So Called Analysis of Political Executions in Bangladesh
by Shabbir A. Bashar, USA
It is ironic that a letter by a die-hard and blind supporter of Awami League was published on the same day (3rd February, 2010) Amnesty International strongly condemned the recent politically motivated executions in Bangladesh. Its author, Jafor Ullah, came down hard on another NFB contributor, based in Sweden, for expressing his views – citing the latter as someone who lives far away from Bangladesh and is therefore, oblivious to the ground realities in Bangladesh in the aftermath of the executions. This only exposed Mr. Ullah's intolerance for freedom of expression not to mention shameless hypocrisy as he himself is based in the relatively backward wilderness of the American south which is considerably farther from Bangladesh than Sweden! Mr Ullah claims to be a researcher but interestingly provides nothing more than the same old Awami rhetoric in his self-acclaimed analysis that is conveniently void of any citations.
No matter where we are based, it does not require much to become aware of the ground reality in another part of the globe thanks to the prevalence of modern day satellite TV, internet and phone calls. Thus, those of who had been closely monitoring the situation in Dhaka are well aware of the fact that even the European Union spoke out at the last minute against what they termed a politically motivated trial. 1975 was a mutiny and not a murder contrary to the lies spread by an influential and overtly pro-Indian section of the Bangladeshi press. In the west the executions are seen as revenge and not justice. Afterall, how can there be justice when the victim herself appoints the judges, the state prosecution and the executioners?
The very fact that the case was tried in a civil court instead of a military one when hundreds of soldiers took part in the mutiny says volumes about the integrity of the trial, conviction and punishment by the Bangladesh justice system. People of Bangladesh have a right to know what exactly happened, why it happened and all those who were involved in it. It is inconceivable that a mutiny of that magnitude could have taken place without the knowledge of some of the most powerful people in Bangladesh and elsewhere - instead of a handful of junior military officers. Whether Bangladeshis choose to exercise that right or even care for the truth is a different matter, but without truth, there cannot be reconciliation. Only blind supporters like Ullah will deny this time honored truth.
Yet we have seen how Nelson Mandela, through his wisdom and guidance managed to reconcile racially divided South Africa after coming to power following decades of oppression on the Black majority by the White minority. By creating a forum for the truth without fear of retribution, he led his fragile country to reconciliation instead of allowing his people – both Black and Whitte – to be consumed by destructive politics of vengeance. Thus truth is intertwined with reconciliation.
The likes of Ullah should respect the Constitution of Bangladesh and show inclusiveness of the nation by addressing its people as Bangladeshis instead of ignoring the non-Bangalis who are an equal and integral part of its citizenry. Majority of Bangladeshis have a reputation for being moderate Muslims; like its many minority groups they also have a right to live in peace and practice their way of life without having their patriotism questioned as is the knee-jerk habit of most Awami zealots like Ullah. I would like to ask him bluntly what he expects to achieve by this kind of divisive politics? What human values does he expect to promote by putting people in boxes labeled Bengalis, Muslims, Hindus, tribals? Are they not all children of Bangladesh? Do they not all deserve to be treated with equal respect as human beings?
What Ullah describes as being the breaking of the floodgate of information is yet another one of his fantasies. As Ullah says, if so many people knew about the intent to remove Sheikh Mujib by force, why didn't they come to his assistance? What does that say about how people really felt about Mujib? It would appear that prior to his removal Mujib, consumed by his ego polishing stooges, had lost his senses and failed to listen to many of his hitherto ardent supporters like Taj Uddin Ahmed. He abolished multi-party democracy from a land whose people had sacrificed 3 million lives to gain franchise over their mother land. Instead, he allowed his psychophants to portray Taj Uddin – who had formed the government in exile and organnized the successful guerilla war against Pakistan - as a threat to his own leadership and banished him.
Taj Uddin had opposed the much hated one party system introduced by Mujib known as BKSAL. Similarly, Mujib failed to utilize the organizational and public opinion making capacity of another great patriot - the firebrand Moulana Bhashani whom he eyed with great suspicion. Bhashani had been highly critical of the oppressive style of Mujib's government and its extrajudicial killings of the left-leaning activists. Bhashani warned Mujib against his move towards a one party state and declaring himself as life-long president. He could not believe that Mujib who fought all his life for a multi-party democracy could stoop to this level. Thus he saw the formation of BKSAL as the sowing of the seeds of destruction of Mujib. Records also suggest that high ranking US officials like Henry Kissinger not only hated Mujib but also encouraged his removal given Mujib's pro-Soviet stance at the time. All this information has been available for years to anyone who cared to research – there is absolutely nothing floodgate or noveel about what Ullah now says.
Present day Awami League brags about Mujib with footage from the pre-independence days of Bangladesh. Most people agree that Mujib played a central role, along with many other leaders, in the uprising of the masses against Pakistani oppression. What about his role in sovereign Bangladesh? Where are the footages from the 1972 – 1975?&nnbsp; Why do we hear about rampant corruption and the man made famine of 1974? Why do we hear about relief materials sent from developed countries to help the war ravaged Bangladeshis being hoarded by Mujib's men and smuggled out to India for profit? Why do we hear about people dying on the streets while Mujibs own sons had lavish weddings? Why do we see pictures of corpses on the streets of Dhaka being eaten by vultures during the 1974 famine? Does it not start to sound like General Farrah Aidid's degenerate Somalia? Is it possible at all that under Mujibs leadership, the country was falling apart and yet he appeared to be completely indifferent? Is it possible that it led to feelings of deep resentment amongst the general population of Bangladesh? The only way anyone can find answers to these crucial contextual questions is by researching independently rather than being blown away by Awami propaganda disguised as analysis from Ullah. Mujib was a man – with alll his human glories as well as its faults. Yet the Awami League totally denies the dark side of Mujib.
Mujib did himself no favors by creating the paramilitary force called Rokkhi Bahini that has the legacy of having killed some 40,000 left leaning Bangladeshis. He did himself no favors by thus demeaning the freedom fighters in the regular Bangladesh armed forces many of whom had revolted from the Pakistani forces during the war of independence. He did himself no favors by his inability to uphold the national interest above his personal ones. Instead of heeding to all sorts of warnings, he proceeded with dictatorial rule instead of handing over the mantle of government to those better capable of doing the task. Not only that, he actively killed many of his opponents and bragged about it in parliament. He banned freedom of press. Effectively, he closed all non-violent path to his succession. He created many enemies both within and outside Bangladesh. This is the context in which he was removed. Would the likes of Ullah please outline how such a man could be removed swiftly from power without running the risk of letting the country go to complete degeneracy?
Thus there was the coup etat of 1975. This was a highly charged time in the history of Bangladesh. It was the confluence of many domestic, regional and global interests that were at the root of this violent overthrow. Yet, we see a sham of a trial where the truth has been buried by making it seem like an ordinary murder! How can anyone reconcile this without knowing the full truth?
Not only India but all countries of the world will always try to gain an edge over another country. Due to the incompetence of Bangladesh, we see India taking away the waters of Ganges by diverting upstream waters from the notorious Farakka Dam. Yet Ullah claims that expression of such truths is vilifying India. India requires neither glorification nor vilification from Bangladesh! It is a much bigger neighbor with which Bangladesh must learn to co-exist. But that does not mean Bangladesh should relegate its responsibility to look after its interest to India. Why shouldn’t Bangladesh fight for its mineral resources and maritime boundaries against encroachments from India and Myanmar? Why is it so wrong to put Bangladeshs national interests above all else and if necessary seek international arbitration rather than giving into natural Indian hegemony like a dead beat horse? Why does Bangladesh have to involve itself in India’s domestic politics by allowing their commandoes into its sovereign territory to abduct someone they claim to be a political dissident? Does this not amount to excessive appeasement?
I happened to be in Dhaka in early to mid January 2010 when the reviews were being prepared. One day we suddenly heard the jail authorities claiming that three of the convicts sought clemency. The very next day two of their family members and lawyers were on TV refuting the claim. Bangladesh law requires that both family and legal representatives witness the signing of such a final document seeking mercy for one's life. Where was the transparency in all of this? What was the purpose of this drama by the government if not to deny due process by placing a false clemency application before the end of the review process? Does this indicate blood thirst and revenge or does this show due respect for the law? The press in Bangladesh is under pressure from the authorities from reporting any dissent - particularly in this case which is both politically and personally motivated. What greater proof of this than the arrest of a journalist in Rajshahi the day after the executions who made dissenting remarks against the chief executive? Where is the freedom of expression? Is this the true color of so called "secularism" and "pluralism"? Why the need to instill such fear of government retribution if this action is truly as popular as some would claim?
Allow me to conclude by quoting Ullah, Bangladesh has received a high mark for the way the case was tried in the civil court. No short cuts were made. No tribunal or Kangaroo Court was established to speed up the trial. The punishment was dispensed by the court fairly and squarely.However, the Amnesty International statement said it, opposes the execution of these five men, which should never have taken place. The haste in which they were carried out raises serious questions about the timing and procedures for these executions.Furthermore, they questioned the transparency of the trial and added that, Family members of the convicts also live in fear of being attacked by political activists of the ruling Awami League party. Witnesses have told reporters that the attackers looted the valuables and set the house (of one of the convicts) on fire. Amnesty International calls on the Government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to establish an impartial and independent investigation into this attack. The government should publicly condemn any such attacks and bring anyone involved to justice.The EU statement goes a step further and makes this trial seem exactly like a kangaroo court by terming it politically-motivated.
I am confident that your readers have the ability to discern whether these international statements constitute high marks or just pitiful distaste against an act of revenge. If reconciliation and restoration of the rule of law was ever the goal, in this case not only did it fail but fuelled the exact opposite.
Shabbir A. Bashar, PhD
Vancouver, USA
E mail : shabbir_bashar@yahoo.com
No matter where we are based, it does not require much to become aware of the ground reality in another part of the globe thanks to the prevalence of modern day satellite TV, internet and phone calls. Thus, those of who had been closely monitoring the situation in Dhaka are well aware of the fact that even the European Union spoke out at the last minute against what they termed a politically motivated trial. 1975 was a mutiny and not a murder contrary to the lies spread by an influential and overtly pro-Indian section of the Bangladeshi press. In the west the executions are seen as revenge and not justice. Afterall, how can there be justice when the victim herself appoints the judges, the state prosecution and the executioners?
The very fact that the case was tried in a civil court instead of a military one when hundreds of soldiers took part in the mutiny says volumes about the integrity of the trial, conviction and punishment by the Bangladesh justice system. People of Bangladesh have a right to know what exactly happened, why it happened and all those who were involved in it. It is inconceivable that a mutiny of that magnitude could have taken place without the knowledge of some of the most powerful people in Bangladesh and elsewhere - instead of a handful of junior military officers. Whether Bangladeshis choose to exercise that right or even care for the truth is a different matter, but without truth, there cannot be reconciliation. Only blind supporters like Ullah will deny this time honored truth.
Yet we have seen how Nelson Mandela, through his wisdom and guidance managed to reconcile racially divided South Africa after coming to power following decades of oppression on the Black majority by the White minority. By creating a forum for the truth without fear of retribution, he led his fragile country to reconciliation instead of allowing his people – both Black and Whitte – to be consumed by destructive politics of vengeance. Thus truth is intertwined with reconciliation.
The likes of Ullah should respect the Constitution of Bangladesh and show inclusiveness of the nation by addressing its people as Bangladeshis instead of ignoring the non-Bangalis who are an equal and integral part of its citizenry. Majority of Bangladeshis have a reputation for being moderate Muslims; like its many minority groups they also have a right to live in peace and practice their way of life without having their patriotism questioned as is the knee-jerk habit of most Awami zealots like Ullah. I would like to ask him bluntly what he expects to achieve by this kind of divisive politics? What human values does he expect to promote by putting people in boxes labeled Bengalis, Muslims, Hindus, tribals? Are they not all children of Bangladesh? Do they not all deserve to be treated with equal respect as human beings?
What Ullah describes as being the breaking of the floodgate of information is yet another one of his fantasies. As Ullah says, if so many people knew about the intent to remove Sheikh Mujib by force, why didn't they come to his assistance? What does that say about how people really felt about Mujib? It would appear that prior to his removal Mujib, consumed by his ego polishing stooges, had lost his senses and failed to listen to many of his hitherto ardent supporters like Taj Uddin Ahmed. He abolished multi-party democracy from a land whose people had sacrificed 3 million lives to gain franchise over their mother land. Instead, he allowed his psychophants to portray Taj Uddin – who had formed the government in exile and organnized the successful guerilla war against Pakistan - as a threat to his own leadership and banished him.
Taj Uddin had opposed the much hated one party system introduced by Mujib known as BKSAL. Similarly, Mujib failed to utilize the organizational and public opinion making capacity of another great patriot - the firebrand Moulana Bhashani whom he eyed with great suspicion. Bhashani had been highly critical of the oppressive style of Mujib's government and its extrajudicial killings of the left-leaning activists. Bhashani warned Mujib against his move towards a one party state and declaring himself as life-long president. He could not believe that Mujib who fought all his life for a multi-party democracy could stoop to this level. Thus he saw the formation of BKSAL as the sowing of the seeds of destruction of Mujib. Records also suggest that high ranking US officials like Henry Kissinger not only hated Mujib but also encouraged his removal given Mujib's pro-Soviet stance at the time. All this information has been available for years to anyone who cared to research – there is absolutely nothing floodgate or noveel about what Ullah now says.
Present day Awami League brags about Mujib with footage from the pre-independence days of Bangladesh. Most people agree that Mujib played a central role, along with many other leaders, in the uprising of the masses against Pakistani oppression. What about his role in sovereign Bangladesh? Where are the footages from the 1972 – 1975?&nnbsp; Why do we hear about rampant corruption and the man made famine of 1974? Why do we hear about relief materials sent from developed countries to help the war ravaged Bangladeshis being hoarded by Mujib's men and smuggled out to India for profit? Why do we hear about people dying on the streets while Mujibs own sons had lavish weddings? Why do we see pictures of corpses on the streets of Dhaka being eaten by vultures during the 1974 famine? Does it not start to sound like General Farrah Aidid's degenerate Somalia? Is it possible at all that under Mujibs leadership, the country was falling apart and yet he appeared to be completely indifferent? Is it possible that it led to feelings of deep resentment amongst the general population of Bangladesh? The only way anyone can find answers to these crucial contextual questions is by researching independently rather than being blown away by Awami propaganda disguised as analysis from Ullah. Mujib was a man – with alll his human glories as well as its faults. Yet the Awami League totally denies the dark side of Mujib.
Mujib did himself no favors by creating the paramilitary force called Rokkhi Bahini that has the legacy of having killed some 40,000 left leaning Bangladeshis. He did himself no favors by thus demeaning the freedom fighters in the regular Bangladesh armed forces many of whom had revolted from the Pakistani forces during the war of independence. He did himself no favors by his inability to uphold the national interest above his personal ones. Instead of heeding to all sorts of warnings, he proceeded with dictatorial rule instead of handing over the mantle of government to those better capable of doing the task. Not only that, he actively killed many of his opponents and bragged about it in parliament. He banned freedom of press. Effectively, he closed all non-violent path to his succession. He created many enemies both within and outside Bangladesh. This is the context in which he was removed. Would the likes of Ullah please outline how such a man could be removed swiftly from power without running the risk of letting the country go to complete degeneracy?
Thus there was the coup etat of 1975. This was a highly charged time in the history of Bangladesh. It was the confluence of many domestic, regional and global interests that were at the root of this violent overthrow. Yet, we see a sham of a trial where the truth has been buried by making it seem like an ordinary murder! How can anyone reconcile this without knowing the full truth?
Not only India but all countries of the world will always try to gain an edge over another country. Due to the incompetence of Bangladesh, we see India taking away the waters of Ganges by diverting upstream waters from the notorious Farakka Dam. Yet Ullah claims that expression of such truths is vilifying India. India requires neither glorification nor vilification from Bangladesh! It is a much bigger neighbor with which Bangladesh must learn to co-exist. But that does not mean Bangladesh should relegate its responsibility to look after its interest to India. Why shouldn’t Bangladesh fight for its mineral resources and maritime boundaries against encroachments from India and Myanmar? Why is it so wrong to put Bangladeshs national interests above all else and if necessary seek international arbitration rather than giving into natural Indian hegemony like a dead beat horse? Why does Bangladesh have to involve itself in India’s domestic politics by allowing their commandoes into its sovereign territory to abduct someone they claim to be a political dissident? Does this not amount to excessive appeasement?
I happened to be in Dhaka in early to mid January 2010 when the reviews were being prepared. One day we suddenly heard the jail authorities claiming that three of the convicts sought clemency. The very next day two of their family members and lawyers were on TV refuting the claim. Bangladesh law requires that both family and legal representatives witness the signing of such a final document seeking mercy for one's life. Where was the transparency in all of this? What was the purpose of this drama by the government if not to deny due process by placing a false clemency application before the end of the review process? Does this indicate blood thirst and revenge or does this show due respect for the law? The press in Bangladesh is under pressure from the authorities from reporting any dissent - particularly in this case which is both politically and personally motivated. What greater proof of this than the arrest of a journalist in Rajshahi the day after the executions who made dissenting remarks against the chief executive? Where is the freedom of expression? Is this the true color of so called "secularism" and "pluralism"? Why the need to instill such fear of government retribution if this action is truly as popular as some would claim?
Allow me to conclude by quoting Ullah, Bangladesh has received a high mark for the way the case was tried in the civil court. No short cuts were made. No tribunal or Kangaroo Court was established to speed up the trial. The punishment was dispensed by the court fairly and squarely.However, the Amnesty International statement said it, opposes the execution of these five men, which should never have taken place. The haste in which they were carried out raises serious questions about the timing and procedures for these executions.Furthermore, they questioned the transparency of the trial and added that, Family members of the convicts also live in fear of being attacked by political activists of the ruling Awami League party. Witnesses have told reporters that the attackers looted the valuables and set the house (of one of the convicts) on fire. Amnesty International calls on the Government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to establish an impartial and independent investigation into this attack. The government should publicly condemn any such attacks and bring anyone involved to justice.The EU statement goes a step further and makes this trial seem exactly like a kangaroo court by terming it politically-motivated.
I am confident that your readers have the ability to discern whether these international statements constitute high marks or just pitiful distaste against an act of revenge. If reconciliation and restoration of the rule of law was ever the goal, in this case not only did it fail but fuelled the exact opposite.
Shabbir A. Bashar, PhD
Vancouver, USA
E mail : shabbir_bashar@yahoo.com
http://newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidRecord=303895
__._,_.___
