You called him so called father of nation yet he could not even give you proper identity. You were a just Bengali before 75. It was general Zia who introduced Bangladeshi nationalism with respect to Islamic identity. If 15th Aug did not occurred than perhaps 7th march would not have taken place thus you would not be living in country where you practice Islam with full potential.
Remember during Musjib era, Quranic versus were not allowed in Television, radio or in any state activities, hence how could a Muslim like you praise him. I am sadden by your admit.
Zakir Bhai,You are mixing up two things.
He is called Father of the nation,because he had this ability to move masses with his words.With his words he made people believe in independence.
Leading to independence gave birth to Bangladesh.So he can certainly be called "Father of the nation" for that.
Do you know why he was killed?According to own admission by Col.Rasheed in an interview,he said that if they would have thrown him out of power,he would have come back because his power to
move masses with his words.
And more shocking from Col.Rashid,during an interview in "Tritio matra",he said leader of the country's independence Sheikh Mujibur Rahman should be the father of the nation.
http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2007/11/08/news0382.htm
Here is the translation of the interview of part1(later 4 parts were not telecast):
IntelliBriefs: "MUJIB SHOULD BE FATHER OF THE NATION" -- Killer Khandaker Abdur Rashid
Also Barrister Moudud Ahmed has mentioned him as the father of the nation in his book.
http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/2009/06/25/70923.html
So you see he is regarded as the father of the nation for his role to lead us to independence.Even by people with different ideals.
Don't mix this up with later events please.
Now about giving Bangladeshi identity,its another chapter altogether.And for that Zia ur Rahman is to be credited.But as far as I know BNP did not claim Zia as the father of the nation.
Sheikh Mujib probably wanted to be another Kemal Ata,that's why he adopted secularism.
I am saying this again,he was a charismatic leader but was inept in governing the country.
Now you may be disappointed or sad,but not everyone have the same thinking.Similarly I don't agree with you on some points,but that's how it is.And we have to live with these differences.