Taher verdict: Many unanswered questions
Brig. Gen.Shahedul Anam Khan
The High Court has given its verdict in the case of Taher's trial saying that his trial by the military tribunal in 1976, and his sentence of death, was illegal. It has also ordered that Taher and the co-accused be treated as patriots, not traitors, to consider providing compensation to victims, and to prosecute military tribunal judge Abdul Ali for Taher's execution. It has also asked for probe into Zia's "involvement" in killing Bangabandhu, freedom fighters
Let me make a clean breast of the fact that I have a poor understanding of the intricacies of law, but the verdict, nonetheless, has raised a few questions even in my mind that need answers.
The issue before the court, as I understand it, was the process of the trial of Taher and not the merit. It is a pity that the court had no document of the case to fall back on to examine the matter. And the only way that it could inform itself was from the statements of those associated with the trial or had followed the course of the trial. Besides the amicus curie and a few others, the court also called upon a foreign journalist who happened to be in Dhaka during those days but was not physically present during the course of the trial, having being expelled by the government. And no one can contend the verdict on the process of the trial.
Now that the court has passed a judgment on the process of the trial should it also not have the issue of the merit of the case gone into, although in a way too the court has passed a verdict on the merit of trial of Taher? Unless that is done one cannot be blamed for thinking that the judgment and the rulings of the court imply that that the charges brought against Taher were false? Was it so?
There are certain facts related to the events of the period between August 15 and November 7, 1975, that no one can controvert. That there was infiltration in the Bangladesh military by subterranean groups linked to a recognised leftist political party during that period taking the opportunity of the existing uncertain situation. That Col. Taher belonged to that party, and believed and indeed propagated for a classless military that would have a completely different orientation.
And while there is nothing wrong with anyone having his or her idea about what the political structure of the state and the character of the government should be, there is everything wrong when one goes about implementing that through violence, which his party did by trying to start an insurrection in the military, a fact that has been acknowledged by a member of the party who happens to be a partner of the current alliance government. And when the armed forces become the target and instrument of change through an insurrection one cannot lose sight of the seriousness of the offense.
The government has not expressed its intention to challenge the verdict, not that we know of, and we can presume that it is in full agreement with the verdict, and sees no merit in challenging it. And that is what begs the question.
If that be so, how do we account for the mutinous soldiers, led by the so called Biplobi Sainik Sangstha, gunning for the blood of the officers? How do we account for the death of the many officers during the turmoil initiated by the leftist party between November 3 and 7, 1975? The turmoil had affected all the garrisons in Bangladesh except for one. And thank God, the extent of infiltration was limited and the affected soldiers saw through the ploy of the infiltrators eventually and sanity prevailed.
Col. Taher was a very brave son of the soil, and he risked his life and limb for the country in the Liberation War. And I have a deep respect for what he did then. It is regrettable but true that Taher was a victim of both his own aspirations that made him boldly overambitious and the internal dynamics of the Bangladesh army that had been suffering a flux which started during the War of Liberation and continued well after its conclusion. His actions must be judged in the context the time.
The issue further gives rise to certain fundamental questions.
If the merit of the case against Taher is contested, will it not validate his philosophy regarding the military, and indeed the method he applied to implement the changes? Will it not in a sense provide incentives to those that want revolutionary changes in the armed forces? And will that not raise question on the government's position regarding November 7, which the BNP had been celebrating as National Revolution and Solidarity Day, and which the AL government has discarded.
It is time to revisit the events of November 1975 dispassionately and truthfully. One can write off a trial as not having taken place, and rightly so, but can one write off the deaths caused by the mutineers in the same manner, as not having taken place?
Let me make a clean breast of the fact that I have a poor understanding of the intricacies of law, but the verdict, nonetheless, has raised a few questions even in my mind that need answers.
The issue before the court, as I understand it, was the process of the trial of Taher and not the merit. It is a pity that the court had no document of the case to fall back on to examine the matter. And the only way that it could inform itself was from the statements of those associated with the trial or had followed the course of the trial. Besides the amicus curie and a few others, the court also called upon a foreign journalist who happened to be in Dhaka during those days but was not physically present during the course of the trial, having being expelled by the government. And no one can contend the verdict on the process of the trial.
Now that the court has passed a judgment on the process of the trial should it also not have the issue of the merit of the case gone into, although in a way too the court has passed a verdict on the merit of trial of Taher? Unless that is done one cannot be blamed for thinking that the judgment and the rulings of the court imply that that the charges brought against Taher were false? Was it so?
There are certain facts related to the events of the period between August 15 and November 7, 1975, that no one can controvert. That there was infiltration in the Bangladesh military by subterranean groups linked to a recognised leftist political party during that period taking the opportunity of the existing uncertain situation. That Col. Taher belonged to that party, and believed and indeed propagated for a classless military that would have a completely different orientation.
And while there is nothing wrong with anyone having his or her idea about what the political structure of the state and the character of the government should be, there is everything wrong when one goes about implementing that through violence, which his party did by trying to start an insurrection in the military, a fact that has been acknowledged by a member of the party who happens to be a partner of the current alliance government. And when the armed forces become the target and instrument of change through an insurrection one cannot lose sight of the seriousness of the offense.
The government has not expressed its intention to challenge the verdict, not that we know of, and we can presume that it is in full agreement with the verdict, and sees no merit in challenging it. And that is what begs the question.
If that be so, how do we account for the mutinous soldiers, led by the so called Biplobi Sainik Sangstha, gunning for the blood of the officers? How do we account for the death of the many officers during the turmoil initiated by the leftist party between November 3 and 7, 1975? The turmoil had affected all the garrisons in Bangladesh except for one. And thank God, the extent of infiltration was limited and the affected soldiers saw through the ploy of the infiltrators eventually and sanity prevailed.
Col. Taher was a very brave son of the soil, and he risked his life and limb for the country in the Liberation War. And I have a deep respect for what he did then. It is regrettable but true that Taher was a victim of both his own aspirations that made him boldly overambitious and the internal dynamics of the Bangladesh army that had been suffering a flux which started during the War of Liberation and continued well after its conclusion. His actions must be judged in the context the time.
The issue further gives rise to certain fundamental questions.
If the merit of the case against Taher is contested, will it not validate his philosophy regarding the military, and indeed the method he applied to implement the changes? Will it not in a sense provide incentives to those that want revolutionary changes in the armed forces? And will that not raise question on the government's position regarding November 7, which the BNP had been celebrating as National Revolution and Solidarity Day, and which the AL government has discarded.
It is time to revisit the events of November 1975 dispassionately and truthfully. One can write off a trial as not having taken place, and rightly so, but can one write off the deaths caused by the mutineers in the same manner, as not having taken place?
The writer is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=179769__._,_.___
