Untold Facts

Not Justice seen but Judicial Murder

That the Review Petition for the much expected for fair justice free from interference of the top political executive in the ‘Mujib Murder’ case rejected on the 27th January (2010) ends the run for the clear orchestration of private vengeance that began right from August 1996 to this day in 2010. The vengeance was further manifested this time clearly in the midnight execution in minutes in an unusual rush of the five accused caring nothing for the Mercy petition made to the President who on the other day did grant Mercy to one young fugitive person who happened to be the son the of the Deputy Leader of the government party in the Parliament.

That the trial in the case violated number of basic legal premises such as arbitrary cancellation of the 1975 Indemnity Act, manipulation of the Army Chief’s clearance to try the army men (Farook etc) in civilian courts, etc. went on from the very start remained overlooked for many others involved that would, according one Supreme Court Judge, “After one hundred years, everybody will say that the judgment was not a judgment at all”. (The Daily Independent, Dhaka, 26th March 2002). And according to another retired Supreme Court Judge: ‘The then Bangladesh Army Chief Shafiullh should get hanged before hanging Farook’ (The exact Bengali verbatim was published in the Dhaka dailies Nayadiganta, Amardesh, etc on the 16 August 2008). One former Chief Justice on the 26th March 2001 with BBC Bengali Service Radio and some other renowned intellectuals like Farhad Mazhar, etc. also clearly stated that the 15th August 1975 was not only an act of murder but political change through mutiny was closely linked with that.

That the trial was not one of free judiciary but a POLITICL TRIAL engineered by the top executive was clearly headlined on the 27th November (09) by the international weekly The Economist soon after the 19th November verdict of the Supreme Court Bench was known.
The Amnesty International very promptly on the 20th November made a statement in which they appealed to the President and the Prime Minister to commute the death sentence passed. On the 24th The Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales made similar appeal for commutation of the death sentence of the 12 accused. The European Union also joined the appeal in a statement made on the 23 January. Many other organizations worldwide and personalities like the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown also known to have joined the appeal in the matter.

The appeals so made underlined a few pertinent points. One, the verdict in the case did not remain without controversy. Two, somehow miscarriage of justice was done. Three, execution to death by hanging was a judicial murder of the five persons now in custody (the rest six- one already died, would escape the punishment for they are at safe distance and the Bangladesh Government can not bring them back for they are in freer countries having no death penalty there, and so they would not be let out from there).

That the few scapegoats hanged to death in exclusion of many other involved in the matter clearly showed that fair justice for vengeance had not been done, particularly, for the fact that the putsch of August 1975 had no alternative but to get relief from the unenlightened and oppressive BAKSALite dictator and in the process so initiated restoration of multi-party democracy for Bangladesh would not have come to reality so soon and so easily.

It is true that those who dared to bring the popular change but by now executed to death for the act would take pride in the cause for freedom and democracy, even though they embraced judicial murder through clear miscarriage of justice and Political Trial driven by ego and vengeance for decades. A grave threat against pluralism and multi-party democracy now looks on and instead once again most likely re-emergence of deeply hated lone party dictatorial BAKSAL in Bangladesh. The coup leaders already hanged stood very determinedly on the 15th August 1975 not only to do away with the most notorious BAKSAL of 1975 but also against the unconstitutional killer force, the RAKHSI BAHINI, that the country since then got rid off.

Author: BK Din

Daily New Age Editorial: Time to genuinely work towards establishing rule of law, ending politics of murder and vengeance

THE completion of trial of the accused in the murder case of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founder president of Bangladesh, and the execution of the five detained convicts at the early hours of Thursday are expected to heal, to a great extent, the emotional wounds of the surviving members of Mujib’s family and thousands of his followers, caused by the extrajudicial killing of the man who had politically led the final phase of the country’s struggle for national independence. But it would still take time to heal the wounds the extrajudicial murder had caused to the country’s political process. The murder, after all, decisively distorted the country’s democratic process, the growth of which had already been deterred by the government of Mujib that abruptly introduced one-party rule and imposed ban on oppositional political exercises – activities and expression of dissents included.

The murder of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was not a criminal offence of ordinary nature; it was rather an act of political misadventure, said to be supported by local and foreign forces, having serious implications for the nation for the years to come. The murderers and the politicians that they had chosen to govern the country after the dethronement of Mujib, most of whom were freedom fighters and very close to Mujib and his family, also explained the incident to the people, home and abroad, as a political action, arguing that it was politically important to remove Mujib from power for the sake of multi-party democracy, for pluralism, et cetera, and that there was no way left to politically oust him from power as he had banned all oppositional political activism. The murderous political changeover had received passive political support of the people.

True, the one-party autocratic rule was not the objective that the country’s people had fought the liberation war for, but the extrajudicial murder of Mujib and the extra-constitutional takeover of power by Mujib’s old political comrade Khandaker Mushtaque Ahmed did not facilitate democracy in the country. Rather, it paved the way for a series of martial law regimes that ruled the country with the fundamental rights of the citizens remaining suspended for years, regimes that distorted the country’s political process in many ways, introduction of the process of lateral entry of the businessmen, civil and military bureaucrats into different rungs of the hierarchy of the political leadership being a crucial one. The experience proves, once again, that democratic resistance, with people’s active political participation in it, remains the only constructive solution to autocratic governance of any ideological orientation.

However, the political backgrounds and the perspectives of the murder did not surface in the court of law at any point of the long process of the trial, nor did the issue of alleged involvement of foreign quarters in the murder come up, thanks to the silence kept about these from both the sides – the plaintiff and the defendant. So, it was an ordinary trial of an extraordinary offence committed in an extraordinary political circumstance. It can, therefore, be argued that the trial and punishment of the murderers may heal the emotional wounds of Mujib’s followers, but it would not automatically heal the distortions that the murderous incident had caused to the country’s political process. For it to happen, society would require threadbare discussions and informed debates on the political events leading to the murderous political misadventure, its political and cultural consequences and the ways of freeing our history from the political hangover that the misadventure had caused 34 years ago. The political debates over the murderous ouster of Mujib regime, after all, would not be buried with the burial of the bodies of the convicts.

Meanwhile, the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, daughter of the slain Mujib, has a political obligation to meet. Hasina has claimed in the past, over and over again, that the extrajudicial murder of Mujibur Rahman has initiated the politics of murder and vengeance in this country, and non-holding of the trial of the murderers has been standing in the way of the establishment of the rule of law. Now that the trial has been ended and the murderers executed, it is Hasina’s turn to take political moves that would effectively help put an end to the politics of murders and vengeance and establish the rule of law in the genuine sense of the democratic ideal.

Source: Daily New Age

Anti-BKSAL coup leaders hanged

In course of the hearing of petition for leave to appeal against the High Court verdict on Moon Cinema Hall ownership case, wherein the Bench declared the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution void and illegal, Barrister Moudud Ahmed as the counsel for the petitioners avowing public interest was making some political arguments. The Chief Justice is reported to have thrown back a question to the counsel: �Can we accept marital law? Measures are needed to prevent martial law in the future.�

The political sentiment expressed from the Bench is well appreciated amongst discerning public, but murmurs are also heard that it is empty rhetoric. Martial Law by definition is illegal and when imposed, defies the Constitution by suspension or abrogation. It certainly does not seek the support of the judiciary, but commands it by force for the time being. Contemporary history of many nations (including post-war France, a permanent member of the security council) witness a variety of reasons for constitutional failure or suspension that did not impound the social contract, nor compromise the sovereignty of the respective nation-state. The circumstances that led to such extra-constitutional intervention were invariably compounded by political failures internally and Cold War machinations of �regime change� externally. In the post-Cold War world order, such syndromes have not gone away, but continue to be taken advantage of or even engineered by superpower cliques.

What legal measure can the high judiciary take against such extra-legal intervention? Some say, none whatsoever beyond recording resentful disapproval or post-facto condemnation of �past and closed� reality. Indeed, it is only an effective political system, responding to the particular needs of the nation-state and supported by the will of the people, that can act as a safeguard against any extra-constitutional intervention, whether fomented internally or engineered externally. The impugned verdict in the Moon Cinema Hall ownership case recorded that Martial Law is �unknown� to the Constitution. Some say, that statement is but a puerile banality. The Court was sitting on judgment not of Martial Law but of the consequences of Martial Law Regulations which were post-facto ratified by an elected parliament through an Act of Amendment in full conformity with constitutional provisions.

Meanwhile a long battle in law-courts to confiscate the lives of coup-leaders of August 15, 1975 that killed the founder-president of the nation-state, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family, has reached its logical conclusion. The accused did not get the benefit of consideration or mercy for daring to effect the recovery, albeit by merciless violence, of civil multiparty democracy from the stranglehold of one-party BKSAL rule and murderous Rakkhi Bahini repression of dissent. The recovery of multi-party democracy has been sustained by the Fifth Amendment. But five of the coup leaders have been hanged as �murderers� after what has been termed by the Delegation of the European Union as a �respectable� process of trial in a �political� case. It is an irony of history and a peculiarity of Bangladesh that at the time of occurrence of the coup, none in the political establishment of Bangladesh or in the machinery of the state came forward to mourn the fatality, and many publicly rejoiced. The �murderers� now hanged to death were at that time received publicly as heroes, and for some time they obtained the acquiescence of the entire state machinery. On the death row in prison they were, like the victims of their coup, abandoned by the entire political establishment of the country, the coup-beneficiaries and acquiescing losers alike.

Author: Sadeq Khan
Source: Weekly Holiday

Joy Hind: Merging of Joy Bangla into Hindustan?

HC Karim
That there are two authentic news that the Bangladesh High Commissioner in Delhi Tareq Karim has published a brochure to mark P.M. Hasina’s visit to Delhi in mid January 2010 that had the slogan Joy Bangla along with Joy Hind.

Fear
At the first sight the conjoin slogans may not appear anything injurious as they may be taken to represent friendship between Bangladesh and India. But some in Dhaka have raised objections. The objection is about fear of containment of tiny Bangladesh by much bigger (HANGOR as the term used by BBC fame Serajur Rahman) India or Hindustan.

Nothing New
The revolutionary student leader of late 1960s Aftab Ahmad who coined the slogan JOY BANGLA, as he noted in his writing later on, was condemned right then even by many Awami Leaguers for that had the hue of JOY HIND. Somehow the top leader had accepted the newly coined Joy Bangla slogan and made that gradually a popular one for the autonomy movement of the then East Pakistan.

After 1971
After the independence, as was well known, Aftab Ahmad distanced himself and his group JSD from the Joy Bangla. Until the last he stood against Joy Bangla and then Professor Aftab Ahmad died for opposing Joy Bangla: being grievously attacked at his official residence of the University of Dhaka by the sniper’s bullets, it is reasonably alleged, of the same JOY BANGLA group.

Joy Pakistan
Until 1971 March Joy Bangla was a powerful slogan against the Pak Junta. Even so, the iconic leader in his 7th March historic speech ended the discourse, no doubt, with Joy Bangla but little less loudly followed by Joy Pakistan too. Quite obviously that was the period of fight for autonomy in the federal Pakistan framework. Nothing was there for Joy Hind.

Missed the Bus
Delhi missed the bus after they won the 1971 war. The P.M. of India, Indira wished at that stage to remain content with the victory for HAZAR SALO KA BADLA LE LIA (We have taken the revenge of one thousand years’ defeat). May be, she left the Joy Hind to realize in Bangladesh in some opportune time later. She had then eyes right over smaller Sikim. There was a quisling leader Lendup Darjee loyal to her so much so that she managed to take over and merge the independent Sikim in early 1975. Indira’s father Nehru earlier soon after 1947 did similar venture for the Jammu and Kashmir through similar maneuver, and though succeeded at the beginning for one amenable Sheikh, things did not, however, go as smoothly as Nehru had planned for total integration. After over six decades now Jammu and Kashmir not only remained divided but also the status has been hanging in balance. The presence of Indian federal troops in lakhs and so blood spilled of nearly ninety thousand civilians for the past two decades made nothing difference. The bus Nehru missed for full integration of Jammu and Kashmir like he did for Junagarh, Manvadar, Hyderabad, Goa etc. through forcible police action now runs for over six decades. The Bus Indira missed on the 16th December 1971 for full integration of Bangladesh looks like facing the same fate as of Jammu and Kashmir in October 1947.

Gradual Assimilation
During the prelude during 1972-mid August 1975, the assimilation process of Bangladesh into Hindustan was somewhat subtle. The principles of the Constitution, the education policy, development planning, business and trades and even administration were all tuned to Indianization. The abandonment in Bangladesh of the multi-party system in January 1975 for lone party or BAKSAL dictatorship endorsed amazingly by the ‘democrat’ Indian P.M. Indira Gandhi was evidently taken by many patriots as the beginning of integration of Bangladesh with a guarantee for life long power for the Bangladesh leader.

Patriotic Army Revolted
The unarmed patriotic people had no scope to remove the dictator. The army had. Through a brief sniper action, they made a successful mutiny on the 15th August 1975. The mutiny abandoned the BAKSAL immediately afterwards, and then paved the way for restoration of pluralism and multi-party democratic order in the country.

Annulling Continuity
The government since the beginning of 2009 has engaged themselves in a game of annulment of the gains of the 15th August 1975 for the people enjoying for the last 35 years. First they have maneuvered the mutiny as a simple murder case through political executive manipulation into POLITICAL TRIAL (The weekly Economist 27 November 2009). Once the execution to death of the victims of the Political Trial or in reality, the judicial murder of the heroes of the 15th August change could be finished, with Delhi’s blessings, the hereditary state power line would be sure shot. The Joy Hind was thus appropriately coined on the occasion to keep Delhi pleased and happy.

Dangerous
Whether the likely game on Bangladesh would meet the same fate as that of the Jammu and Kashmir and that of Sheikh Abdullah family remains to be seen. But for Tareq Karim a seasoned retired diplomat and one of ‘special choice’ could have hardly coined the Joy Hind or Victory for Hindustan all on his own. Keen observers, however, have already maintained that the mid January visit of the Bangladesh PM to Delhi has already had yielded Joy Hind or big victory for India or Hindustan.

Author: HB Khair

The “India Factor” in Indo-Bangladesh Relations

An understanding of the “India Factor” is essential for figuring out what went right or wrong in the recently signed Hasina-Manmohan MOU; and as to why Bangladeshis are again so polarized on the MOU. While pro-Awami Leaguers are gaga about the understanding between the two Prime Ministers, anti-Awami Leaguers, mainly BNP-JI supporters, simply consider the deal as a “total sell-off to India”. For the right or wrong reasons, the Awami League is called “pro-Indian” and BNP “Pro-Pakistan”, or as some people ridicule it as “Bangladesh-Now-Pakistan”. I bring in a personal anecdote to explain the prevalent “tribalism” in the polity of Bangladesh, which is not helpful in understanding domestic and international issues Bangladesh needs to resolve:

Recently one passionately loyal Awami League supporter abruptly asked me at a party in Honolulu, “Do you believe in Greater Bengal”? Before I could say “yes” or “no”, the apparently urbane Bangladeshi-American wife of an American diplomat came to the absurd conclusion: “O, you are BNP; you won’t support Greater Bengal”. Instead of telling her off to spoil the party, I simply told her I belonged to none of the parties in Bangladesh. This artlessness reminds us of George W. Bush’s now infamous quote, “You’re either with us or against us”.

At times rabidly loyal Awami supporters convey the wrong message to the detriment of their country, party and leader. Not only anti-Awami Leaguers consider the party “pro-Indian”, but some immoderate supporters of the party unwittingly also give similar impression about their party. BNP supporters on the other hand, knowingly or unknowingly, give the impression that they prefer Pakistan to India, if not to Bangladesh.

In view of the widening gap between the pro- and anti-Awami Leaguers over the vague MOU, it seems the not-so- insightful Awami leaders either do not understand the “India Factor” in South Asian politics or are too eager to appease India and its overseas sponsors. Although the West has been traditionally enamoured by Indian religion, art and culture, and of late by its “secular democracy”, market economy and economic growth; its neighbours in the Asia-Pacific and Muslim World are nervous about the ascending Indian behemoth.

Bangladesh should have given a second thought about the dire consequences of unilaterally giving so many concessions to India. Sheikh Hasina should have understood the implications of not addressing some pressing bilateral issues, such as the problematic Farakka Barrage; the proposed Tipaimukh Dam; the disputed Talpatty Island and corridor for Bangladeshi enclaves in India. The MOU should have also resolved once for all the so-called “Push-Back” of “illegal Bangladeshis into Bangladesh” from India and the presence of anti-Bangladesh militants in India who demand the so-called Swadhin Banga Bhumi to carve out Bangladeshi territory for Hindu refugees/immigrants from East Pakistan, presently living in India. We simply cannot believe the way PM Hasina defended her not raising the Tipaimukh issue to her Indian counterpart. She assured her people about the assurance of the Indian PM that “No harm will come to Bangladesh through the Tipaimukh Dam”. She has turned us speechless by admitting that she personally does not know anything about Tipaimukh Dam; whether it is an irrigation barrage or a hydro-electric dam, she is not sure about it. If this is diplomacy to protect one’s own country’s interests from a traditionally unreliable neighbour like India, then Bangladeshis have reasons to be more reliant on God!

India’s hegemonic behaviour in the past and its not-so-benign design to emerge as the new hegemon in the Indian Ocean are least acceptable to China, Pakistan, Myanmar, Indonesia and even Australia. The average Bangladeshi has tremendous misgivings about India as well. Keeping in view its long-term security interests, Bangladesh should not throw itself into the Indian orbit. Whatever one has managed to grasp from the MOU, it seems Bangladesh has unilaterally granted India access to its ports and an unimpeded transit to Indian goods and possibly soldiers to contain its rebellious North-East. It is not clear from the MOU if India is willing to give Nepal and Bhutan transit facilities to Chittagong and Mongla ports.

The Awami leadership seems to be too complacent and naïve to understand that what India might get away with, Bangladesh can ill-afford it. India might gain some leverage and respectability in the West by coming closer to America and Israel. Muslim-majority Bangladesh has more to lose than gain by coming too close for comfort to India; and to Israel via India.

Conversely, while the West is enthusiastic about India, it is at most lukewarm towards forging ties with economically and militarily insignificant Bangladesh. Consequently Bangladesh’s alienating China and its regional allies by almost giving a blank cheque to India seems to be an ill wind that blows nobody good. Bangladesh is oblivious of the fact that India, by strictly adhering to Chanakya’s advice, has hardly been friendly and helpful to any of its immediate neighbours (excepting tiny Maldives). On the same token, India may be the only country in the world having bad to very bad relations with all its immediate neighbours. In view of this stark reality, one is not sure if India will behave differently this time with Bangladesh.

One wonders as to why Sheikh Hasina and the admirers of her latest “gesture of good will” towards India are not cognizant of the “India Doctrine” at all. Cultivated assiduously by most Indian leaders from Nehru to Manmohan Singh (V.P. Singh and I.K.Gujral were possibly the only exceptions in this regard), this doctrine stands for two things: a) establishing Vrihat Bharat (Greater India) with a view to asserting Indian hegemony in the Indian Ocean and b) to extract maximum economic benefits and political leverage from smaller neighbours by intimidating them on a regular basis. As the act of not recalling Nehru’s not-so-hidden desire to undo the Partition of 1947 is a political blunder, particularly for Pakistan Bangladesh; so is forgetting about India’s annexation of Kashmir (1947), Hyderabad (1948), Goa (1961) and even independent Sikkim (1975).

Bangladeshis’ remaining grateful to India for the creation of their country is one thing; their paying no attention to India’s unmistakably meddlesome approach towards their country is altogether a different matter. Bangladesh should not forget about India’s harbouring, training and arming LTTE fighters to disintegrate Sri Lanka; arm twisting Nepal for befriending China; denying Bhutan the right to have formal diplomatic relations with China; and last but not least, promoting insurgencies in Pakistan through its missions in Afghanistan. Bangladesh has every reason to keep in mind India’s direct involvement in the creation and promotion of Bangladeshi dissidents and criminals on both sides of the border since 1975. One may especially mention the separatist Shanti Bahini, nurtured by India for more than two decades up to 1996.

One cannot believe the way the Government and its supporters are defending the MOU, which reflects the inept and clumsy handling of the bumpy Indo-Bangladesh relationship by the Bangladeshi team. Ignoring the global and regional implications of the “India Doctrine” and the omnipresent “India Factor” in Bangladesh politics amounts to abandoning the basic lessons of diplomacy. Bangladesh should pay heed to Reagan’s “Trust, but verify” approach to the Soviet Union, in regard to its relation with India. To succeed politically, politicians here must learn how to play the “India Card” to manage the “India Factor”, which is a life-blood for Awami League’s main adversaries – the BNP, Islamists and leftist groups and parties.

Politics to a great extent is all about people’s perceptions. If the average Bangladeshis continue to perceive the Awami League as “pro-Indian” (as many do), the Hasina Government will have difficulties in imposing a ban on religion-based politics and trying the War Criminals of 1971. Realpolitik or pragmatism demands that Bangladesh remain steadfast to the principle of positive neutrality. Putting all its eggs into the not-so-safe Indian basket might be too costly for not-so-rich and not self-reliant Bangladesh in the long run. As giving fillip to “Islam-loving” parties is counter-productive, so is antagonizing China and the Muslim World by coming so close to India, which has found new allies in the US and Israel.

Author:Taj Hashmi
Professor, APCSS, Honolulu, USA

Disclaimer: The views and opinions of the author expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

Lest we forget

Propaganda
Propaganda has taken on viciously in every aspect of Bangladesh media. It’s not only that the government controlled ones but also almost all others for their own taste, choice and possibly for self survival. The most worrying thing is that the school text books for young kids have been filled with propaganda items hardly anything to do with truth of history. The propaganda’s central aim is to present an icon with nothing but all lofty praises and bouquets. One group of ‘OLAMA’ even has joined the propaganda to present the icon as the God sent divine, if not the Great God.

Icon’s Folly
There is no denying the fact that the country had a political icon in late 1960s that the stature continued until about early 1973. Then on specifically after the 1973 March general election’s massive vote rigging by the icon’s own cadres at his behest (Check BBC Radio report by Mark Tully and Serajur Rahman), the icon’s image started downward sliding.

Corruption
The sliding image had another valid reason in massive corruption by the same genres making illegal fortunes from internal exploitation of the poor millions that took the toll of thousand lives if not the million in hunger of famine in 1974 ( See, Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen).

Misery
The India factor had been seriously active from the very day one in multiplying misery of independent Bangladesh. The icon, despite HAMBI TAMVI or loud talks, fires and furies meant nothing in action for people’s ease of lives and living and only for transient public consumption the icon’s stature dwindled down to the lowest. He lost hold on the people. That is why in December 1974 he promulgated the State of Emergency only to keep and firm up control through repression and torture of the dissenting voices of the millions in sufferings. But unfortunately for the icon, things hardly changed for better for his administration, and so he looked for other outside help.

BAKSAL
The external blessing came in. There was some sycophantic internal support, as well. The strength so assured, the icon went for arbitrary action programs. On the 25th January, 1975 the Assembly as the facade looked like still then in operation convened and sat for the briefest until then session for 13 minutes. He alone took the floor and none else was permitted, much less permitted to speak, just only to declare by himself all parties in the country banned except his one, slightly changed in style and nomenclature. He went on further to declare himself the life long President of the country and also the party chief with new nomenclature BAKSAL (Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League). The icon hardly cared for the fact that he was made the icon by the people for his apparently visible stand of a true democrat as was understood in the advanced free world countries.

Malevolent Dictatorship
The turning of the country into lone party malevolent dictatorship ditched the people into blind alley so far as the aspirations of the freedom loving people were concerned. Unfortunately they had no light in the dark tunnel. Nothing they had for restoration of pluralism and free democracy in any peaceful way.

Patriots Rose
Very fortunately for the nation a few deeply patriotic army men took on arms on the 15th August 1975 early morning. Victoriously they ditched the then very much despised icon from the political and administrative power of the country. That meant that the victorious mutiny of the day freed the country from tyranny, annihilation and repression of lone party malevolent dictatorship of the icon. The 25th January 1975 happened to be the blackest day of the nation so far as the basic freedom of the people was concerned. Not only that. The 15th August mutiny freed the people from the deepest darkness imposed on the people by the icon for the mutiny ditched down the BAKSAL and re-charted the country since then in pluralism and multiparty democracy.

No Forgetfulness
How could the well-informed patriotic people be misled with the propaganda galore now on since the icon’s daughter’s equally malevolent rule since January 2009?

Bangashotru
The older generation who had experienced the misrule and oppression of the malevolent dictator perpetrated and killed people at random in thousands with impunity of anyone taken as opponents of the rulers, particularly, by the unconstitutional Para-military RAKHSI BAHINI during 1972-mid August 1975 can not forget those tyrannies. Thus the mutiny followed spontaneous jubilation that the national and international media had recorded can not be lost in oblivion. Internally some celebrated the 15th August as the Day of Deliverance. Others externally hailed the occasion for the essential removal of the BANGASHOTRU or the enemy of Bangladesh from the administrative hold of the country (See, renowned British journalist Anthony Mascarenhas, Sunday Times, London, 17 August 1975).

Condemnation
The patriots of all genres thus now have a duty not only to observe the 25th January in 2010 to commemorate the notorious day for arbitrarily killing of multi-party democracy in Bangladesh on the day in 1975 but also to expose the malevolent BAKSALite dictator’s just fall from State power on the 15th August victorious mutiny of 1975.

Author: H B Khair

Idiots: Are all Bangladeshis?

AHAMMOK
“AR AHAMMOKDER AR EK DAL ASE TARA BHARATER KAS THEKE KISU CUSTOMS FEE PABE BOLE BORO ONKER LAVER KOTHA SHONAE”

Simple Arithmetic
That was the Bengali verbatim of a sentence of an article published in the daily Naya Diganta on the 19th January. The sentence in English version may be like this: There is a group of idiots who tell us about big earnings from customs duty from incoming Indian goods (through the river ports of Chittagong and Mangla). They had possibly simple Arithmetic calculations of the two ports and of the transit route goods through Ashuganj river port of call but possibly made no micro-analysis of many relevant elements closely related in the matters that needed treatment of statistical regression analysis of multiple variables as the economists do. May be that they did not go for the cost effective analysis of all possible and at least identifiable cost variables and might do just simple arithmetical cost benefit analysis in money revenue figures.

Wondered
The quote presented above is from an article rendered by a prominent economist Abu Ahmad on the fallacy of the likely gains of the Bangladesh P.M.’s offer in the recently concluded treaty with India. At the first my reaction of the use of the term AHAMMOK or idiot or stupid occurred very odd and harsh. But after a while it sounded to me appropriate.

Bangal/ Bhadrolok
For how long, may be for centuries the people of East Bengal were pejoratively labeled as BANGAL, meaning foolish or idiots. I am not certain about the background of sociological reason, but so far I could enquire about, the term BANGAL started to be used by the Calcutta based English educated new elite BANGALI BHADROLOK, obviously after the start of the British bureaucrat Macaulay’s educational curriculum in 1835. But things changed particularly after 1947, and more so after 1971 for that the many sons and daughters of the Bangal’s got modern education. Bangladesh thus can now boast of many brilliant professionals making their mark at home and abroad. Specialist in medicines, brilliant engineers, expert administration executives, renowned lawyers, commerce and business managers, academics ,etc are not in short supply who all happened to be sons and daughters of erstwhile Bangal now Bangladesh. Even the Oxford University renowned professor of Indian History Dr. Tapan Roychoudhury, a brilliant native of Barisal, asserted his identity as the ‘seventh generation Bangal’ (Bangalnama, 2009).

IQ levels
It as such stands that among many idiots we have many brilliant ones in the society just as in any other human society. In fact, nature has endowed human society consisting of members- some intelligent, some mediocre and some of low IQ (Intelligence Quotient). Or in other words, all human beings are not endowed with equal merits or innate abilities. That did not mean though that inequality would be perpetual for basic living conditions, but only to fit in socially productive living in accordance with one’s merit and inborn capabilities nourished and developed through providing useful learning and training.

Useful Learning
Present day organized societies cater for education and training not only for professionalism but also for social training to turn up one as useful productive member of the society one would live in.

Professional Training
Politics in free democratic society is identified as a profession like any other job specific trade or profession. Unfortunately, no school/college/university trains any member to take up politics as a life profession just as engineers are trained in technological institutions, physicians in medical colleges, lawyers in law faculties of universities etc. Not only this is the reality, yet Bangladesh is not short supply of politicians. The other and crucial issue since about the last six decades is that while engineers, doctors, civil bureaucrats, professors, army officers, etc .were drawn from the most meritorious lots, politics was left to the drop outs. Such is not the case in advanced countries where politics as well fetch brilliant and meritorious lots. Being the reality as it is, how could one get rid of AHAMMOK decide our future for national gains in political, diplomatic, economic and strategic dealings with the counterpart of, say, Harvard educated guy? Would any brilliant meritorious guy with sense of self dignity willingly work under any AHAMMOK?

Wrong-Headed
The certificate one received years before as WRONG HEADED from the Bangladesh Supreme Court was not lost in oblivion and hence we got ‘100% successes’ even though Bangladesh side yielded not only the only two river ports of Chittagong and Mangla for paltry customs duty earning but also forgotten all about natural and due water sharing of the 54 common rivers including the life and death question of Bangladesh involving the Tipaimukh Dam of India. Now we are told that they are going to make a short term treaty for Teesta water sharing that must remind informed others of the ‘experimental 40 days operation’ of the Farakka Barrage withdrawal of water in early 1975 by the ‘father’ that since then turned to be the ‘Cold-Blooded Murder of Bangladesh’ by India.

Bhashani’s & Sohrawardy’s Views
The syndrome so put up reminded me of other facts. The late leader Maolana Bhashani would somewhat affectionately though call the ‘icon leader’ of Bangladesh as one of UPPER CHAMBER KHALI or no grey matter. The late Huseyn Shahid Sohrawardy, the mentor of the very person in the days of misery, would later on use the term for the same leader as the ILLITERATE GRADUATE. He had an academic Degree from the Calcutta Islamia College but was well known to have had obtained through impersonation in examination hall of some Muslim League cadre in early 1940s just as the ‘wrong headed’ one had one degree through similar alleged impersonation and of undue grace from the Dhaka University in those days of GONOTOKATOKI or mass copying in the examination hall and that also under the condensed syllabus in early 1970s.

Sympathy
One must have some sympathy. Unequal parties can not fight, only equals do. Defeat in unequal fight for the weaker is a must. That was what happened on the 12th January in Delhi. The Bangladesh side poorly equipped with much inferior knowledge, mental power, expertise and self-confidence obviously got what they had deserved.