play these that often, so i just wanted to give a heads up.
|
|
|
|
«
Previous Article
|
Next Article
»
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Article: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Article Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Article | Article Starter | Category | Comments | Last Post |
| Arrogant Australia humbled in 'the biggest upset in the game's history' | Jubok | Cricket | 1 | 16th February 2010 06:19 PM |
| March 6th-On This day in 1971 :Yahya blamed Mujib for crisis in Pakistan | Jubok | Bhasha, Itihash, Shikkha O shongskriti | 0 | 13th March 2005 10:39 PM |
| History of Valentine's Day & Sobaike Suveccha | Aim | Prem O bondhutto | 8 | 17th February 2005 12:37 AM |
| BENGALI SONGS & HISTORY OF BENGALI CULTURE | Farzana Kanak | Aar kichu Chayna Mone Gaan chara | 3 | 11th January 2005 12:49 PM |
| The history of Valentine's Day | Farzana Kanak | Prem O bondhutto | 4 | 8th January 2005 11:44 AM |
All times are GMT +7. The time now is 05:44 AM.