'From what I have read in foreign newspapers and encyclopaedia, it was a civil war and most people did NOT call it a "struggle for freedom". '
-S.A.
-
My response:
I begin quoting Arnold Zeitlin, an American eyewitness (journalist) of 1971 war:
"The liberation war was certainly a time when the world eyed on East Pakistan, but Pakistan made the mistake of forcing journalists to leave East Pakistan on March 26 cutting the world off from information. "
Well, when the whole "world eyed on east Pakistan", is it credible that our learned Mr S A Hannan turned his back and thought of 1971 just as a "civil war" and not a "liberation war"--as it's known both to most Bangaless and rest of the world? I'd rather think, the reason why S A Hannan said he didn't read any foreign news report terming '71 war as a "liberation war" lies elsewhere: he wants to escape from the vivid yet ironic truth that even the foreign journalists saw- to what extent some pathetic and illegitimate sons of Bangla betrayed with their own soil & its people. Might it be possible, every time they think of their betrayal in 1971, S A Hannan & his likes have no other option but to resort to constant denial! I'm sure they will do so until their last breath. Let us see, how "foreign news media" indeed depicted the 1971 liberation war, the massacre and the role of Razakars.
====================================================
1. New York Times Eyewitness Report by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Sydney Schanberg (Pakistan army expelled him from the country on June 30, 1971.)
"Besides Biharis and other non-Bengali, Urdu-speaking Moslems, the recruits include the small minority of Bengali Moslems who have long supported the army -- adherents of the right-wing religious parties such as the Moslem League and Jamaat-e-Islami. .....
'Collectively known as the Razakars, the paramilitary units spread terror throughout the Bengali population. With their local knowledge, the Razakars were an invaluable tool in the Pakistani Army's arsenal of genocide.'....
'Since the offensive began the troops have killed countless thousands of Bengalis -- foreign diplomats estimate at least 200,000 to 250,000 -- many in massacres. Although the targets were Bengali Moslems and the 10 million Hindus at first, the army is now concentrating on Hindus in what foreign observers characterize as a holy war.
'Of the more than six million Bengalis who are believed to have fled to India
2. 'Kill three million of them,' said President Yahya Khan at the February conference, 'and the rest will eat out of our hands.' (Robert Payne, Massacre [1972], page 50.)
3. TIME Dec. 20, 1971 issue
4. Simon Dring, Daily Telegraph Reporter from Dhaka on 25th march 1971:
'The lead unit was followed by soldiers carrying cans of gasoline. Those who tried to escape were shot. Those who stayed were burnt alive. About 700 men, women and children died there that day between noon and 2 pm, I was told.
'In the Hindu area of the old town, the soldiers reportedly made the people come out of their houses and shot them in groups. The area, too, was eventually razed.
'The troops stayed on in force in the old city until about 11 pm on the night of Friday, March 26, driving around with local Bengali informers. The soldiers would fire a flare and the informer would point out the houses of Awami League supporters. The house would then be destroyed -- either with direct fire from tanks or recoilless rifles or with a can of gasoline, witnesses said.'
====================================================
Ending remarks: I do not know of anyone who addresses his/her mother as "my father's wife"; instead we call "mom/""ma" etc. I will leave it up to Mr Hannan to judge, which addressing means what although he's 100% entitled to his rights of expression.
Regards to all,
Jahed Ahmed
Ref.
<veirsmill@yahoo.com> wrote:
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Shamim Chowdhury <veirsmill@yahoo.com>
Subject: Shah A Hannan: There was no genocide; it was a 'civil war'
To: Shamim_Personal chowdhury <veirsmill@yahoo.com>
There was no genocide; it was a 'civil war'Claims Shah A Hannan
Known Jamaat-sympathiser and former Islami Bank chairman Shah Abdul Hannan has described the Liberation War of 1971 as a "civil war". He denied that genocide took place in the country at that time and that war criminals exist here.
Speaking on a talk show, Ekushey Shomoy, on private satellite television channel Ekushey Television on Friday, Hannan also expressed doubts that three million people died in the war and supported a Pakistani report according to which only 26,000 people or less died during the Liberation War.
The following is a transcript of his comments made on the talk show:
DENIAL OF WAR CRIMES
At the Simla Conference between India and Pakistan, Pakistani soldiers were released as war prisoners, not war criminals. So, I am in agreement with [Jamaat-e-Islami secretary general Ali Ahsan Mohammad] Mojaheed that there are no war criminals in the country.
There was an Awami League government until 1975 and there was another Awami League government in 1996, under which I worked as a secretary and I was even close to the administration. But they never thought of trying war criminals. Another major party BNP was in power during the rule of Ziaur Rahman and later came to power thrice, and at no point did they try to hold trials of the war criminals.
Since no one is making any claim and there are no cases filed with the court--Bangladesh government is the entity that can file a case and has never filed a case against anyone--I will continue to say there are no war criminals in this country until the government files a case against anyone.
CIVIL WAR, NOT LIBERATION WAR
I frankly think it was a liberation war but it was also a civil war not only in the sense that it was between West and East Pakistan but also because it was a fight between political forces supporting a untied Pakistan and an independent Bangladesh.
If they can prove that these things [war crimes] were done in 1971, let them take it to court. The constitution mentions that Bangladesh was created through a liberation war--yes, it is true. But plenty of people say it was a civil war.
I know this much that in 1971 there was a civil war...Fine, it was also a Muktijuddha...From what I have read in foreign newspapers and encyclopaedia, it was a civil war and most people did not call it a "struggle for freedom". But there is no doubt that it was a genuine freedom fight by the people of Bangladesh. It was an excitable time and the population was also more or less divided. So, those who thought at that time that it was not right to break up Pakistan with the help of India held the view that they should stay on the side of the then Pakistan administration politically, not for violence. The other side thought they should unite with India to gain independence. There were a lot of excesses back then--not only members of one community died--Hindus died, Muslims died, Biharies died, Bangalees died, wives died, children died, women died, men died...And the number, I do not know anything about three million deaths. There was no survey in 1972, not in 1974, and never. That is why these numbers are allowed to be mentioned. I urge the current government to conduct a survey so this problem is solved. It is not right to ask this to the caretaker government, ask this to the next elected government.
Bangalees were on both the sides, involved in the events before December 16, 1971. You have to judge in that political context. I think those who were against the idea of Bangladesh have shifted from that position. A lot of them are my good friends--they are patriotic, they defend Bangladesh, they are in a struggle to build Bangladesh and protect it from the attacks of other countries.
REACTION TO NIZAMI'S 1971 REMARKS
Genocide is a matter of definition. Not everything is genocide. The United Nations has not called this genocide. We can call this genocide or whatever. Nizami could clarify his own quotes. But I know in the context of 1971, there was a civil war...and another war between India and Pakistan. Both Razakars and collaborators were killed as well as freedom fighters. It was a struggle between ethnic and political forces...Bangalees and Biharis were also fighting each other. So, it was not genocide. This is my personal opinion.
HAMOOD-UR-RAHMAN COMMISSION REPORT
[The commission was formed with the then Pakistan Supreme Court Chief Justice Hamood-ur-Rahman as the head to ascertain the facts of the 1971 debacle. It reported that 26,000 people or less died in the war.]
I cannot ignore the findings because he was a Bangalee, a judge of the High Court and the chief justice of the Supreme Court. But, it is our fault that the governments during the rule of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia did not conduct a survey. Wise men are still here who can still say how many people died in which village. Sheikh Mujib first said one million and then said 30 million and he is quoted in encyclopaedias. But they also did not conduct surveys. The truth needs to come out and the government needs to conduct a survey.
The matter of war criminals' right to participate in politics...Well, if they are found guilty, then they have no right to form a party, fine. But, until they are not proven guilty of war crimes they can...But, if they are proven guilty, do not let them form parties, imprison them, hang them, if you need to.
RELIGION-BASED POLITICS
Islam is not simply a religion, it is a life system. You can say about secularism...Sheikh Mujib himself established the Islamic Foundation and the Quran was also recited on the radio during the Liberation War, Allahu Akbar was mentioned several times during airing.
Denying a religion-based political party will be denying the democratic process and the constitution. No democracy can ban a religion-based party.
Religion-based politics...has never been banned in the sub-continent. The Muslim League and the Jamaat-e-Islami India were banned in India but they were cleared by the court.
Bangladeshi Islamic parties have been in existence since 1975. According to the constitution, if any party has any right to be formed, it is the Islamic parties. It is a democratic constitution, not just a large Islamic constitution, and no party can be banned under a democratic constitution, not in England, not anywhere else__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com __._,_.___
[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
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
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
__,_._,___