Dear sirs,
Assalamu Alaikum.General Zia did nothing on 15th Auguast. There is no proof.Even the case in which Bangladesh Supreme Court has given judgment , there is no mention of Zia,.As Maudud Ahmad has said the judgment shows that Zia had no role.
Zia saved the country from falling back to Awami League’s BAKSHAL rule, one party dictatorship and also re-asserted the Islamic identity of the nation.
No other nation or group other than Bangladesh Army was involved. All other things are just Awami propaganda.
-----Original Message-----
From: khabor@yahoogroups.com [mailto:khabor@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kaljatri@emailme.net
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 1:02 AM
To: khabor@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [khabor.com] FW: [Mukto-Mona] Re: General Zia was in the thick of 1975 killings in Dhaka
WRT: http://groups.
> The agents of Pakistan had already infiltrated into the army and
> started conspiring to kill the nascent democratic process brought
> on under the civilian political rule. The killers got support from
> the conspirator of all times named Gen. Ziaur Rahman.
Pakistani agents infiltrated Baksali supported army in 1975 ??
What a
ridiculous claim. No scholarly article/book has ever made such a
funny claim. The BD army in 1975 was very much a pro-Bangladeshi
force who had played the leading role in the war of liberation
against the Paki army. The officers who killed Mujib and toppled
Baksali regime were all active freedom fighters with missionary
zeal, unlike many AL leaders who were enjoying the sensuous
pleasures in Kolkata the entire time during the liberation
struggle). These army officers were all against Pakistani Gov. and
supportive of liberation war. They staked their life for it. Why
would they suddenly become Paki lovers in 1975? Doe it make sense?
It makes sense for them to become anti Mujib/Baksal. They were not
anti-AL even. They installed an AL gov. headed by Balist Moshtaque
comprising majority of then then AL parliament members
The reason they turned against Mujib and Baksal is manyfold. But
none of those manyfold reasons had anything to do with
infiltration by Pakistani elements. The manyfold reasons have all
been well documented by many scholarly writings by professional
journalists and intellectuals/
were the rampant corruption by AL/Baksal, the undemocratic
measures widely adopted by Mujib to silence/torture opposition and
keep his power through using Rakkhi Bahini and other private
armies (like Lal Bahini, Awami Shechchha Shebok Bahini etc). There
was widespread public resentment against the Mujib regime from
1974 onwards. So much so that ASM Rob could declare "Mujib, we
will peel your skin and make shoes out of it" to the thunderous
applause of hundreds of thousands attending his rally in Paltan.
Adding fuel to fire was the insulting of some army officers by
some AL hooligans and Mujib's siding with the hooligans. None of
these had anything to do with Pakistani elements. As I said the
army majors who fought against Pakistan in 1971 had no reason to
suddenly become Pakistan lovers in 1975. In fact majors Farook and
Rashid were very much nationalists then as they were during 1971
and totally opposed to the idea of reverting to one Pakistan. On
page 87 of Anthony Mascarenhas' "Bangladesh: A legacy of Blood"
Mascarenhas mentions that if Moshtaq had dared to unite BD with
Pakistan (There were rumours to that effect at that time) then "he
would have been immediately killed by Majors Farook and Rashid,
both staunch nationalists"
Zia was no Paki lover either, nor had any reason to be either. Zia
mentioned to Mascarenhas that he had been 'extremely suspicious
about Moshtaq hobnobbing with Pakistanis' (mentioned on page 88 of
Legacy of Blood).
The fact is they had every reason to become anti Mujib in 1975,
not pro pakistan. Anti Mujib does not mean Pro-Pak, a simple logic
that does not get through the skull of Awamists, just like
criticising Islam does not mean being pro-Christian/
Pro-India, a logic that does not get through the thick skull of
Islamists. In fact by diverting the blame to fictitious Pro-paki
elements the Awamist try to deflect the attention away from their
own misdeeds that led to the revolution and subsequent killing
in 1975.
>"conspiring to kill the nascent democratic process brought on
> under the civilian political rule"
>
??? What a joke. It is pathetic how unabashedly one can make such a
remark. It was Baksal who killed democracy. Does democracy mean
installing a one party rule? Does democracy mean banning all
newspapers except four that toes the official line? Does democracy
mean raising private militia to suppress political opposition.
Maybe thats what Awamists define as democracy. Just like the
Islamists declare an Islamic state as the true form of democracy
to them, the Awamists/Balists equate AL/Baksal rule as democracy.
Any other option is undemocratic to Awamists just as it is to
Islamists.
"The killers got support from the conspirator of all times named
Gen. Ziaur Rahman."??
Another unsubstantiated claim by the Awamists. If by supporting
means "not preventing the killing of Mujib" then not just Gen Zia,
then the entire nation, including the majority of the then AL
parliament members who joined the "killers" supported Mushtaq
government can be said to have supported the killers. None did
anything to protest/prevent the killing of Mujib. The ONLY person
who laid down his life to protect Mujib was an army officer who
was not even a freedom fighter, made no attempt to escape Pakistan
in 1971 and was repatriated after independence. He was Colonel
Jamil. He was just doing his duty as professional army offcier
assigned to protect the presdient.
Gen Zia did not do anything pro-active to support the killers nor
did he do anything to stop them. But in no way did he offer
support to the killers. In fact in Mascarenhas' Legacy of Blood on
page 51 Mascarenhas mentions that Gen Zia was one among major
Farook's hit list of army officers potentially offering resistance
to their missions thus may have to be eliminated. Mascarenhas
mentions on page 91 that Farook and Rashid had even considered
arresting Zia along with Khaled Mosharraf.
The responsibilty for stopping the majors from their mission lied
not on Zia, but on Army Chief Gen Shafiullah, a veteran freedom
fighter and AL's pick at that time. Even he must have felt so
disgusted with AL/Baksal not to have risked going against the tide
of Baksal Hotao operation. The entire events of 1975 had nothing
to do with Pro-Pak or pro- anything. Most people who welcomed the
elimination of Mujib were not pro-Pak, they were anti Mujib (Mujib
as known b/w 1972-75). Many of them were Mujib lovers up until
1973. There was no need or reason for Mujib killers to be Pro-Pak.
Mujib had already offered Bhutto a red carpet reception, got
Pakistan's recognition of BD, and wooed the Islamic countires for
joining OIC, which he did. And Pakistan then was ruled by Bhutto's
PPP party, Bhutto was an atheist and PPP was clearly soft towards
socialist ideas. So what's there for the killers to be pro Pak
unless they wer also very much an admirer of Bhutto, they
obviously were not. The unpleasant bitter pill of truth that
Awamists would not rather have people know is that there was
exchanging of sweets after the news of Mujib's death. Majority
were heaving a sigh of relief. A general sense of relief was felt
among the mass. The only feeling of fear and uncertaintly that the
Awamist is referring to was in fact a fear of reverting to status
quo through some counter coup, or of a civil war between the
supporters of AL and the new regime, which did not happen at all.
The BAL/Baksal supporters simply had no moral courage to fight
back knowing full well what kind of misdeeds they had committed
between 1972-75 and the level of public resentment/disencha
against them. There is no need to have been alive and witnessed it
first hand to see that. If the valiant freedom fighters and the
people fought against the Pak military and laid down 3 million (an
exaggeration but touted by Awamists, even if it was hundreds of
thousands still a huge sacrifice) then if the killing of Mujib was
unpopular with the people and was actually committed by Pro-paki
elements, then there would surely would have been a similar mass
movement against it. If popular uprising could defeat a formidable
and unified Pak army with all their military machine and numbers,
such a mass movement surely could have defeated a handful of
junior officers with six antiquated tanks (The bulk of the army
navy air force were not even under the command of those four
majors). That in itself proves the lack of popular outcry against
the killing of Mujib and against the end of Baksal. It is the
condoning and tacit support by the masses for which the 1975
revolt and killing met with no resistance. Anyone with a
common sense can put two and two together and come to that
conclusion.
It is ironic that this Awamist and many others shed crocodile
tears for Col Taher for being hanged by Zia's military court. Do
they shed tears for Siraj Sikdar when he was killed by simply
shooting on his back at Mujib's behest, which later Mujib bragged
about saying "Kothay aaj Siraj Sikdar?". Taher did the most
unprofessional thing in the army and he received army punishment
for that. It was not Zia who used Taher but the other way around.
It was Taher and the red brigade of Jashod who used Zia's
popularity in the army to accomplish their red revolution using
Zia as the front man knowing full well that he (Taher) or the
Jashod brigade would not command that level of respect or
acceptibility because of their bloody agenda of mass slaughter of
entire army officer corps and elite of the society eventually if
successfull. Zia tactfully managed Taher in turn to save the army
from such a massacre and anarchy, or stop the massacre from
further spreading. It is more ironic that Awamists praise Taher
when in fact Taher and Jashod symbolized anti Mujibism. They would
also have killed Mujib had thay gotten the opportuine moment.
(Remenember Rob's declaration of peeling Mujib's skin to make
shoes out of?) In fact they did not condemn or protest killing of
Mujib but considered it as the first dirty step done by others so
they could proceed with their own bloody red scheme, exploiting
Zia's popularity.
The rest of the ramblings about Zia's role in August killing is
the Awamists personal spin on the events in 1971. It shows lack of
professionalism and objectivity. One can only hope to get the best
picture of what happened in 1975 and beyond by reading
professional articles and books, not spin stories by Awami
bigots,leftist Jashod fanatics or the Islamists. History is
merciless, it does not necessarily favour one side or the other or
all.
- Jamil Asgor
__._,_.___
****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration:
Call For Articles:
http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68
http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585
****************************************************
VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/
****************************************************
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190
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
__,_._,___