Role of 7 November in Shaping Bangladesh’s Politics

On 7 November 1975, a soldiers’ uprising set Bangladesh on a new political course. Its consequences extended far beyond the cantonment, shaping the country’s politics, national identity and approach to development. The uprising overturned a power arrangement that had lasted only a few days, freed then Major General Ziaur Rahman from house arrest and opened the way for his rise to the centre of state power. Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) observes the occasion as National Revolution and Solidarity Day. Other political traditions remember it as a soldiers’ uprising, a military countercoup or an unfinished revolution. The events of that day and what followed help explain why it is remembered so differently.

The crisis began with the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and most of his family on 15 August. Khondaker Mostaq Ahmad became president, while military officers involved in the killings continued to wield influence from Bangabhaban. On 3 November, a coup led by Brigadier Khaled Mosharraf overturned that arrangement and placed Ziaur Rahman, then chief of army staff, under house arrest. On the same day, four national leaders who had served in the wartime government were murdered inside Dhaka Central Jail. These events weakened state authority. Divisions within the army, a struggle over its leadership and a shortage of reliable news deepened public uncertainty.

In the early hours of 7 November, an uprising spread among rank-and-file soldiers. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Abu Taher and Gano Bahini, associated with the Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD), played an important role in organising it. The soldiers secured Zia’s release, and some civilians in Dhaka took to the streets and celebrated. The soldiers’ grievances, Taher’s political objectives and the hopes of those who looked to Zia to restore order reflected different priorities. Fears of foreign domination have also shaped the political memory of the day. Surviving documentation is limited, and eyewitness accounts differ. Direct foreign involvement remains uncertain, while divisions within the army, rivalries over power and discontent among soldiers are better documented.

The most far-reaching political consequence of 7 November was Ziaur Rahman’s rise. A Liberation War sector commander and recipient of the Bir Uttam gallantry award, Zia drew on the confidence of a substantial section of the army to become increasingly influential in government. Justice Abu Sadat Mohammad Sayem was then president. Power gradually shifted to Zia, who assumed the presidency in April 1977. His lasting political influence came from turning a shift in power that began in the cantonment into a political movement with its own party, a conception of national identity and an economic programme.

Under Zia, political parties were again permitted to operate, and a multiparty parliamentary election was held in 1979. Earlier restrictions on newspapers were also eased. After the one-party system, the return of political competition and greater room for public expression marked a significant change. This opening began under martial law. Zia’s record therefore raises two questions. How many opportunities for political participation expanded? And how strong were the democratic institutions needed to protect those opportunities? The first helps explain his contribution. The second puts its limits in perspective.

Zia’s 19-point programme prioritised agriculture, food production, irrigation, rural development and public participation. Canal excavation was one visible attempt to involve local communities in development work. At a time when the newly independent state’s capacity remained uncertain, putting food production and the rural economy at the centre of political debate was significant. Zia’s idea of Bangladeshi nationalism also gave prominence to the country’s territory and to citizenship as a shared identity. Its potential to unite people of different faiths and ethnic backgrounds depended on whether the state could uphold their equal status and protect their rights, languages and cultures.

The bloodshed of 7 November and its aftermath also belongs in this history. Khaled Mosharraf and several other military officers were killed during the upheaval. These events revealed how deeply the forces involved in the uprising differed over the country’s political future. This day needs to be remembered not to take sides in an old quarrel but to understand how quickly a country that won independence at enormous cost can slide into fear and bloodshed and to honour everyone who died, whichever camp they belonged to. Several lessons follow.

The first is that the cycle of violence is hard to break once it begins. Each seizure of power in 1975 was justified as a correction to the one before, and each created new victim. When power is taken by force, every ambitious faction learns that the same method is available to them. The second is that armies must remain within a clear chain of command under civilian authority. Many of the soldiers who acted that autumn had fought bravely for independence, which makes the lesson more sobering. Courage and patriotism cannot replace institutions. The third is about memory. When the same day is called a revolution by some and a tragedy by others, and neither side listens, a nation ends up with two incompatible histories, each owned by a party. Memory serves the country better when it rests on evidence and makes room for all victims. The fourth is that popular support is not the same as legitimacy. Crowds welcomed the soldiers on 7 November, yet what followed was a long period of martial law. Lasting legitimacy comes from elections, open debate, free press and the rule of law, which Bangladeshis have repeatedly shown they value, from the struggle against military rule in the 1980s to the uprising of 2024. Finally, the day teaches humility to every political tradition. Heroes of one chapter become victims or villains in the next, and those who seized power by force were often overtaken by the same forces. The simple rule for leaders of every party is not to build the future on revenge, because revenge invites revenge.

That is where 7 November retains its relevance today. Safeguarding national independence requires unity and the ability to make sovereign decisions. Constitutional continuity, democratic civilian oversight of a professional military, free press and equal citizenship give that independence a durable foundation. Ziaur Rahman’s leadership opened avenues for political participation and placed greater emphasis on agricultural production and rural development. The violence of the uprising and the legal questions raised by its aftermath deserve a place in the same historical record. Together, they leave Bangladesh with a practical question. When the next crisis comes, will its institutions be strong enough to resolve a struggle for power through the Constitution and the will of the people?