Untold Facts

Global wave of change and Bangladesh polity

Time magazine, the world’s leading English language weekly has chosen, as the Man of the Year 2011 for its cover story of December 26, 2011 to January 2, 2012 issue, “the protester,” nameless and mouth covered by a scarf (apart from her headscarf). The unidentified female in traditional costume is “intended to represent both the men and women around the world — and particularly in the Middle East — who risked their lives to bring about transformational change, as announced by the magazine’s Managing Editor Rick Stengel on NBC TV on December 14. “They are changing history already and they will change history in the future.”

The current wave of global protests was traced back by the magazine to protests in Iran two years ago: “Iran prefigured what was going to happen in the Arab world. And then what happened in the Arab world did influence Occupy Wall Street, and Occupy Oakland, and the protests in Greece and Madrid.”

Stengel said that the global protesters are all connected by technology:
“They all talked about how they had been influenced by other protests and how social media brought all of them closer. It’s really an extraordinary combination of demography and technology that brought about this change.”

The tradition of selecting a person, or a thing for the year end cover has been upset, in the case of The Protester, by a concept. The distinction has been held by presidents, political leaders, innovators, captains of industry and even the infamous. The title went to Adolf Hitler in 1938, Joseph Stalin in 1943 and Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.

What happened in 2011 was simply unpredictable. Out of nowhere, in the words of Stengal, came “these people, who risked their lives, risked their livelihoods to go out there and brought about change that nobody had expected. It’s a transformational change and I think it is changing the world for the better.” The deputy editor of the magazine explained on another TV channel CNN that the essence of the protest movement from Tehrir Square in Cairo to Wall Street in New York is to decisively tip over the status quo, which discommodes the 99%. In the Arab world, the protester wants political change. He toppled governments. In the West, the protester wants change in the financial system. He is being heard, in G-20 and particularly by the Eurozone leaders. A Robin Hood Tax (tax on all heavy financial transacts) to go to the underprivileged is being contemplated in Europe, although for the time being the remedies put in place to meet the Eurozone crisis continue to maintain the rules of the status quo that burdens the 99%, and protects if not enriches the 1%.

A “protester” explained on the CNN that while the bond of new technology of protests around the world maintain peaceful assembly and mass demonstration as the bastion of the global thrust for change, the movement is taking many forms and adopting varied tactics, learning from different country experiences. A common feature is forging activist-level unity without relation to or reliance on established political parties’ infrastructure or leadership. The protests, thus, are larger than political inclinations and are likely to remain potent even after partisan capture of power in the course of “transformational change.”

Where are we in this wind of change sweeping the world?
In neighbouring India, while the marginalised and the oppressed under neo-apartheid have taken to sustained low-key insurgency and remain excluded from the mainstream of Indian polity, the large middle-class that forms the pillar of progress under status quo has of late been shaken up by neo-Gandhian protests, albeit of indigenous character but of the same genre as the global wave in so far as its tremor runs across the board encompassing party political divisions.

In Bangladesh, 99% suffer burdens and grievances of horrendous enormity. But the marginalised folks are weighted down by adversities of day to day existence. The middle class remains opinionated and divided by polarisation of two mainstream political parties with dynastic leadership pyramid, and the young appear confounded by misinformation, disinformation, failures in public services, and constant political bluff. No one is articulating common protests, nor is anyone listening, as confrontational politics is being ruthlessly pursued by mainstream leaders with the sole purpose of capture and retention of power. Yet crises, both political and economic are piling up to a point of explosion. To give a mild sample of how the scenario appears to the eye of an expatriate Bangladesh watcher I am quoting below, somewhat abridged, excerpts from a commentary by Mahin Khan on an UK online publication called The Monitor.

“The Awami League seems to have a passion for creating unnecessary disruption, taking one troubling decision after another, bitterly dividing the country. The reverberations of these political misjudgements are also felt within the Bengali Diasporas abroad, including in Britain.

“Days ago, the parliament, due to the clout of its unprecedented government majority (87%), passed a highly controversial bill to divide the capital, Dhaka, into two administrative regions – Dhaka South and North. This major historic bill was only tabled a week ago, yet it took mere minutes to pass.
“Earlier this year, the AL led government passed a bill to overturn a 15 year old system that entailed a non-partisan caretaker government to oversee general elections. The system, established in the mid-90s, was designed to prevent fraud and rigged elections. While Hasina claimed the move would consolidate the nation as a democracy, many have regarded her actions as politically motivated, designed to secure her party’s place in power.

“Through its modes of governance and decisions, the AL led government of Bangladesh has created one problem after another. The flawed International War Crimes Tribunal (ICT) spells another step in the wrong direction. Following the ICT’s spokesman expressing his satisfaction with the current proceedings, Stephen J Rapp, visiting US Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes, called a press conference where he categorically expressed his disappointment at the Bangladesh Government’s reluctance to implement a series of his recommendations. In increasingly ridiculous developments, AL MP Shawkat Momen Shahjahan, accused one of the most well known and senior commanders of the liberation war, Kader Siddiqui, of being a war criminal and demanded that he should be tried under the ICT. Kader Siddiqui, nicknamed Bagha (Tiger) Siddiqui for the ferociousness of his force in 1971, is the only civilian recipient of the gallantry award for his role in the liberation war.

“The cycle of political retribution and violence is no stranger to this young country, yet its leaders appear unwilling to learn. With the ICT trials targeting only political opponents under the cover of a flawed legal process, the AL Government is in danger of repeating history – one that has been going on for over 36 years. Unfortunately, political vengeance is a recurrent presence in Bangladesh, and should the fires be stoked any further, the danger of a civil confrontation draws ever nearer. Hasina’s government would do well to steer clear of the paths taken by her predecessors, for the good of her party and her country. As it stands, her decisions paint a road map for political disaster.”

Author: Sadeq Khan
Source: Weekly Holiday

The Courageous Pakistan Army Stand on the Eastern Front: An Untold Story of 1971 Indo-Pak War

THERE is much for Pakistan to come to terms with what happened in 1971. But the answers don’t lie in unthinking vilification of the fighting men who performed so well in the war against such heavy odds in defense of the national policy. Rather, in failing to honour them, the nation dishonours itself.

My introduction to international politics was 1971, as a schoolgirl in Calcutta. Many images from that year are still etched in my mind, but the culminating one was the photo on Ramna racecourse of two men sitting at a table — the smart, turbaned Sikh, ‘our’ war-hero, Jagjit Singh Aurora, and the large man in a beret, A A K Niazi, commander of the other side, signing the instrument of surrender. Nearly a generation later, a chance interview for the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) with Lt Gen. Aurora took me back to 1971. The interview was not about 1971, but about injustices suffered by Sikhs at the hands of the state General Aurora had served. I thought he was a bigger hero for what he had to say then. That view was reinforced as I read — with incredulity — the disparaging remarks by other Indian officers about him, and each other, in their books. If this is what happened to the winning commander, I wondered what had happened to the other man in the photo.
The result was a revelation.

It turns out that General Niazi has been my ‘enemy’ since the Second World War. As Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and his Indian National Army fought on the Burma front in 1943-45 in their quest for India’s freedom, Niazi was fighting on the other side, for the British Indian Army, under the overall command of General (later Field Marshal) William Joseph Slim. Slim and his 14th Army halted the advance of the INA and the Japanese at the Imphal campaign and turned the course of the war.

In the process of inflicting military defeat upon my ancestor, Niazi’s performance was so exceptional that the British awarded him an on-the-spot Military Cross for action on the Assam-Burma front in June 1944. On another occasion they wanted to award a DSO, but he was too junior, so a Mention in Despatches was recorded. In the original record of his MC signed by his commanding officers all the way up to Slim, which I obtained from the British Ministry of Defence, the British commanders describe Niazi’s gallantry in detail: “He organized the attack with such skill that his leading platoon succeeded in achieving complete surprise over the enemy.” They speak of how he personally led his men, the ‘great skill and coolness’ under fire with which he changed tactics with changing circumstances, created diversionary attacks, extricated his wounded, defeated the enemy and withdrew his men by section, remaining personally at the rear in every case.

The British honoured Niazi for “personal leadership, bravery and complete disregard for his own personal safety.” On 15 December 1944 the Viceroy Lord Wavell flew to Imphal and in the presence of Lord Mountbatten knighted Slim and his corps commanders Stopford, Scoones and Christison. Only two ‘Indian’ officers were chosen to be decorated by the Viceroy at that ceremony — ‘Tiger’ Niazi was one of them.

In 1971 Niazi was a highly decorated Pakistani general, twice receiving the Hilal-e-Jurat. He was sent to East Pakistan in April 1971 — part of a sorry tradition in South Asia of political rulers attempting to find military solutions to political problems. By then Tikka Khan had already launched the crackdown of 25 March for which he has been known to Bengalis as the ‘butcher of Bengal’ ever since. The population of East Bengal was completely hostile and Pakistan condemned around the world.

Authoritative scholarly analyses of 1971 are rare. The best work is Richard Sisson and Leo Rose’s War and Secession.

Robert Jackson, fellow of All Soul’s College, Oxford, wrote an account shortly after the events. Most of the principal participants did not write about it, a notable exception being Gen. Niazi’s recent memoirs (1998).Some Indian officers have written books of uneven quality — they make for an embarrassing read for what the Indians have to say about one another.

However, a consistent picture emerges from the more objective accounts of the war. Sisson and Rose describe how India started assisting Bengali rebels since April, but “the Mukti Bahini had not been able to prevent the Pakistani army from regaining control over all the major urban centers on the East Pakistani-Indian border and even establishing a tenuous authority in most of the rural areas.” From July to October there was direct involvement of Indian military personnel. “…mid-October to 20 November… Indian artillery was used much more extensively in support …and Indian military forces, including tanks and air power on a few occasions, were also used…Indian units were withdrawn to Indian territory once their objectives had been brought under the control of the Mukti Bahini — though at times this was only for short periods, as, to the irritation of the Indians, the Mukti Bahini forces rarely held their ground when the Pakistani army launched a counterattack.”

Clearly, the Pakistani army regained East Pakistan for their masters in Islamabad by April-May, creating an opportunity for a political settlement, and held off both Bengali guerrillas and their Indian supporters till November, buying more time — time and opportunity that Pakistan’s rulers and politicians failed to utilise.

Contrary to Indian reports, full-scale war between India and Pakistan started in East Bengal on 21 November, making it a four-week war rather than a ‘lightning campaign’. Sisson and Rose state bluntly: “After the night of 21 November…Indian forces did not withdraw. From 21 to 25 November several Indian army divisions…launched simultaneous military actions on all of the key border regions of East Pakistan, and from all directions, with both armored and air support.” Indian officers like Sukhwant Singh and Lachhman Singh write quite openly in their books about India invading East Pakistani territory in November, which they knew was ‘an act of war’.

None of the outside scholars expected the Eastern garrison to withstand a full Indian invasion. On the contrary, Pakistan’s longstanding strategy was “the defense of the east is in the west”. Jackson writes, “Pakistani forces had largely withdrawn from scattered border-protection duties into cleverly fortified defensive positions at the major centres inside the frontiers, where they held all the major ‘place names’ against Mukti Bahini attacks, and blocked the routes of entry from India…”

Sisson and Rose point out the incongruity of Islamabad tolerating India’s invasion of East Pakistani territory in November. On 30 November Niazi received a message from General Hamid stating, “The whole nation is proud of you and you have their full support.” The same day Islamabad decided to launch an attack in the West on 2 December, later postponed to 3 December, after a two-week wait, but did not inform the Eastern command about it. According to Jackson, the Western offensive was frustrated by 10 December.

Though futile, the Western offensive allowed India to openly invade the East, with overwhelming advantages. “ …despite all these advantages, the war did not go as smoothly and easily for the Indian army…”, but Sisson and Rose come to the balanced judgment that “The Pakistanis fought hard and well; the Indian army won an impressive victory.” Even Indian officers concede the personal bravery of Niazi and the spirited fight put up by the Pakistanis in the East. That the troops fought so well against such overwhelming odds is a credit both to them, and to their commanders, for an army does not fight well in the absence of good leadership.

However, as Jackson put it, “…India’s success was inevitable from the moment the general war broke out — unless diplomatic intervention could frustrate it.” As is well known, Pakistan failed to secure military or diplomatic intervention. Sisson and Rose also say, “The outcome of the conflict on the eastern front after 6 December was not in doubt, as the Indian military had all the advantages.” On 14 December Niazi received the following message from Yahya Khan: “You have fought a heroic battle against overwhelming odds. The nation is proud of you …You have now reached a stage where further resistance is no longer humanly possible nor will it serve any useful purpose… You should now take all necessary measures to stop the fighting and preserve the lives of armed forces personnel, all those from West Pakistan and all loyal elements…” Sisson and Rose naturally describe this message as “implying that the armed forces in East Pakistan should surrender”.

No matter how traumatic the outcome of 1971 for Pakistan, the Eastern command did not create the conflict, nor were they responsible for the failure of the political and diplomatic process. Sent to do the dirty work of the political manoeuvrers, the fighting men seem to have performed remarkably well against overwhelming odds. It is shocking therefore to discover that they were not received with honour by their nation on their return. Their commander, Niazi, appears to have been singled out, along with one aide, to be punished arbitrarily with dismissal and denial of pension, without being given the basic right to defend himself through a court-martial, which he asked for.

The commission set up allegedly to examine what had happened in 1971 was too flawed in its terms of reference and report to have any international credibility. However, even its recommendations of holding public trials and courtmartials were ignored. There is much for Pakistan to come to terms with what happened in 1971. But the answers don’t lie in unthinking vilification of the fighting men who performed so well in the war against such heavy odds in defence of the national policy. Rather, in failing to honour them, the nation dishonours itself.

Author:Sarmila Bose

(Sarmila Bose is the niece of Subhas Chandra Bose or Netaji of Indian National Army fame who fought against the British supporting the Japanese. He is considered as a great hero in Bengal and India.Sarmila Bose is Assistant Editor, Ananda Bazar Patrika, India & Visiting Scholar, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University.)

Isn’t it time we call ourselves blind?

Many of my fellow human beings can see this beautiful world with plain eyes, but I need the help of spectacles to enjoy the scenic beauty of what is around me. So people call me myopic.

All these days I used to envy those who can clearly see the wonders of this world without any external, optical aid. But recently I have started to think otherwise. Maybe it’s not only me after all.

I admit I can’t see without specs, but still I am not blind. I see when I need to — even if that is through my specs.

But the nation to which I belong seems to be completely blind and does not see anything happening around it. I wonder, how can we, as a nation, be so blind and yet we are not worried about our loss of sight!

If we had been able to see, then how could we have let all these glitches and gremlins happen around us — and yet, we remain silent?

About four years back on 28 October 2006, we saw on the TV screen our fellow humans being beaten to death in broad daylight like snakes by some elements carrying the badge of ‘humans’ in the most brutal fashion that we ordinary people dread to imagine! Many of us will admit that we “saw” that. Yes, we did, but if we really did, how could we have voted for the killers of that day to rule our nation in just two years’ time at end of 2008? Yet we claim we can see! Or, did we really vote for them? Was the election really fair? Was the counting done in the normal way we count votes? No doubt, these are extremely perplexing and bewildering questions.

And what do we see today? Through which eyes do we see the killing of the upazila Chairman Mr. Sanauallah Noor Babu in Natore? Wasn’t it equally brutal as the incident of 28 October 2006? Are we becoming immune to such atrocities? Are we losing our essential human sensitivity and human values, let alone religious and moral teachings?

How do we keep our eyes open when the members of the pro-government student organization throw each other from a building? How could we remain normal when our Prime Minister’s boys torture ordinary students at public universities for their refusal to join political rallies including her birthday procession?

Can’t we see every day in the news how our fellow Bangladeshis in the border regions are being killed by the security forces of a ‘big and friendly’ neighbor? Can’t we see how our lands and waters are being used unlawfully by that neighbor? Can’t we hear how our ‘friends’ of that country are continuously branding us as ‘terrorists’ in the international forums only to keep the world in the dark about what they are doing to us?

Where is our nation going? Where are we as citizens heading? How long shall we keep quiet when our democratic and human rights are being violated, our media being silenced, and our sovereignty being slowly eroded?

If we can, then how come we as a nation are not rising to the occasion? And if we can’t do that and if we remain blind to our surroundings, then let’s be forthright and call a spade a spade. To be more precise, let us call ourselves blind! Or, has our conscience died? Has the fountain of our human compassion dried up?

To cover my myopic eyes, I use spectacles. To conceal our dried conscience, what can we use?

Author: Mrinmoyee Rahman

Opinion : Steven on trial of war crimes in Bangladesh

The war crimes trial is the most important issue at present in Bangladesh. It is also one of the election pledges of the Grand Alliance led by Awami League. The trial of war crimes is a peculiar matter which is the first experience for Bangladesh and that’s why most caution wishes to be observed as otherwise all arrangements shall not perceive the light of success. It is indubitable that in the last parliamentary election young people voted with an innocent aspiration to ensure that the criminals of the war must be brought to the book and now if their innocent mandates are used to gain ulterior motives then those who are installed in power may require to wait up to the next parliamentary election to get a good lesson. By utilizing state power name shake trial may be possible but justice may stay far away to achieve.

Recently on 13 October 2010 the Supreme Court Bar Association organized a seminar on ‘Human Rights: Bangladesh Perspective’ at Hotel Sonargaon which was presided over by the President of the Bar. Steven Kay QC spoke at the seminar as special guest. Mr. Steven is a leading practitioner in international criminal law and founder member of the European Criminal Bar Association. He is also the founder member of the International Criminal Law Bureau. He has appeared before the International Tribunals for Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR). He was defense counsel in the first case prosecuted before the ICTY and the first war crimes trial held since Nuremberg and Tokyo.

He acted in the trial of the former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic first as Amicus Curiae and subsequently as assigned defense counsel. At the seminar he strappingly criticized the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973 and First Amendment of the Constitution, as they are utterly inconsistent with the basic as well as fundamental principles of criminal justice. He also condemned use of the word ‘International Tribunal’ as there subsist nothing international matter in the business of the recently formed tribunal in Bangladesh under the said Act rather it exports almost all fundamental principles of criminal justice recognized in every civilized country under diverse international treaties and charters. At the seminar Mr. Steven ornately discussed in which manner the Act refused the right of an accused to be tried by a fair and impartial tribunal, the protection from self-incrimination and so on. Commenting on the First Constitutional Amendment he said that this amendment had the effect of withdrawing constitutional rights from a particular group of people within Bangladesh society who were not even convicted but at the most were only suspected of such crimes. He articulated that it was for the first time when inequality had been introduced into the Bangladesh justice system.

In this global village Bangladesh is a party to many international political organizations and is committed to fulfill their obligations.

At the Seminar Mr. Steven quoted Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which recognized the equality before courts or tribunals, the principle of presumption of innocence and protection against self-incrimination. But these rights are absolutely denied to the suspects of war crimes. In fact, such farcical legal provisions are sufficient to furnish the golden opportunity to the ruling party to harass the political opponents in whimsical manner as they are without redress.

He also reminded that Bangladesh is legally bound to ensure fairness, freedom from arbitrariness, impartiality, presumption of innocence and certainty in trial. Finally, Mr. Steven said that it is apparent that the amendments made to the Constitution in 1973 are in contradiction with those principles adopted by the State of Bangladesh and should now provide an opportunity for a declaration by the Supreme Court as to the unlawfulness of those amendments.

In fact, in true sense those are now in Bangladesh working with war crimes are not well trained and acquainted with this peculiar field of law. Mr. Steven as a veteran expert having huge experiences in this arena indicated to many lacuna and loopholes in the law of the war crimes trial in Bangladesh and simultaneously suggested some measures which require to be taken to make the trial lawful as well as acceptable to the international communities.

It needs to be noted that the people of Bangladesh never desire to experience further political harassment as well as character assassination of political opponents by using the war crimes issue. No legal principle support any trial of accomplices ignoring the real culprits and that’s why the demand for trial of the 195 identified war criminals already raised from divergent corners and the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association at the Seminar emphasized on the same issue. He aptly uttered that the trial of war criminals must be held in order to secure justice and uphold the rule of law. He also added that the Act of 1973 must be amended so that it conforms to international standards.

It is apparent that under present legal provision no meaningful trial of war criminals is possible at all rather the present trial may secure the ill-intention of the government to desert political opponents as alleged by different corners.

If it is the real plight then it must be noted that the eyes of people are still alert on their actions and the government must not be evaded the inevitable consequences in the next election. The seminar furnished a great opportunity for the government to consider the recommendations made by the veteran experts of war crimes to ensure fair trial and justice, and to satisfy international standards. But if the crying for justice remains unheeded then the trial in Bangladesh shall give birth one after one hated Raja Nandkumar case.

Author: Md. Nazrul Islam Khan
Source: The New Nation

Sheikh Hasina Afraid of BNP and the Legacy of Ziaur Rahman?

As always, a number of interesting and thought provoking articles and letters covering the current political situation in the country were noticed in the columns of the News From Bangladesh (NFB). I would particularly like refer to the ones written by Zoghlul Husain, Jalal Uddin Khan and Shimul Chowdhury published recently. The writers deserve appreciation for articulating the terrible fiasco Bangladesh in today, as well as warning the public what disaster loomed ahead if the situation was allowed to continue. Mr. Khan suggested some home improvement measures for the BNP, and they need careful consideration by the party if it wants to survive and contribute meaningfully to national politics and development, as well as to carry the legacy of President Ziaur Rhaman.

The Sheikh Hasina administration had been doing everything possible to eliminate the name of Shaheed President Ziaur Rahman, the valiant freedom fighter and the most successful Bangladesh president to date, from the country’s history. His only ‘crime’ was he had the ‘audacity’ to declare the independence of Bangladesh from the Chittagong Kalurghat Betar station on March 27, 1971 when political leaders failed to do so in time. The Awami League (AL) had to seek a verdict from a willing court to ‘punish’ Zia. One can fool one person all the time or some people sometime but not all people all the time. One cannot manufacture or dictate history; it will speak itself.

It looks like the public is paying the price for the ‘forced’ and ‘farcical’ elections on December 29, 2008 after which the AL led ‘mohajote’ was installed to power. Many nationalist observers and analysts have since been warning that Bangladesh would soon be sucked into the Indian hegemony, conforming to Nehru’s India Doctrine, which envisaged an Indian supremacy in South and Southeast Asia. The AL, its sponsored media and the pro-Indian lobbyists have engaged themselves in allaying such fears, some for protection of their crowns while others for cash rewards. National interests have hardly been of any concern to them. These elements find Indian ‘great friendship’ in the stoppage of waters at Farrakha, Tipaimukh and many other similar deadly contraptions! So what if our 52 joint rivers dry out at time of need and people keep crying Allah Megh De, Pani De in desperation? (Please read the article “India’s Dream, Bangladesh’s Disaster” by John Vidal published in NFB on July 16, 2010.) They feel nothing wrong at the regular BSF target shootings at Bangladeshis across the border, nor the Indian farmers encroaching inside our land. They do not care if we lose the South Talpatti or our maritime outlet to the sea. They think Bangladesh is out for sale and can be leased out for money, so let India use our ports and land routes for whatever purpose. They do not reason why Asian Highway had to enter Bangladesh from one side of India and exit to India again, reducing Bangladesh to a hapless transit point only. We need no military control in tribal areas in Chittagong Hill Tracts, so that India-trained miscreants and secessionists can keep it continually unstable. It is of no consequence to them if Indian goods and culture flood Bangladesh markets, even though Bangladesh can not export their goods to India for various ‘legal’ and ‘procedural’ reasons. The Hasina administration seems to move along the blue-print it was charted as a condition of its installation to authority.

The nation could not yet know the real story behind the February 25/26 BDR carnage last year, the worst since March 25/26, 1971, even though multiple connections with ruling elites were revealed. Fifty-seven senior officers, including the Director General of BDR, were massacred and their bodies brutally mutilated. Ladies and adult girls were not spared of the savagery during that period hitherto unheard in Bangladesh. Nobody would ever know why dozens of material witnesses were eliminated in the name of ‘heart attacks’ or ‘suicides’ while in custody. Perhaps as follow up of a greater plan, some of the brightest officers of the military were systematically sacked or retired and replaced with awamized officers. Yet, Sheikh Hasina does not seem to have faith in her politicized military. Otherwise, why would she engage Indian commandoes for her security and safety, if rumors were to be believed!

General Moin driven Caretaker Government instituted thousands of cases of corruption, graft and murder against political leaders, mostly belonging to Awami League and BNP, including the two former lady prime ministers. People had seen and experienced the highhandedness of those leaders over the past few decades and had no doubt about the correctness of the charges. Yet we found them coming out of the jails as puritans, and today sitting in the august national parliament and cabinet deciding the fate of Bangladesh and its dismayed sufferers. What an irony! Upon saddling in power, the Awami League took quick steps to withdraw thousands of cases against its men, thanks to an awamized and ever willing judiciary. At the same time, cases against the opposition BNP members are being strengthened with new cases being filed almost daily, particularly against the Zia family members, again thanks to a henpecked and spineless Duduk!

The current suppression and oppression to dissenting media reminds us of Sheikh Mujib’s emergency period in 1974 when all but four government-controlled newspapers were closed. The way Daily Amar Desh and its editor Mahmudur Rahman was thrashed, defying even court orders, can only be possible in a mythical ‘Mogher Mulluk’.

Awami League should in fact be thankful to the opposition BNP for not calling for any Hartal over the past 18 months. It should recall when it was in opposition in 1991-1996 and 2001-2006, how many days did it allow the BNP to run without a Hartal? Yet, it went wild to note the success of Hartal on June 27, 2010 and sent out its official and unofficial enforcement machineries to create trouble. The result was the arrest and persecution of thousands of opposition leaders and workers. The Deputy Home Minister publicly said that the opposition leaders should now ‘save their skins.’ Shamsher Mobin Chowdhury, a disabled freedom fighter, the longest serving Foreign Secretary and an Ambassador to the US, was not spared of the harassment and continued to remain in custody.

Few disagree with a need of trial and punishment for the 1971 war criminals. In fact, the public in general and the freedom fighters in particular wonder why it had not taken place over the past 4 decades. However, that should not give a wholesale license to the AL to arrest, torture and harass the Islamic minded leaders on flimsy charges. Many observers suspect that it is in fact a deliberate effort by AL to keep a fictitious ‘Al-Quida/Taliban Connection’ alive in Bangladesh to solicit and maintain Indo-US-Israeli support. (Please read a letter by Shimul Chowdhury in NFB of July 16, 2010 titled “It is About Anything but the 1971 Liberation War.”)

Do all these mean that Sheikh Hasina is afraid of the BNP, the Jamaat-e-Islam and the legacy of Ziaur Rahman, or the public at large?

Author: Obaid Chowdhury
NY, USA

Is PM Sheikh Hasina in control of her affairs?

A careful look at the political state of affairs in Bangladesh will substantiate an argument that the Sheikh Hasina regime is a continuation of the military-backed interim government that had ruled the country for about two years before her party came to power. Sheikh Hasina and many of her party people were incarcerated and tortured during those two years, and she claimed that there had been an attempt on her life through mixing poison with her food. Her statement in this regard can be interpreted in two ways: 1. She made a false statement to collect public sympathy, which explains why she is not taking any action against those who wanted to kill her; 2. Her statement is true, but she is unable to take any action, as she is not in command of the affairs of Bangladesh.

Instead of branding our Prime Minster as a liar, I find it morally more comfortable to believe the second interpretation. Sheikh Hasina receives dictation about how to run the country and about who to punish; and according to that dictation, the misdeeds of the military-backed interim regime are forgiven. The primary target is those people who constitute the biggest obstacle to the realization of a political and economic hegemony of a regional power, and it is that regional power that is virtually at the helm of the country. It is that neighboring country of ours that wants to exploit Bangladesh in every way possible, which BNP and Jamaat refuse to tolerate.This is the reason for the arrests of Mahmudur Rahman, Motiur Rahman Nizami, Maulana Saidee and Ali Ahsan Mujahid.

Author: Shimul Chaudhury