Zia saved the country from the anarchy, Zia is the true savior. Zia is the most post-liberation progressive leader of bangladesh. While Seikh Mujib has a premitive thinking of Hitlar to be a dictator, and destroy democracy to instill his kingdom in Bangladesh, Zia thrives the country in the right direction.
Truth has to be told, history need to be said properly.
--- On Sat, 11/21/09, S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote: From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> Subject: RE: [khabor.com] FW: [Mukto-Mona] Re: General Zia was in the thick of 1975 killings in Dhaka To: khabor@yahoogroups.com Cc: dahuk@yahoogroups.com, "mukto-mona@yahoogroups" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>, witness-pioneer@yahoogroups.com, "progressive-muslim@yahoogroups" <progressive-muslim@yahoogroups.com>, political_analysts@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, November 21, 2009, 11:46 AM
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. Shah Abdul Hannan -----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. yahoo.com/ group/mukto- mona/message/ 52503
> 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/ historians. In a nutshell the reason 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-American/ 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 ntment 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
|