Nor all "their hostility" wash out a word of it
We have again come to face a situation where the very birth of the nation is not only being denigrated the very basis of its foundation is being questioned too. What is very surprising is that the ant-liberation comments are being spewed with more venom and vigour, and as we have noticed so far to our utter dismay, with complete impunity. And this has brought to focus the role of the current government in addressing the issue.
The comments of the Jamaat leaders, and a few well-known faces of the same ilk, have stoked the sensitivities of the common man. The cohorts of the occupation army in the rape, killing and other forms of mayhem during the period between March 26 and December 16, 1971 in Bangladesh, and their partners in the crimes against humanity, are now defining the War of Liberation in the way they had seen it in 1971 and the way they want to have it characterised now and in future.
The present attempt to my mind is a deliberate exercise to exploit the sensitivity of the time that we are passing through currently. It reminds one of what Aldous Huxley had said regarding the nature of history. But contrary to his reflections on the lessons of history, that its charm and its enigmatic lesson consist in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different; in the case of Bangladesh neither is anything different in the eyes of the collaborators nor has much changed even after 36 years of our independence, to make them repent for, and retract, the position they assumed against the War of Liberation.
They perhaps never realised that the red in the centre of our flag, the symbol of the nation they had so virulently opposed, represents not only the rising sun but also the coagulated blood of the three million martyrs, much of which are still in their hands too; even the figure (of casualties) of the martyrs they blatantly contest.
It cannot come as a comforting thought for the victims of the nine months of repression nor for the relatives of those who died as a result of the brutality of Pakistan army, to hear that the War of Liberation was not what we have known it to be, and the victims were not martyrs but had died in a civil war. And those Bangladeshis who had assisted the occupation army are not really war criminals; and if we are to believe them, there are no war criminals in Bangladesh. And it was not three million, but a paltry 26000, that died as a result of the "gondogol."
And the latest bombshell, dropped by a professor of law, of all the people, is that there cannot be any war criminal because "there needs to be a war for war criminals to exist. But, the war here was between Pakistan and India. Bangladesh was not part of that war, hence there has never been a war criminal in Bangladesh" he had said at a recent roundtable. In fact, another professor at the same meeting had accused those calling for the trial of war criminals of being ignorant about history.
Of course, nobody can claim to be a repository of absolute knowledge. However, one cannot but feel a degree of consternation when one notices the ignorance of those who are supposed to dispense knowledge to the students. It is a recorded fact that the instrument of surrender under which the Pak army laid down their weapons clearly states Bangladesh as a party to the war in the eastern front. However, it is perhaps not ignorance but deliberate distortion of historical facts, a case of blatant intellectual dishonesty.
It is no wonder that there has been a renewed call to bring to book the war criminals, in spite of the fact that a few are terming the call for a trial unconstitutional. It appears that these gentlemen are not conversant with Article 47 (3) of the constitution, which has provisions for trying war criminals.
Some see in the call for trial a "dubious" intention, to divert the focus of the government from the "more pressing" issues of anti-corruption and political reforms. Those who see an agenda in this ought to blame the Jamaat leaders for making such statements that have hit the very foundation of the state and have generated such public outrage
However, there is a need for us to look at the issue dispassionately. In calling for the trial of war criminals, several different but nonetheless related issues have been mixed up. The trial of the war criminals and their right to do politics should not be linked with the issue of religion-based politics in Bangladesh. This is a different issue, but is nevertheless diluting the call for trial for war crimes. The issue of religion-based politics is a sensitive one too, which must be addressed with equal sensitivity.
And this is where the government of the day comes in. While accepting the justification of the call for trying the war criminals the CA has left it to the individual, victims or their relatives, to go to court. But, while the crimes were against individuals the stand of the war criminals was against the state, and it is the responsibility of the state to try the offenders. One cannot be faulted for believing that the comments emanating from some advisors demonstrate an exercise in semantical sophistry.
The government must make its position clear regarding the issue. It must also take cognisance of comments that strike at the very core value of the nation. While one accepts that a caretaker government has to be neutral, it also true that it cannot afford to remain value-neutral.
Admittedly, the issue is not something that the current government can accomplish within its tenure, but it certainly cannot brush off the issue on the grounds that the previous governments had done nothing about it, now that it has come up anew. The matter must be resolved once and for all, however unpalatable it may appear, or risk suffering the consequences of the hiatus for years to come. We owe this to both the martyrs of the liberation war and to posterity.
Finally, let it be said that that the moving finger has chronicled the glorious saga of our War of Liberation and, if I may seek the readers' indulgence in "misquoting" Khayyam, "Nor all their Impiety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all their hostility wash out a Word of it."
The author is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___