I have the gall, chutzpah and tawdriness to tell you that the deification of Mujib is a fatal mistake in our national life. He was the Father of the Nation, well intentioned and noble. So what? He was also fatally flawed. And all attempts to cover up his flaws with generalisations are simply an insult to his memory.
Post 1971 he set the tone for the future shameful course of the nation.
His was not the only family that was butchered. His was not the only life cut short.
Bangladesh was born out of outrage against the rejection of a fair election result - only for the Father of the nation to then deny democracy.
I tell you what's galling, chutpah and tawdry - making excuses for the removal of Tajuddin. You can make up all kinds of damn excuses for anything in Bangladesh.
After independence Mujib made mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake. From making deals with gangsters who could guarantee control of an area to ignoring the disastrous reputations of his sons to believing himself to be the Saint of Bengal to demanding professional soldiers be personally loyal to him to losing 40%+ of his supporters within a few years to forcing Osmani to speak against him to banning newspapers to banning political parties to thinking he was a better administrator than Tajuddin to bending to flattery to creating a personality cult to being unable to contain the left to being unable to tackle anti Indian sentiment to depending entirely on foreign aid to tackle famine to failing to hold a national inquiry into the number of our war dead to the creation of the undemocratic Baksal to the creation of the unlawful rokhi bahini to the failure to invest in the future leadership of Awami League to your matha.
He's your father, not mine. Get over it. And get on with it.
You gotyour verdict in the trial. You named the SAFF football tournament after him. You named the China Friendship Centre after him. You named that hospital after him. Rename you damn mother after it.
When will you stop AL cadres from stealing and hurting innocent people? When will you expel Jaynal Hazari? When will you make AL democratic enough to contemplate a future without his daughter?
Its just too damn hard isn't it?
So go ahead - get back to refined words like chutzpah and Saint Mujib.
You know what - I know a lot AL who would ignore the last living descendant of Prophet Mohammed if he was sitting next to them. Who is he AL would say! Islam doesn't allow hereditary power they would say! So what they would say! Fine. Okay. How sophisticated!
BUT put a descendant of Mujib next to them and they all wet their pants.
Mujib. Yeah. He was great.
Maudud. Yeah. He is a jerk.
So what?
The bones of kids are broken by men so that they can beg on our streets.
Sorry what were you saying about Mujib?
--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, SAIF Davdas <islam1234@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> The unmitigated
> gall, the audacity, the chutzpah, the tawdriness--is truly lamentable
> indeed. How else one can respond to this invective, vituperative and
> blatantly partisan diatribe by anti-Mujib forces in Bangladesh. Let the
> forum members judge Bongobondoo after reading a excerpt from Barrister
> Maudud Ahmed's
> book--writes Maudud, "Greatest Bengali of All Time…Mujib is the greatest phenomena of
> our history. His death was not his end. He will continue to remain as a
> legend in the political life of Bangladesh. No body gave so much to the
> Bengalis political independence and national identity. He was the
> symbol of Bengalee Nationalism. The fact that there is a country called Bangladesh is a sufficient testimony to Mujib's status as a legend of our age. Despite
> Mujib's many failures, the fact that Mujib was sincere and his
> intentions were genuine and that he loved his people should not be
> questioned. As a Nationalist he tried his best to bring Bangladesh out
> of the Indian subjugation. He was able to send out the Indian army from
> the soil of Bangladesh within 2 months after his arrival. He flew over
> Indian Territory to their utter disgust to attend the Islamic summit in
> Lahore. He established the Aid to Bangladesh Consortium in 1974. He
> removed Tajuddin to reduce the weight of Indo-Soviet influence. Mujib's
> return to Bangladesh in itself saved the new country from further and
> perpetual subjugation. Had Mujib been killed by the Pakistani Junta he
> would have been immortal and would have become the greatest martyr of
> our history.
> If he had been killed by the Pakistanis---there would have been a civil
> war and the country would still be under Indian Army's control. Mujib's
> arrival from Pakistan brought a deep sense of relief to all the people
> of Bangladesh who were living in the midst of most dangerous
> uncertainties. It
> seems that Mujib came back from the pedestal of an immortal betting
> only to die for saving the independence for which he struggled. It is
> true that Mujib faced a tragic death but he left Bangladesh free and
> independent.
> Maudud Ahmed P 313-318 `Era of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman". `Mujib's arrival
> from Pakistan brought a deep sense of relief to all the people of
> Bangladesh, who were living in the midst of most dangerous
> uncertainties'.
>
>
>
> SaifDevdas
> islam1234@...
>
> To: khabor@yahoogroups.com
> CC: dahuk@yahoogroups.com; mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com; witness-pioneer@yahoogroups.com; progressive-muslim@yahoogroups.com; political_analysts@yahoogroups.com
> From: enayet_2000@...
> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:50:23 -0800
> Subject: [khabor.com] General Zia was in the thick of 1975 killings in Dhaka: Zia is the savior!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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@...> wrote:
>
> From: S A Hannan <sahannan@...>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows 7: It works the way you want. Learn more.
> http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen:112009v2
>
------------------------------------
[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.comYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/