Confusing war with liberation

Engagement with history through video games is a relatively recent phenomenon. Although historical settings have been used as backdrops of video games, most memorably in war games of course, the accuracy and depiction of the conditions of war, the historical dimensions of the events that are being portrayed have never been considered to be accurate. At most, it's the jingoism of USA portraying the valour of US troops against the 'backward, commie' Vietnamese. It was with Assassin's Creed that we could start seeing a shift in the way history is portrayed.

An article on the American Historical Association analyses Assassin's Creed in its magazine Perspectives of History. Although the game too uses the history at the time of the Crusades as a backdrop for the missions of one assassin, and despite historical inaccuracies in the narrative itself, it is the portrayal of the Nizâris—or assassins—that is important. The assassins "were a minor Shi'i sect that became a significant political player in the Middle East around the time of the Crusades. They inspired the first of a very successful series of video games, ... (the) Nizâris are also the subject of a historiographical tradition that is marked by highly negative depictions in primary sources (written by Sunni opponents and perplexed European travellers), orientalist tropes (Bernard Lewis, the nemesis of theorist Edward Said, wrote what remains the best-selling book on the subject)."

It seems to be a good idea to use video games and other new media for engagement with history, especially since it appeals to the younger audience, who otherwise, might not be interested. Even if complete historical accuracy cannot be - or is not - maintained, video games can be used to raise important questions regarding the historical contexts of particular events. Or, they could be used to simplify, and in the process reduce, something to a single narrative of gun-slinging violence devoid of any context. I am not sure what I was expecting when I heard that a Bangladeshi company with the support of the government was developing a game on the Liberation War. Its stated intent was to educate the new generation on the Liberation War.

'Heroes of 71: Retaliation' was released on March 26 on the Android smartphone platform. A sequel to a previous game based on 1971, it takes off from where the first ended. With over thousands of downloads, the game is very well-made. Working with limited resources, the developers have done a laudable job. The game is smooth, the controls are responsive and easy to understand, the graphics is excellent, and most of all, as good mobile games are, it is very addictive. 

But what I am more interested in is what the game portrays. Over the week of its release, various personalities have claimed the game would promote the spirit of the Liberation War, teach the new generation about the sacrifice of the Mukti Bahini, and so on. Does it? Or more specifically, what kind of historiography does the game serve?

The game follows a simple narrative: Shamsu Bahini is going to attack a Pakistani army camp where women have been confined, presumably tortured and raped. There are multiple gunfights from which the freedom fighters emerge victorious. I was particularly looking forward to the issue of women in the game - the systematic use of rape and torture as a weapon of war by the Pakistani soldiers in 1971 is often clouded in rhetoric, the raped almost always have no say. When the Shamsu Bahini wins the battle, only silhouettes of the women in a dark room is shown. A horrific picture of course, but the women are still nameless, faceless, kept in the background. They are then assured by the freedoms fighters that they are now safe. That's it. Like the conventional narrative of the Liberation War, the issue of rape is given a cursory glance. 

Another narrative of the game, the inclusion of a female protagonist, to show that women too fought in the war, was something the media focussed on a lot after the release of the game. Women fought in 1971, and that is obviously not something that is talked about in the conventional narrative of the war. Anila, who had been caught alongside the other women in the camp, when freed, joins the Shamsu Bahini in their mission to blow up a bridge. The developers deserve kudos for not over-sexualising the character, even though looking at Anila's hair, one would assume that she just stepped out of a parlour, while the men are all gritty. There's more gunfight, killing of Razakars, and lots of slogans shouted by the freedom fighters that would please political parties.

As far as the game's trying to represent and teach is concerned, how does it fare? The reviews on the Android Play Store of this game and its prequel is a good indication: it is riddled with obscenities and curses about the barbaric Pakistanis, the joy of killing by people playing at war or about how new features and weapons can be added to the game. Rhetoric or bloodshed - that's about it. Sure, it is important to realise the courage and bravery of those who fought in 1971. But, this teaching of history is reminiscent of what little seeps through the national curriculum text-books. Pakistanis attacked, brave Bangladeshis fought, they won. There is no reason to assume someone is going to learn about 1971 or understand why a nation goes to war despite all odds, or the principles that were fought for. Limiting the history to gunfights does the same thing as when USA glorifies their war in Vietnam - sure the bravery of soldiers makes us feel all warm inside in patriotic zeal, but the broader issues involved are all glossed over. This history is skin deep. It seems all those gushing about the game, when thinking about the Liberation War, focus on the 'war' and forget the 'liberation'—liberation from the communalism, colonialism and the repression by West Pakistan. We get too easily swayed by nationalistic pride of having won in 1971 to look at the issues of endemic rape, murder, repression and corruption that still plague the country. If anything, the longed for 'spirit of liberation' should spur us to stand up against these.

There is of course a limitation as to what can be portrayed in a mobile game. And it's not so much the game or its developers that I criticise as much as the rhetoric surrounding it. A war game set to the backdrop of 1971, sure. A game to teach the young generation about 1971? Yes, if teaching about 1971 means simulating a gunfight. One would assume the war was a series of overwhelming victories by the brave Bangalee, all of whom have Muslim names in the game, with an added afterthought - there were some women involved too. Learning the history of Bangladesh is important, but all the game does is show how Bangladeshis overwhelmed the Pakistanis in battle. I can't say if the developers could have done any better with the resources they had, but let us not get carried away by nationalistic pride into portraying a game very well-made as a game that teaches us history. 

The writer is a student of the Institute of Business Administration, University of Dhaka.