Enayet the forgetful Razakar:
You must have getting your history bullet points from your idiotic cabal's political pamphlet. What you state is neither a fact, nor is it rational. Here is why:
1) "President Zia was the most popular president in the history of Bangladesh" - what evidence do you have that suggests so? Any national polls or public opinions? Sheikh Mujib also enjoyed tremendous support from the Bangladeshis immediately after the war, making him the "Bongobandhu" or the "Friend of Bengal" that we know him as today. Then again, since our nation is full of amnesiac and ingrateful populace, Ho.Mo. Ershad also had the support of many people when he cleverly situated himself as the CMLA and the President, after the assassination of Zia. When you use superlative adjectives before Zia (or when BAL supporters do the same to describe the popularity of Bongobondhu), at least make sure that it is rooted in historical facts.
If Zia was the "most popular president", then why is his presidency mired with repeated military coups (21 coups throughout his presidency) in almost every cantonment, public unrest, and martial law? Why did then, many military officials refused to accept him as the Joint Chief, and thousands of officers were court martialed for "insubordination"? If he was the most popular president, then the general public and the army would not have opposed him at all. This is not my interpretation of the history. Some of Zia's close associates and followers, such as M..A. Hamid, Syed Serajul Islam, et. al., support this history. You should also see the U.S. Library of Congress that details Zia's regime. In his Pulitzer Prize winning book "The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House", Journalist/Author Seymour M. Hersch states that prior to 1971 and up until 1974, CIA and Nixon's administration were in touch with the Army leadership in Bangladesh, through their Ambassador and CIA Station Chief. Renowned Journalist Lawrence Lifschultz, who visited Bangladesh and was also covering the events post-15th August had also supported the fact that CIA was in touch with the coup masterminds, including Zia. Need I say more?
2. I have previously refuted your claim that people were cheering on the streets after the assassination of the entire Mujib family, but you are like Bill O'Reilly. You keep repeating nonsense, hoping that one of your pile of feces would stick to the wall. According to Lt. Col. (retd.) Hamid's accounts, on the day of his assassination, some in the army officers rejoiced inside the cantonment beause these morons were told by the leaders, including yours truly Ziaur Rahman, that the valiant army has just taken back the nation from Indian and Soviet conspiracies who were controlling Mujib and his cabinet. The general public, confused and fearful of what's going on were simply told over the radio that the Army had imposed martial law and any such protest or activities were prohibited. There was no mass jubilation on the streets. Instead, most people in the country, including those who hated Bakshal were saddened by the events.
3. Sheikh Mujib didn't die of "self-inflicted wounds". He and his family, including Sheikh Russel and a very pregnant Arzoo Moni, all were assassinated by the "valiant" army. I don't want to generalize here. Most people in the army are/were patriotic and had liked Sheikh Mujib, even though many disagreed with his policies.
4. Zia "invigorated Bangladeshi nationalism & patriotism"? Well, for that to be true, Bangladesh would have to become independent from your Paki brothers in 1975. Sheikh Mujib's whole life was about Bangladeshi nationalism, a sovereign land, a proud nation of Bengalis who can call Bangladesh their mother land. As far as history is concerned, the "Bangladeshi nationalism" saw daylight the day your Paki brothers decided to invade and launch an attack on the nation of Bengal. I am not surprised by your assertion that the patriotic people of Bangladesh were "invigorated" after the end of Sheikh Mujib's rule. Those who hold Mushtaq, Sayem and Zia's regime as the "new era" often keep using the word "patriotism", as if people weren't patriotic enough prior to that.
5. Between 1972 and January 1975, Awami League was in power with the majority, along with JSD, NAP (Mozzafar), NAP (Bhashani), CPB and others. Bakshal wasn't formed until January 1975 when Sheikh Mujib decided to consolidate power, dissolve parliamentary system and become president of the country. Between 1975 and 1979, there were general elections held in the country, although Zia became the president on April 22, 1977. For over two years, he ruled the country from the cantonment and under military rule, as well as the CMLA. And you have the nerve to say that Zia "invoked" multi-party democracy? What democracy? A "military democracy" is an oxymoron, and anyone with an ounce of working brain would understand that. Sheikh Mujib became a dictator the day he decided to consolidate power, and Zia was a dictator from the onset of his presidency.
6. You are right about Zia's proposition for SAARC, an ineffective club of South Asian countries, primarily dominated by India and Pakistan, and have so far failed to serve the intended goals of economic prosperity and cooperation that Zia intended.
Zia indeed was a visionary leader. The former Hilal-i-Jurat, envisioned an "Islamic Republic" instead of a "People's Republic", ensured Islamization and communal politics in Bangladesh, that paved the way for every imaginable instability and horror that we see today. Zia was indeed a great statesman, who held secret military tribunals and executed thousands of Freedom Fighters in the army, including Col. Taher who actually put Zia in his position. I can go on. The hands of so-called "Mr Clean" had two types of stain; of mud from the stupid canals that he was digging, and of the blood of his army comrades who dared to oppose him.
Get your history right Enayet. Don't try to pass propaganda as historical facts.
Cyrus
From: Enayet Ullah <enayet_2000@yahoo.com>
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com; odhora@yahoogroups.com; muslim-professionals@yahoogroups.com; notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com; bangla-vision@yahoogroups.com; mukto-mona@yahoo.com; mukto_mona@yahoo.com; sonarbangladesh@yahoogroups.com; voice-of-south@yahoogroups.com; world_peace_movement@yahoogroups.com; ProgressivePolitical@yahoogroups.com; khabor@yahoogroups.com
Cc: emancipation 4 <4_emancipation@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 6:39:19 AM
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Remembrance of Shahid Zia and failed Mujib regime!
| Cyrus-the-clown; President Zia was the most popular president in the history of Bangladesh. BAL lovers can cry as much as they want, but history reveals the true fact. If have a longer memory, 15 August, 1975, mass people were cheering around the cities in Bangladesh while Seikh Mujib died of self-inflicted wounds, croynism & inaptness. Mujib ruliing presented wounded Bangladeshis with more pain of hunger & femine with all his balshevic regime. But, the sad departure of Zia invigorated the nation, he stroke the pride in Bangladeshi nationalism & patriotism. We are not part of West Bengal 'bangal' as your favorite dada will say, we are a proud nation of Bangladeshi. The tenure of Zia's presidency is a stark contrast of mischevious Mujib presidency. While Mujib invoked dictatorship with BAKSAL, Zia presented multi-party democracy. President Zia was the visionary for SARC. Zia steered the nation in a new direction for prosperity. So, people mourned for their beloved leader! The death of President Zia is a sad story and great loss for its people. Any great leader for a great cause, can be a succession for 'shahid'! --- On Wed, 4/8/09, Cyrus <thoughtocrat@ yahoo.com> wrote:
|
__._,_.___