Asadullah Al Galib, chief of Islamist militant outfit Ahle Hadith Andolan Bangladesh (Ahab), was freed on bail yesterday from Bogra Jail.
The High Court (HC) granted him bail in two cases as the trials could not be held within the time set by the HC six months ago.
Since his arrest on February 23, 2005, a total of ten cases were filed against the militant kingpin and a close ally of executed Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) chief Shayekh Abdur Rahman.
However, during the then BNP-Jamaat alliance government, Galib was relieved of charges in six of the cases and was granted bail in another case.
On July 26, during the term of the present government, a Gaibandha court declared him not guilty in an explosives case.
Six months back, the HC ordered that Galib would be awarded bail in two other cases (one for explosions in Shahjahanpur and the other for murdering a person in the explosions) unless the trial of the murder case is completed within three months and the trial of the explosion case in six months.
Galib was released on bail at around 5:30pm yesterday following the HC order as both the trials could not be held in time.
GALIB'S MILITANT TIES
In 1978, Galib formed Ahab's youth wing Ahle Hadith Jubo Shangha (AHJS), said AHJS workers.
While forming the AHJS, Galib argued that they needed to engage in Jihad against Islamic fallacies including the mazar culture to bring an Islamic rule in the country.
Galib received funds from the Middle East through an Indian Islamist leader named Moulana Abdul Matin Salafi. In 1988 the Ershad government expelled Salafi, who had been working as a Muballig (religious preacher), for anti-state activities. Abdul Matin Salafi sent huge funds to Galib from Saudi Arabia, sources said.
The mainstream organisation Ahab was formed in late 1994.
With Galib's help and funds from Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (RIHS), the JMB militants used 700 mosques across the country. The bank accounts of RIHS in Pakistan were seized after the 9/11 incident.
Galib toured Afghanistan, India and Pakistan with fake travel documents. He had close relations with Islamist militants in Kashmir. He visited India in 1998 with a business passport.
Police and intelligence sources said Ahab is just a cover-up of the JMB and most of the Ahab members are involved in JMB activities.
Militants arrested in Thakurgaon, Joypurhat, Bogra and Natore told police that Galib was their leader and he used to meet with them at Ahle Hadith mosques.
JMB chief Rahman and Ahab Amir Galib were well-known to each other. Rahman studied at Madina University in Saudi Arabia on Galib's recommendation and after completing his course, he joined with Galib.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
An Islamic Miltiant Galib Released
The army backed Caretaker Government in Bangladesh suddenly chose to extend leniency to an Islamic militant Asadullah al Galib. Do you remember how many times it carefully enforced emergency rules to rearrest the political leaders from the jail gate after their court ordered release? The same rule does not apply to a militant like Galib as he tacitly enjoys immunity from the government. Nor the Government even considered to reinvestigate and charge Galib for his known alliance with the militants. It let this notorious militant go free. Daily Star reports on August 29, 2008:
Big fish vs. small fish
Beneath The Surface
Big fish vs. small fish
Abdul Bayes
Source: Daily Star
August 31, 2008
COMPARE two former prime ministers of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina (1996-2001) and Begum Khaleda Zia (2001-2006). Hasina is the daughter of the father of the nation while Khaleda is the wife of a former president and famous freedom fighter. Khaleda Zia owns two palacious houses (gift from government) in the posh areas of Dhaka city. Hasina lives in her husband's house. The nation is so "grateful" to the father of the nation that his two surviving daughters remain homeless! I expected that the current CTG would provide a level playing field by providing Hasina and Rehana with two houses in Dhaka as a token of respect to the late father of the nation. Till now that did not happen.
However, Bangladesh emerged as a basket case of corruption (champions in corruption five times consecutively) during Khaleda's tenure. That is not to deny that there was corruption during Haisna's tenure, but much less in magnitude compared to that of Khaleda's. If one looks at the average amount of wealth amassed and concealed by the respective politicians of the two big parties and disclosed in media, one could clearly see the difference.
Besides this, family members and relatives of Khaleda Zia -- especially her two sons and two brothers -- are alleged to have amassed and laundered huge amounts of wealth. Even government spokesmen admitted that. The general belief is that Zia family and their followers have pocketed about one-fourth of our GDP during 2001 and 2006 period. Also on the air is the story that all that went to win the 2006 general election by hook or by crook was to protect the wealth of the "Marcos dynasty" of Bangladesh.
If a government wants to enquire into the wealth of the former PMs, who should be caught first, Khaleda or Hasina? Surely, it is Khaleda Zia because of the three most important factors: she is the most recent former PM, Bangladesh bagged five "gold medals" in corruption during her tenure, and popular and media perceptions are that her family members through Hawa Bhaban amassed huge wealth.
Unfortunately, and surprising us all, just the reversed happened. Among the two former PMs, the anti-corruption drive started with Hasina. She was not allowed to re-enter the country on the ground that she amassed huge amount of wealth. Hasina decided to defend her case of engaging in corruption but her defense was also denied. Anyway, the eroding image of the government and international pressure paved her way home.
Once back in the country, a barrage of cases were built to put her behind bars. The anti-corruption drive was seemingly turned into an "anti-Hasina" drive -- the drive against a person who served as PM long before this government and ACC (the current structure) came into place. It is, as if this was the "price" Hasina and her party had to pay for the movements marshaled against misdeeds of the past governments and the subsequent establishment of the present setup of governance.
At a much later stage, and possibly to put up a so-called level-playing field, Khaleda had to face the fire. But what strikes us all is the fact that Hasina was charge-sheeted in a number of cases, appeared several times before the court with deteriorating health condition. On the other hand, not a single charge-sheet could be made against Khaleda Zia. What about Tarique Rahman? Not a single charge sheet so far. Both of them were granted bails by the hon'ble High Court, and, hopefully, they will be released soon.
Lists after lists of corrupt persons were published and fed to the press. This is unfortunate because a person cannot be called corrupt unless proved by the court. In one such big list, appeared the names of the business tycoons, bureaucrats, and media owners. The anti-corruption drive that marched so mercilessly suddenly stalled and a concept of "truth commission" was invoked. What is that? The commission is to pardon all "good boys" who will speak the truth after passing through a long life of telling lies. Why should they be pardoned? Because, we are told, they are the backbone of the economy. The arguments are well placed but public perception is that some of these "good boys" are linked to the power structure ruling the country now. Otherwise, why should not the same path of pardoning be pursued for others.
Now comes the final "sermon." For ensuring a free and fare election and for enabling participation of all parties, the government has to accommodate by relaxing the tight rope round the politicians' necks. These "sermons" are now being circulated by government-backed media mongers and the so-called civil society members. The million dollar question is, if corruption has to be compromised for the sake of a general election, then why this farce for such a long time, depriving people of their due rights?
The above mentioned few conflicting episodes are just tip of the ice-berg. One could come up with a number of anomalies to argue that, sordidly, the whole anti-corruption drive turned into an anti-politics drive over time. Initially, the drive won the hearts of the millions as they want an end to corruption. But people also want that a non-discriminatory and lawful course of action be followed for this. Advertently or inadvertently, the whole drive is now facing a serious question: would it help or hinder corruption in Bangladesh? As it appears, when corrupt tycoons are coming out of jails -- due to procedural mistakes or political maneuvering -- suffice it so that our dream of a corruption-free society would likely be dashed.
One of the advisers of CTG once remarked: We have not come to catch small fish but big fish (amra chunuputi dhorte ashinai, amra rui katla dhorte ashesi). To our utter dismay, we are forced to observe that chunuputis are in jail while rui katlas are swimming in the sweet waters of their swimming pools built from corrupt money. Bangladesh is surely a test case of treacherous paths of politics!
_____________________________________
Abdul Bayes is a Professor of Economics at Jahangirnagar University. For feedback, please contact abdulbayes@yahoo.com.
Big fish vs. small fish
Abdul Bayes
Source: Daily Star
August 31, 2008
COMPARE two former prime ministers of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina (1996-2001) and Begum Khaleda Zia (2001-2006). Hasina is the daughter of the father of the nation while Khaleda is the wife of a former president and famous freedom fighter. Khaleda Zia owns two palacious houses (gift from government) in the posh areas of Dhaka city. Hasina lives in her husband's house. The nation is so "grateful" to the father of the nation that his two surviving daughters remain homeless! I expected that the current CTG would provide a level playing field by providing Hasina and Rehana with two houses in Dhaka as a token of respect to the late father of the nation. Till now that did not happen.
However, Bangladesh emerged as a basket case of corruption (champions in corruption five times consecutively) during Khaleda's tenure. That is not to deny that there was corruption during Haisna's tenure, but much less in magnitude compared to that of Khaleda's. If one looks at the average amount of wealth amassed and concealed by the respective politicians of the two big parties and disclosed in media, one could clearly see the difference.
Besides this, family members and relatives of Khaleda Zia -- especially her two sons and two brothers -- are alleged to have amassed and laundered huge amounts of wealth. Even government spokesmen admitted that. The general belief is that Zia family and their followers have pocketed about one-fourth of our GDP during 2001 and 2006 period. Also on the air is the story that all that went to win the 2006 general election by hook or by crook was to protect the wealth of the "Marcos dynasty" of Bangladesh.
If a government wants to enquire into the wealth of the former PMs, who should be caught first, Khaleda or Hasina? Surely, it is Khaleda Zia because of the three most important factors: she is the most recent former PM, Bangladesh bagged five "gold medals" in corruption during her tenure, and popular and media perceptions are that her family members through Hawa Bhaban amassed huge wealth.
Unfortunately, and surprising us all, just the reversed happened. Among the two former PMs, the anti-corruption drive started with Hasina. She was not allowed to re-enter the country on the ground that she amassed huge amount of wealth. Hasina decided to defend her case of engaging in corruption but her defense was also denied. Anyway, the eroding image of the government and international pressure paved her way home.
Once back in the country, a barrage of cases were built to put her behind bars. The anti-corruption drive was seemingly turned into an "anti-Hasina" drive -- the drive against a person who served as PM long before this government and ACC (the current structure) came into place. It is, as if this was the "price" Hasina and her party had to pay for the movements marshaled against misdeeds of the past governments and the subsequent establishment of the present setup of governance.
At a much later stage, and possibly to put up a so-called level-playing field, Khaleda had to face the fire. But what strikes us all is the fact that Hasina was charge-sheeted in a number of cases, appeared several times before the court with deteriorating health condition. On the other hand, not a single charge-sheet could be made against Khaleda Zia. What about Tarique Rahman? Not a single charge sheet so far. Both of them were granted bails by the hon'ble High Court, and, hopefully, they will be released soon.
Lists after lists of corrupt persons were published and fed to the press. This is unfortunate because a person cannot be called corrupt unless proved by the court. In one such big list, appeared the names of the business tycoons, bureaucrats, and media owners. The anti-corruption drive that marched so mercilessly suddenly stalled and a concept of "truth commission" was invoked. What is that? The commission is to pardon all "good boys" who will speak the truth after passing through a long life of telling lies. Why should they be pardoned? Because, we are told, they are the backbone of the economy. The arguments are well placed but public perception is that some of these "good boys" are linked to the power structure ruling the country now. Otherwise, why should not the same path of pardoning be pursued for others.
Now comes the final "sermon." For ensuring a free and fare election and for enabling participation of all parties, the government has to accommodate by relaxing the tight rope round the politicians' necks. These "sermons" are now being circulated by government-backed media mongers and the so-called civil society members. The million dollar question is, if corruption has to be compromised for the sake of a general election, then why this farce for such a long time, depriving people of their due rights?
The above mentioned few conflicting episodes are just tip of the ice-berg. One could come up with a number of anomalies to argue that, sordidly, the whole anti-corruption drive turned into an anti-politics drive over time. Initially, the drive won the hearts of the millions as they want an end to corruption. But people also want that a non-discriminatory and lawful course of action be followed for this. Advertently or inadvertently, the whole drive is now facing a serious question: would it help or hinder corruption in Bangladesh? As it appears, when corrupt tycoons are coming out of jails -- due to procedural mistakes or political maneuvering -- suffice it so that our dream of a corruption-free society would likely be dashed.
One of the advisers of CTG once remarked: We have not come to catch small fish but big fish (amra chunuputi dhorte ashinai, amra rui katla dhorte ashesi). To our utter dismay, we are forced to observe that chunuputis are in jail while rui katlas are swimming in the sweet waters of their swimming pools built from corrupt money. Bangladesh is surely a test case of treacherous paths of politics!
_____________________________________
Abdul Bayes is a Professor of Economics at Jahangirnagar University. For feedback, please contact abdulbayes@yahoo.com.
Bangladeshi Workers in Kuwait
The US based National Labor Committee has recently published an investigative report on the plight of the Bangladeshi laborers in Kuwait. These workers were trafficked to Kuwait and forced to a sub-human living standard. The report says,
Kuwait does not need to exploit desperately poor foreign guest workers. They have the money to treat all workers in Kuwait with a modicum of dignity.
Ninety percent of Kuwait’s private sector workers are non-Kuwaiti. Sixty-three percent—or 2.3 million people out of a total population of 3.4 million—are expatriates. Hundreds of thousands of foreign guest workers have been trafficked to Kuwait from Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia and the Philippines.
In 2007, Ambassador Mark Lagon and the U.S. State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons demoted Kuwait to “Tier 3”—the lowest level, for being among those countries doing the least to prevent the trafficking of human beings.
The government of Kuwait however, does take care of its own people. When inflation skyrocketed in 2008—(it’s expected to reach 13.5 percent by year’s end)—the government moved quickly. In June 2008, any Kuwaiti public sector employee who was earning $45,000 a year or less, received a $188 a month wage increase. For those who had been earning $45,000 a year, this meant receiving a $2,257 increase, bringing their new annual wage to $47,397. The government was well aware that Kuwaitis earning just $45,000 were struggling in the face of inflation, especially given the soaring food costs.
However, when it came to the foreign guest workers in Kuwait, who were earning an average of just $903 a year and who were surely suffering due to the soaring cost of food, there was no similar concern by the government, despite the fact that the guest workers were earning less than two percent of what “low income” Kuwaitis were earning. The compounded inflation rate between 2006 and the end of 2008 is expected to reach 23.3 percent, and is causing the guest workers tremendous hardship”.
The NCL urges everyone to SEND A LETTER TO SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZA RICE URGING HER TO TAKE ACTION FOR GUEST WORKERS AT CAMP ARIFJAN. Here is a draft of the letter that you can send:
_______________________________
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
Department of State
2201 C St., NW
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretary Rice:
I urge you to call upon the Government of Kuwait to end the trafficking of hundreds of thousands of foreign guest workers to Kuwait, where they are stripped of their passports, forced to work long hours, often seven days a week, while being cheated of half their wages. The workers are housed in squalid dorms. Some of these victims of human trafficking are actually working on a U.S. military base in Kuwait.
As you are well aware, Operation Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait cost the lives of 294 U.S. troops, with another 458 wounded. Moreover, 183,000 veterans of the Gulf War are now permanently disabled! This was a very heavy price to pay. The U.S. also has a defense pact with Kuwait to guarantee the security of the Kuwaiti people and government. This gives the Government of United States a very powerful voice, which the Kuwaiti Government must take seriously. I urge you again to call upon the Government of Kuwait to end the heinous practice of human trafficking, to assure that all guest worker passports are returned to them and to finally guarantee that the legal rights of these hundreds of thousands of guest workers be respected.
These workers, including those working on U.S. military bases, should also be made whole again and paid the back wages of which they were cheated.
Thank you for your concern and efforts to end human trafficking.
Sincerely,
________________________________
Read the in-depth report here: Guest Workers Trafficked to Kuwait
“Hundreds of thousands of foreign guest workers—among them 240,000 Bangladeshis—have been trafficked to Kuwait, where they are immediately stripped of their passports. Many work seven days a week for wages of just 14 to 36 cents an hour, which means they are being cheated of up to 84 percent of the 90-cent-an-hour wage they were guaranteed when they purchased their three-year contracts to work in Kuwait. Workers who ask for their proper wages are beaten and threatened with arrest and forcible deportation. The workers are housed in squalid, overcrowded dorms with eight workers sharing each small 10-by-10-foot room, sleeping on narrow, double-level metal bunk beds”.Kuwaiti companies have cheated these poor laborers and denied them of basic human rights. Kuwaiti Government kept their blind eyes and neglected to address these inhuman conditions of these poor workers. But is Kuwait a poor country? No, not at all. The NCL report adds, “Kuwait is not poor. Quite the opposite: It is the world’s seventh largest oil exporter. Kuwait’s GDP is expected to grow 6.8 percent this year to $172.4 billion. Kuwait’s trade surplus is running at $84 billion this year. Government revenues for the current fiscal year (April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009) are also projected to grow by 40 percent, to reach approximately $129 billion. Even after all conceivable expenses, the Kuwait government should end the year with a fiscal surplus of $66.21 billion.
Kuwait does not need to exploit desperately poor foreign guest workers. They have the money to treat all workers in Kuwait with a modicum of dignity.
Ninety percent of Kuwait’s private sector workers are non-Kuwaiti. Sixty-three percent—or 2.3 million people out of a total population of 3.4 million—are expatriates. Hundreds of thousands of foreign guest workers have been trafficked to Kuwait from Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia and the Philippines.
In 2007, Ambassador Mark Lagon and the U.S. State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons demoted Kuwait to “Tier 3”—the lowest level, for being among those countries doing the least to prevent the trafficking of human beings.
The government of Kuwait however, does take care of its own people. When inflation skyrocketed in 2008—(it’s expected to reach 13.5 percent by year’s end)—the government moved quickly. In June 2008, any Kuwaiti public sector employee who was earning $45,000 a year or less, received a $188 a month wage increase. For those who had been earning $45,000 a year, this meant receiving a $2,257 increase, bringing their new annual wage to $47,397. The government was well aware that Kuwaitis earning just $45,000 were struggling in the face of inflation, especially given the soaring food costs.
However, when it came to the foreign guest workers in Kuwait, who were earning an average of just $903 a year and who were surely suffering due to the soaring cost of food, there was no similar concern by the government, despite the fact that the guest workers were earning less than two percent of what “low income” Kuwaitis were earning. The compounded inflation rate between 2006 and the end of 2008 is expected to reach 23.3 percent, and is causing the guest workers tremendous hardship”.
The NCL urges everyone to SEND A LETTER TO SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZA RICE URGING HER TO TAKE ACTION FOR GUEST WORKERS AT CAMP ARIFJAN. Here is a draft of the letter that you can send:
_______________________________
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
Department of State
2201 C St., NW
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretary Rice:
I urge you to call upon the Government of Kuwait to end the trafficking of hundreds of thousands of foreign guest workers to Kuwait, where they are stripped of their passports, forced to work long hours, often seven days a week, while being cheated of half their wages. The workers are housed in squalid dorms. Some of these victims of human trafficking are actually working on a U.S. military base in Kuwait.
As you are well aware, Operation Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait cost the lives of 294 U.S. troops, with another 458 wounded. Moreover, 183,000 veterans of the Gulf War are now permanently disabled! This was a very heavy price to pay. The U.S. also has a defense pact with Kuwait to guarantee the security of the Kuwaiti people and government. This gives the Government of United States a very powerful voice, which the Kuwaiti Government must take seriously. I urge you again to call upon the Government of Kuwait to end the heinous practice of human trafficking, to assure that all guest worker passports are returned to them and to finally guarantee that the legal rights of these hundreds of thousands of guest workers be respected.
These workers, including those working on U.S. military bases, should also be made whole again and paid the back wages of which they were cheated.
Thank you for your concern and efforts to end human trafficking.
Sincerely,
________________________________
Read the in-depth report here: Guest Workers Trafficked to Kuwait
Friday, August 29, 2008
Major Setback in Jail Killings Case
Source: The Independent
August 29, 2008
The High Court yesterday got down to delivering judgement on appeals along with death references in the 1975 Jail Killings Case, closing long-drawn legal arguments from both sides.
On November 3 in 1975, Syed Nazrul Islam, acting president of Bangladesh government in exile during the Liberation War, Tajuddin Ahmed, prime minister, M Mansur Ali, finance minister, and AHM Qamaruzzaman, minister of home affairs, relief and rehabilitation, were gunned down inside Dhaka Central Jail by a raiding cabal of army-men.
The killings, seen as a desperate bid of power usurpers, came amid a political vortex 79 days after the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and most of his family on August 15, 1975.
A designated death-reference Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Justice Nozrul Islam Chowdhury and Justice M Ataur Rahman Khan, began spelling out the judgement after 2pm today. Nearly four years before, on October 20, 2004, the trial court sentenced three rankers to death and awarded life imprisonment to 12 midlevel army officers for the bloodletting.
It had acquitted four politicians and an army officer in the long-awaited verdict of the historic Jail Killings Case. The trial court awarded capital punishment to Risalder (retd) Muslemuddin, Dafadar (dismissed) Marfat Ali Shah and Dafadar (dismissed) Abul Hashem Mridha-all on the run for long.
Those who were awarded life imprisonment for abetting the assassins are Lt Col (dismissed) Syed Farook Rahman, Lt Col (retd) Sultan Shahriar Rashid Khan, Maj (retd) Bazlul Huda, Lt Col (dismissed) Khondaker Abdur Rashid, Lt Col (relieved) Shariful Huq Dalim, Lt Col (retd) SHMB Noor Chowdhury, Maj (Retd) AKM Mohiuddin Ahmed, Lt Col (retd) AM Rashed Chowdhury, Major (relieved) Ahmed Sharful Hossain, Capt (retd) Abdul Mazed, Captain (relieved) Kismat Hashem, and Captain (relieved) Nazmul Hossain Ansar.
Of the dozen lifers, Farook, Shahriar, Huda and AKM Mohiuddin are in jail, with death sentences also hanging over their heads for the murder of the country's founding father. The rest remained absconding.
The four were sentenced to death in the Bangabandhu Murder Case, following the scrapping of the Indemnity Ordinance by the Awami League government of Sheikh Hasina.
Those exonerated were three then BNP leaders-KM Obaidur Rahman (dead), Shah Moazzem Hossain and Nurul Islam Manzoor-Taheruddin Thakur and additional secretary of foreign ministry Maj (Retd) Khairuzzaman.
The infamous Indemnity Ordinance had blocked the investigation and trial of the killings for about 21 years until the law was scrapped during the 1996-2001 Awami League regime. The belated trial was also delayed for repeated interventions by governments and judicial tangles.
August 29, 2008
The High Court yesterday got down to delivering judgement on appeals along with death references in the 1975 Jail Killings Case, closing long-drawn legal arguments from both sides.
On November 3 in 1975, Syed Nazrul Islam, acting president of Bangladesh government in exile during the Liberation War, Tajuddin Ahmed, prime minister, M Mansur Ali, finance minister, and AHM Qamaruzzaman, minister of home affairs, relief and rehabilitation, were gunned down inside Dhaka Central Jail by a raiding cabal of army-men.
The killings, seen as a desperate bid of power usurpers, came amid a political vortex 79 days after the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and most of his family on August 15, 1975.
A designated death-reference Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Justice Nozrul Islam Chowdhury and Justice M Ataur Rahman Khan, began spelling out the judgement after 2pm today. Nearly four years before, on October 20, 2004, the trial court sentenced three rankers to death and awarded life imprisonment to 12 midlevel army officers for the bloodletting.
It had acquitted four politicians and an army officer in the long-awaited verdict of the historic Jail Killings Case. The trial court awarded capital punishment to Risalder (retd) Muslemuddin, Dafadar (dismissed) Marfat Ali Shah and Dafadar (dismissed) Abul Hashem Mridha-all on the run for long.
Those who were awarded life imprisonment for abetting the assassins are Lt Col (dismissed) Syed Farook Rahman, Lt Col (retd) Sultan Shahriar Rashid Khan, Maj (retd) Bazlul Huda, Lt Col (dismissed) Khondaker Abdur Rashid, Lt Col (relieved) Shariful Huq Dalim, Lt Col (retd) SHMB Noor Chowdhury, Maj (Retd) AKM Mohiuddin Ahmed, Lt Col (retd) AM Rashed Chowdhury, Major (relieved) Ahmed Sharful Hossain, Capt (retd) Abdul Mazed, Captain (relieved) Kismat Hashem, and Captain (relieved) Nazmul Hossain Ansar.
Of the dozen lifers, Farook, Shahriar, Huda and AKM Mohiuddin are in jail, with death sentences also hanging over their heads for the murder of the country's founding father. The rest remained absconding.
The four were sentenced to death in the Bangabandhu Murder Case, following the scrapping of the Indemnity Ordinance by the Awami League government of Sheikh Hasina.
Those exonerated were three then BNP leaders-KM Obaidur Rahman (dead), Shah Moazzem Hossain and Nurul Islam Manzoor-Taheruddin Thakur and additional secretary of foreign ministry Maj (Retd) Khairuzzaman.
The infamous Indemnity Ordinance had blocked the investigation and trial of the killings for about 21 years until the law was scrapped during the 1996-2001 Awami League regime. The belated trial was also delayed for repeated interventions by governments and judicial tangles.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Moeen vs. Musharraf
Drawing parallels and lessons
Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan and Moeen U Ahmed in Bangladesh
Mahmud ur Rahman Choudhury
Source: The Bangladesh Today
August 26, 2008
What happens in Pakistan ought not to overly concern us here in Bangladesh but it does because we were once part of Pakistan and have inherited some of the worst aspects of that Country's politics and governance. The four core institutions of our State - the Judiciary and system of Justice, the system of law-enforcement and Police, the system of administration and Bureaucracy and the Military - are all direct descendents of and still display many of the characteristics of the Pakistani system. Military involvement in politics is one of these awful legacies which we in Bangladesh are still tolerating and living with.
I don't know General Pervez Musharraf personally but I have read his very interesting auto-biography, "In the Line of Fire" and I happen to know one of his very close friends from whom I heard quite a bit about the General. As for General Moeen Uddin Ahmed, I have a passing acquaintance with him, having served for 25 years in the Bangladesh Army. Both of these individuals have catapulted themselves into politics in very critical moments in their respective countries' histories and therefore deserve a closer scrutiny of their characters and their deeds so as to draw appropriate lessons for the immediate future. The Pakistani General had to let go of power when he was forced to resign from his presidency on 18 August 2008 while the Bangladeshi General still holds a firm grasp of political power or so he believes.
Starting with the Pakistani General, Pervez Musharraf was a "Muhajir", that is a person who migrated to Pakistan after the partition of the sub-continent in 1947. In Pakistan, his family made good; he joined the Army and was commissioned in 1964. Through dint of his intelligence and hard work he rose through higher ranks in the Army. As he attained higher ranks and responsibilities, he carefully choose his mentors and friends both within the Army as well in political circles. On the way to the top, he earned respect of both his under-command and his seniors for his courage, integrity, determination, hard work and patriotism. In 1998, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Miah Newaz Sharif choose him as the Chief of Staff after the powerful Army Chief General Jehangir Karamat resigned. Some independent commentators suggested that General Musharraf's promotion came precisely because he did not belong to the Punjabi officer class and that Musharraf's ethnic background would leave the general unable to build a powerbase but by that time Musharraf had already built a powerbase. Barely a year later, on 12 October 1999, the aircraft carrying Pervez Musharraf from a visit to Sri Lanka was denied permission to land in Pakistan. When the plane ultimately landed with fuel for 10 minutes flying left in it, Pervez Musharraf had mounted a coup to oust Newaz Sharif. Supporters of Pervez Musharraf claim that Newaz Sharif intended to murder him while his detractors claim that the whole thing was a well planned ploy to capture state power. Pervez Musharraf ruled Pakistan for 9 crucial years during which time the Army went along with him by default.
General Pervez Musharraf assumed or more appropriately usurped political power some 9 years back on the contention that the political, economic and social systems in Pakistan have gone so corrupt that the Country's integrity and sovereignty is threatened. Moreover, the Taliban problems in Afghanistan and the Kashmir issue had serious spill over effects in Pakistan in terms of law and order situation and internal stability or so it was contented. All in all, excuses for Military intervention in politics were not lacking and this tendency towards military dictatorship was actively encouraged by the US who saw in General Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistan military a bulwark against the further spread westwards of radical "Islamic terrorism". In the 9 years that Pervez Musharraf "ruled" Pakistan, he brought the Country to near ruination until the people were near revolting. In an election about a year back, acceded to reluctantly by Musharraf, the people gave their verdict overwhelmingly against what the General stood for and now with the forced resignation of General Pervez Musharraf from the post of President that "ballot-box revolution" is complete. Whether the people of Pakistan can enjoy the fruits of their "democracy" will depend entirely on their determination to continue the process of democratization of their polity inspite of their politicians who are as corrupted a lot as there can be and who have betrayed the confidence of their people more than once.
In a sense Moeen U Ahmed is a Muhajir too; he was a cadet in the Pakistan Air Force College, Sargodah when the War of Liberation of Bangladesh was going on and only returned to Bangladesh a couple of years after the country had gained its independence. In 1974 he joined the Army and was commissioned with the 1st batch of officers of an independent Bangladesh. Like Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, Moeen U Ahmed in Bangladesh is intelligent and hard working and he too selectively cultivated friendships both within the Army and political circles as he proceeded upwards in rank and responsibility. Unlike Musharraf, Moeen U Ahmed is an introvert who is not much liked or respected by either the rank and file or fellow officers but he does know how to command obedience. When in July 2005, Lt General Hasan Mashud Chowdhury was about to retire as the Chief of Staff, Moeen U Ahmed pulled his political connections in BNP through his course mate Major Syed Iskander, the brother of the then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, to get to the top Army slot bypassing a dozen or so equally competent senior candidates. In December 2006, when political conditions in Bangladesh turned critical, Moeen U Ahmed supported by Major General Masud Uddin Chowdhury ( the brother-in-law of Major Syed Iskander), the GOC 9infantry Division based in Savar, made their bid for power. On the early morning of 11 January 2007, Moeen U Ahmed and Masud Uddin Chowdhury escorted by troops of 9 infantry Division invaded the Bangabhaban and forced the President to sign a Declaration of Emergency. A civilian façade was created by the formation of a council of 10 advisors with a Chief Advisor to head it; all advisors being retired bureaucrats, government servants or military officers. The excuses for this blatant grab at power were similar to those enunciated by Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. "All the evidence of Bangladeshi politics, point to the compelling conclusion that the political parties divided the Nation to a dangerous threshold that had no recourse but to confront a civil war" contented General Moeen U Ahmed in an interview with Global Bangladesh on 01 August 2007.
Much like the Pakistani Army with Pervez Musharraf, the Bangladesh Army went by default with Moeen U Ahmed. In the days after the military coup, there was a sense in the armed forces that they were all in this together. Much of it has evaporated in the past 20 months, and the current activities by Moeen only make clear that he is very much following his own agenda, and any collectivist goals have been discarded a long time ago, if he ever took them seriously at all. A lot of people had a lot of things in mind when they signed up for the military coup, but no one really visualized Moeen as another dictator.. It had taken all of 9 years for Pervez Musharraf to get his Country to the point of ruination but Moeen U Ahmed has managed to ruin Bangladesh within just 20 months; it only remains to be seen how he goes and what lessons we derive from these events.
The lessons than are:
Lesson # 01: Corrupt politicians, divisive politics and weak political institutions readily invite military interventions. Military dictators come to power with messianic goals which they rarely implement, instead breaking down existing institutions without being able to replace them with better ones further aggravating social, economic and political problems thereby initiating a cycle of conflict which in extreme cases leads to complete disintegration of the polity itself. Therefore, principled representative politics and strong political institutions are the "preventive medicines" against military dictators.
Lesson # 2: Weak political institutions lack control mechanisms of all sorts, most tellingly in the control of the Military. War, the preserve of the military demands rigid, hierarchal structures of command, control and communication for the military so that they can respond instantaneously to single commands at different levels emanating from the top and ending at the bottom. Surprise, shock, fear and dislocation - the stuff of successful warfighting can only be employed through such a system. Military dictators employ the same system when taking over the State. As long as Military dictators retain the uniform, the rank and the command goes along with it by default, they are impossible to remove even through massive public agitations and protests. It is only when they discard their uniforms and ranks, that they loose command and are vulnerable to removal and that too not immediately as the case of General HM Ershad in Bangladesh and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan prove. Therefore, strong political control of the military at strategic and operational levels is the only way to prevent military dictators from taking over the State.
Lesson # 3: Military dictators are elitists. The military decision making process depends on a few selected lot of highly trained specialists called Staffs, who analyze all situations and work out courses of actions for the commander to select from. The Staff-Commander relationship is almost symbiotic with the commander responsible or answerable to no one for his decisions except the next higher commander. The highest military Commander is only accountable and answerable to his political master, whoever that is; in the absence of strong institutional political control, the highest military commander is accountable and answerable to no one save himself. Thus, when military dictators take over the State they aim for absolute control, often suspending or truncating existing core institutions of the State to establish that absolute sway. So, Military dictatorships are inimical, even hostile to institutional developments. The only way out of this is to keep on insisting on broadening the decision-making base, increasing the number of participants in the decision making process, not with the purpose of seeking solutions to problems but aimed at overwhelming the military dictator's decision making process with contradictory and conflicting inputs, finally paralyzing the decision process. This is a gradualist approach, demanding patience and determination on the part of the civil society wanting to get rid of a military dictatorship. This is the process through which the Pakistani civil society and politicians got rid of Pervez Musharraf and this is the process Bangladeshi civil society and politicians have to master, if they intend to get rid of military dictatorships.
Lesson # 4: The first thing military dictators do on taking over the State is to suspend or severely curtail existing laws and legal systems replacing them with such legal devices as emergency power rules, ordinances, special tribunals etc. One consequence of this is that military personnel who are paid just enough by the State to lead a life of "genteel poverty" create and use opportunities to enrich themselves by all sorts of corruption and since the military in State power is not answerable and accountable to anyone except themselves, military personnel often get away with such corruption. The regime itself indulges in corruption by buying up collaborators in politics, business, media and academicia by providing money or other privileges. This coterie of vested interest then supports the military dictator in perpetuating his hold on State power. Such regimes can sometimes be so rapaciously kleptocratic as to reduce the polity and its populace to abject penury or poverty. At the least, corruption is endemic in military dictatorships as is evident from Pakistan under Musharraf and Bangladesh under Ershad and now under a military-backed Emergency. The only way to get out of this is to ensure that democratic movements and governments which often replace military dictatorships do not post-facto legitimize such dictators but declare them unlawful and punish dictators and their collaborators.
This has gotten a mite lengthy and I have to end it here today but stay tuned as next Monday we will continue with our dissection of military dictators and see why and how they rely on foreign powers to shore-up their regimes.
Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan and Moeen U Ahmed in Bangladesh
Mahmud ur Rahman Choudhury
Source: The Bangladesh Today
August 26, 2008
What happens in Pakistan ought not to overly concern us here in Bangladesh but it does because we were once part of Pakistan and have inherited some of the worst aspects of that Country's politics and governance. The four core institutions of our State - the Judiciary and system of Justice, the system of law-enforcement and Police, the system of administration and Bureaucracy and the Military - are all direct descendents of and still display many of the characteristics of the Pakistani system. Military involvement in politics is one of these awful legacies which we in Bangladesh are still tolerating and living with.
I don't know General Pervez Musharraf personally but I have read his very interesting auto-biography, "In the Line of Fire" and I happen to know one of his very close friends from whom I heard quite a bit about the General. As for General Moeen Uddin Ahmed, I have a passing acquaintance with him, having served for 25 years in the Bangladesh Army. Both of these individuals have catapulted themselves into politics in very critical moments in their respective countries' histories and therefore deserve a closer scrutiny of their characters and their deeds so as to draw appropriate lessons for the immediate future. The Pakistani General had to let go of power when he was forced to resign from his presidency on 18 August 2008 while the Bangladeshi General still holds a firm grasp of political power or so he believes.
Starting with the Pakistani General, Pervez Musharraf was a "Muhajir", that is a person who migrated to Pakistan after the partition of the sub-continent in 1947. In Pakistan, his family made good; he joined the Army and was commissioned in 1964. Through dint of his intelligence and hard work he rose through higher ranks in the Army. As he attained higher ranks and responsibilities, he carefully choose his mentors and friends both within the Army as well in political circles. On the way to the top, he earned respect of both his under-command and his seniors for his courage, integrity, determination, hard work and patriotism. In 1998, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Miah Newaz Sharif choose him as the Chief of Staff after the powerful Army Chief General Jehangir Karamat resigned. Some independent commentators suggested that General Musharraf's promotion came precisely because he did not belong to the Punjabi officer class and that Musharraf's ethnic background would leave the general unable to build a powerbase but by that time Musharraf had already built a powerbase. Barely a year later, on 12 October 1999, the aircraft carrying Pervez Musharraf from a visit to Sri Lanka was denied permission to land in Pakistan. When the plane ultimately landed with fuel for 10 minutes flying left in it, Pervez Musharraf had mounted a coup to oust Newaz Sharif. Supporters of Pervez Musharraf claim that Newaz Sharif intended to murder him while his detractors claim that the whole thing was a well planned ploy to capture state power. Pervez Musharraf ruled Pakistan for 9 crucial years during which time the Army went along with him by default.
General Pervez Musharraf assumed or more appropriately usurped political power some 9 years back on the contention that the political, economic and social systems in Pakistan have gone so corrupt that the Country's integrity and sovereignty is threatened. Moreover, the Taliban problems in Afghanistan and the Kashmir issue had serious spill over effects in Pakistan in terms of law and order situation and internal stability or so it was contented. All in all, excuses for Military intervention in politics were not lacking and this tendency towards military dictatorship was actively encouraged by the US who saw in General Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistan military a bulwark against the further spread westwards of radical "Islamic terrorism". In the 9 years that Pervez Musharraf "ruled" Pakistan, he brought the Country to near ruination until the people were near revolting. In an election about a year back, acceded to reluctantly by Musharraf, the people gave their verdict overwhelmingly against what the General stood for and now with the forced resignation of General Pervez Musharraf from the post of President that "ballot-box revolution" is complete. Whether the people of Pakistan can enjoy the fruits of their "democracy" will depend entirely on their determination to continue the process of democratization of their polity inspite of their politicians who are as corrupted a lot as there can be and who have betrayed the confidence of their people more than once.
In a sense Moeen U Ahmed is a Muhajir too; he was a cadet in the Pakistan Air Force College, Sargodah when the War of Liberation of Bangladesh was going on and only returned to Bangladesh a couple of years after the country had gained its independence. In 1974 he joined the Army and was commissioned with the 1st batch of officers of an independent Bangladesh. Like Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, Moeen U Ahmed in Bangladesh is intelligent and hard working and he too selectively cultivated friendships both within the Army and political circles as he proceeded upwards in rank and responsibility. Unlike Musharraf, Moeen U Ahmed is an introvert who is not much liked or respected by either the rank and file or fellow officers but he does know how to command obedience. When in July 2005, Lt General Hasan Mashud Chowdhury was about to retire as the Chief of Staff, Moeen U Ahmed pulled his political connections in BNP through his course mate Major Syed Iskander, the brother of the then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, to get to the top Army slot bypassing a dozen or so equally competent senior candidates. In December 2006, when political conditions in Bangladesh turned critical, Moeen U Ahmed supported by Major General Masud Uddin Chowdhury ( the brother-in-law of Major Syed Iskander), the GOC 9infantry Division based in Savar, made their bid for power. On the early morning of 11 January 2007, Moeen U Ahmed and Masud Uddin Chowdhury escorted by troops of 9 infantry Division invaded the Bangabhaban and forced the President to sign a Declaration of Emergency. A civilian façade was created by the formation of a council of 10 advisors with a Chief Advisor to head it; all advisors being retired bureaucrats, government servants or military officers. The excuses for this blatant grab at power were similar to those enunciated by Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. "All the evidence of Bangladeshi politics, point to the compelling conclusion that the political parties divided the Nation to a dangerous threshold that had no recourse but to confront a civil war" contented General Moeen U Ahmed in an interview with Global Bangladesh on 01 August 2007.
Much like the Pakistani Army with Pervez Musharraf, the Bangladesh Army went by default with Moeen U Ahmed. In the days after the military coup, there was a sense in the armed forces that they were all in this together. Much of it has evaporated in the past 20 months, and the current activities by Moeen only make clear that he is very much following his own agenda, and any collectivist goals have been discarded a long time ago, if he ever took them seriously at all. A lot of people had a lot of things in mind when they signed up for the military coup, but no one really visualized Moeen as another dictator.. It had taken all of 9 years for Pervez Musharraf to get his Country to the point of ruination but Moeen U Ahmed has managed to ruin Bangladesh within just 20 months; it only remains to be seen how he goes and what lessons we derive from these events.
The lessons than are:
Lesson # 01: Corrupt politicians, divisive politics and weak political institutions readily invite military interventions. Military dictators come to power with messianic goals which they rarely implement, instead breaking down existing institutions without being able to replace them with better ones further aggravating social, economic and political problems thereby initiating a cycle of conflict which in extreme cases leads to complete disintegration of the polity itself. Therefore, principled representative politics and strong political institutions are the "preventive medicines" against military dictators.
Lesson # 2: Weak political institutions lack control mechanisms of all sorts, most tellingly in the control of the Military. War, the preserve of the military demands rigid, hierarchal structures of command, control and communication for the military so that they can respond instantaneously to single commands at different levels emanating from the top and ending at the bottom. Surprise, shock, fear and dislocation - the stuff of successful warfighting can only be employed through such a system. Military dictators employ the same system when taking over the State. As long as Military dictators retain the uniform, the rank and the command goes along with it by default, they are impossible to remove even through massive public agitations and protests. It is only when they discard their uniforms and ranks, that they loose command and are vulnerable to removal and that too not immediately as the case of General HM Ershad in Bangladesh and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan prove. Therefore, strong political control of the military at strategic and operational levels is the only way to prevent military dictators from taking over the State.
Lesson # 3: Military dictators are elitists. The military decision making process depends on a few selected lot of highly trained specialists called Staffs, who analyze all situations and work out courses of actions for the commander to select from. The Staff-Commander relationship is almost symbiotic with the commander responsible or answerable to no one for his decisions except the next higher commander. The highest military Commander is only accountable and answerable to his political master, whoever that is; in the absence of strong institutional political control, the highest military commander is accountable and answerable to no one save himself. Thus, when military dictators take over the State they aim for absolute control, often suspending or truncating existing core institutions of the State to establish that absolute sway. So, Military dictatorships are inimical, even hostile to institutional developments. The only way out of this is to keep on insisting on broadening the decision-making base, increasing the number of participants in the decision making process, not with the purpose of seeking solutions to problems but aimed at overwhelming the military dictator's decision making process with contradictory and conflicting inputs, finally paralyzing the decision process. This is a gradualist approach, demanding patience and determination on the part of the civil society wanting to get rid of a military dictatorship. This is the process through which the Pakistani civil society and politicians got rid of Pervez Musharraf and this is the process Bangladeshi civil society and politicians have to master, if they intend to get rid of military dictatorships.
Lesson # 4: The first thing military dictators do on taking over the State is to suspend or severely curtail existing laws and legal systems replacing them with such legal devices as emergency power rules, ordinances, special tribunals etc. One consequence of this is that military personnel who are paid just enough by the State to lead a life of "genteel poverty" create and use opportunities to enrich themselves by all sorts of corruption and since the military in State power is not answerable and accountable to anyone except themselves, military personnel often get away with such corruption. The regime itself indulges in corruption by buying up collaborators in politics, business, media and academicia by providing money or other privileges. This coterie of vested interest then supports the military dictator in perpetuating his hold on State power. Such regimes can sometimes be so rapaciously kleptocratic as to reduce the polity and its populace to abject penury or poverty. At the least, corruption is endemic in military dictatorships as is evident from Pakistan under Musharraf and Bangladesh under Ershad and now under a military-backed Emergency. The only way to get out of this is to ensure that democratic movements and governments which often replace military dictatorships do not post-facto legitimize such dictators but declare them unlawful and punish dictators and their collaborators.
This has gotten a mite lengthy and I have to end it here today but stay tuned as next Monday we will continue with our dissection of military dictators and see why and how they rely on foreign powers to shore-up their regimes.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Jamaat man held for instigating labour unrest
Jamaat man held for instigating labour unrest
Source: New Age
August 26, 2008
The police on Monday arrested Masiur Rahman, president of Gazipur sadar unit of Sramik Kalyan Federation, labourer unit of Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, at Chandana under Gazipur sadar for allegedly instigating labour unrest in the area.
Another Ramzan Ali, who was with Masiur, was also caught for questioning. The police said worker of Nightingale Fashion Garments of Konabari under sadar upazila ransacked the factory, demanding 20 per cent hike in their salary on Sunday.
Police said Masiur, along with others, instigated the labour unrest. Humayan Kabir, manager of the factory, filed a case against 41 persons, including Masiur, accusing them of damaging assets worth Tk 50 lakh. The police on Sunday arrested 16 persons in connection with the case.
Source: New Age
August 26, 2008
The police on Monday arrested Masiur Rahman, president of Gazipur sadar unit of Sramik Kalyan Federation, labourer unit of Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, at Chandana under Gazipur sadar for allegedly instigating labour unrest in the area.
Another Ramzan Ali, who was with Masiur, was also caught for questioning. The police said worker of Nightingale Fashion Garments of Konabari under sadar upazila ransacked the factory, demanding 20 per cent hike in their salary on Sunday.
Police said Masiur, along with others, instigated the labour unrest. Humayan Kabir, manager of the factory, filed a case against 41 persons, including Masiur, accusing them of damaging assets worth Tk 50 lakh. The police on Sunday arrested 16 persons in connection with the case.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Is the train on the right track?
Is the train on the right track?
Husain Imam
Source: Daily Star
August 25, 2008
THE time is probably ripe to assess whether the caretaker government of Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed has been, as promised, able to lift the derailed political train of Bangladesh from the abyss and put it on the right track. If you ask me, the answer is yes, the answer is no.
Yes, because it has, by preparing a fairly accurate voter list and holding four city corporation and nine pourashava elections successfully, set in motion the much needed electoral process.
No, because the people are still not sure whether the train is on the right track that will take it to its ultimate destination -- the parliament building at Manik Mia Avenue. Even if it is on the right track, one is not sure whether the train will be able to reach its destination without having the borjis (bandits) back on board. The reasons are simple:
One: Despite the fact that the chief adviser, the army chief and the chief election commissioner have time and again reassured the public that the national election will be held by the end of December 2008 at any cost (mori or bachi in the words of the CEC), with hardly four months in hand, people still do not have a clear view of the bogies of the electoral train for national election with their naked eyes.
Two: The government's determination to go ahead with the upazila polls in October this year, before national polls, against the will of the two major parties -- Awami League and BNP -- has not only raised a wall to obscure the electoral scenario of national election, it has also given rise to an air of uncertainty and scepticism about the election.
Three: The bandits, we say godfathers, who were put behind bars (more appropriately in quarantine camp) or kept on the run on charges of wanton corruption, violence, loot, extortion and abuse of state power, now seem to be flexing their muscles to stage a comeback with garlands around their necks and making V-sign with their fingers, thanks to the handling, or should we say mishandling, of the cases. Forgive me if I am wrong.
Let's take stock of the situation. The government, the Election Commission and the armed forces have done an excellent job in preparing a fairly accurate voter list with photos, and thus fulfilled one of their prime responsibilities as a caretaker government.
They have also, to their full credit, separated the judiciary from the executive, reconstituted the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), the Election Commission (EC), the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Public Service Commission (PSC).
The rest are sad stories. The much talked about political reform hasn't met with any success. The attempt to change the top leadership of the two political parties who ruled the country over the last 15 years has backfired.
The possibility of emergence of a third political force to the liking of the caretaker government or the civil society has remained as bleak as it was before. Qualitative change in political culture remains a distant cry.
Administrative reform is not even on the agenda anymore. Electoral reform has not progressed as expected. Even the question of registration of the political parties is still uncertain.
To talk or think about a congenial atmosphere for a free, fair and credible election under emergency rules is bound to receive a mixed reaction from many a quarter at home and abroad. The idea of balancing Awami League with BNP in order to ensure a level playing field was ridiculous.
The anti-corruption drive, the only reason, other than preparation of a correct voter list with photos, that had given the present caretaker government the legitimacy by the people to run the country under emergency rules and extend their tenure well beyond their constitutionally mandated period of 90 days, seems to have run into trouble, if not disarray.
Setting up of a Truth and Accountability Commission (TAC) at the fag end of the tenure of the government to ease the burden on the judiciary in handling the innumerable graft cases filed by the ACC, and the response of the higher courts to the appeals against the verdicts of the lower courts are manifestations of the case in point.
The general people thought that the anti-corruption drive of the caretaker government would reduce corruption, lessen their harassment at the hands of the government agencies, lower the prices of essentials and utility services, and bring about some comfort in their daily life. That did not happen.
According to a TIB survey report, corruption has decreased in the upper level, thanks to the ACC and other agencies for their relentless effort and courageous steps, but it has increased in the middle and lower levels of administration, directly affecting the common people.
On top of it, the spiralling prices of food and other essential items, reaching far beyond the buying capacity of middle and lower income groups, shrinking of employment opportunities, and acute and persistent crisis of water, electricity and fertiliser have made both the farmers and the general public less and less interested in the reform measures of the caretaker government.
The people are no longer prepared to accept that all these problems are not the making of the incumbent government, nor are they willing to understand that most of these problems are the legacy of the most corrupt and anti-people governments of the past.
They are no more interested to know that the prices food, fuel and other essential items have gone to an all-time high in the international market in the recent months, nor are they willing to listen to the argument that the government had very little leverage in their hands to control the internal market price in an open market economy.
To be frank, despite the fact that the sad episodes of corruption, violence, repression and abject abuse of power of the past government still haunt their memories as nightmares, they have begun to believe that running the affairs of a country is not the task of an un-elected non-political government. They have begun to think that the earlier the caretaker government holds national election and hands over power to a truly representative elected government the better it will be.
______________________
Captain Husain Imam is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.
Husain Imam
Source: Daily Star
August 25, 2008
THE time is probably ripe to assess whether the caretaker government of Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed has been, as promised, able to lift the derailed political train of Bangladesh from the abyss and put it on the right track. If you ask me, the answer is yes, the answer is no.
Yes, because it has, by preparing a fairly accurate voter list and holding four city corporation and nine pourashava elections successfully, set in motion the much needed electoral process.
No, because the people are still not sure whether the train is on the right track that will take it to its ultimate destination -- the parliament building at Manik Mia Avenue. Even if it is on the right track, one is not sure whether the train will be able to reach its destination without having the borjis (bandits) back on board. The reasons are simple:
One: Despite the fact that the chief adviser, the army chief and the chief election commissioner have time and again reassured the public that the national election will be held by the end of December 2008 at any cost (mori or bachi in the words of the CEC), with hardly four months in hand, people still do not have a clear view of the bogies of the electoral train for national election with their naked eyes.
Two: The government's determination to go ahead with the upazila polls in October this year, before national polls, against the will of the two major parties -- Awami League and BNP -- has not only raised a wall to obscure the electoral scenario of national election, it has also given rise to an air of uncertainty and scepticism about the election.
Three: The bandits, we say godfathers, who were put behind bars (more appropriately in quarantine camp) or kept on the run on charges of wanton corruption, violence, loot, extortion and abuse of state power, now seem to be flexing their muscles to stage a comeback with garlands around their necks and making V-sign with their fingers, thanks to the handling, or should we say mishandling, of the cases. Forgive me if I am wrong.
Let's take stock of the situation. The government, the Election Commission and the armed forces have done an excellent job in preparing a fairly accurate voter list with photos, and thus fulfilled one of their prime responsibilities as a caretaker government.
They have also, to their full credit, separated the judiciary from the executive, reconstituted the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), the Election Commission (EC), the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Public Service Commission (PSC).
The rest are sad stories. The much talked about political reform hasn't met with any success. The attempt to change the top leadership of the two political parties who ruled the country over the last 15 years has backfired.
The possibility of emergence of a third political force to the liking of the caretaker government or the civil society has remained as bleak as it was before. Qualitative change in political culture remains a distant cry.
Administrative reform is not even on the agenda anymore. Electoral reform has not progressed as expected. Even the question of registration of the political parties is still uncertain.
To talk or think about a congenial atmosphere for a free, fair and credible election under emergency rules is bound to receive a mixed reaction from many a quarter at home and abroad. The idea of balancing Awami League with BNP in order to ensure a level playing field was ridiculous.
The anti-corruption drive, the only reason, other than preparation of a correct voter list with photos, that had given the present caretaker government the legitimacy by the people to run the country under emergency rules and extend their tenure well beyond their constitutionally mandated period of 90 days, seems to have run into trouble, if not disarray.
Setting up of a Truth and Accountability Commission (TAC) at the fag end of the tenure of the government to ease the burden on the judiciary in handling the innumerable graft cases filed by the ACC, and the response of the higher courts to the appeals against the verdicts of the lower courts are manifestations of the case in point.
The general people thought that the anti-corruption drive of the caretaker government would reduce corruption, lessen their harassment at the hands of the government agencies, lower the prices of essentials and utility services, and bring about some comfort in their daily life. That did not happen.
According to a TIB survey report, corruption has decreased in the upper level, thanks to the ACC and other agencies for their relentless effort and courageous steps, but it has increased in the middle and lower levels of administration, directly affecting the common people.
On top of it, the spiralling prices of food and other essential items, reaching far beyond the buying capacity of middle and lower income groups, shrinking of employment opportunities, and acute and persistent crisis of water, electricity and fertiliser have made both the farmers and the general public less and less interested in the reform measures of the caretaker government.
The people are no longer prepared to accept that all these problems are not the making of the incumbent government, nor are they willing to understand that most of these problems are the legacy of the most corrupt and anti-people governments of the past.
They are no more interested to know that the prices food, fuel and other essential items have gone to an all-time high in the international market in the recent months, nor are they willing to listen to the argument that the government had very little leverage in their hands to control the internal market price in an open market economy.
To be frank, despite the fact that the sad episodes of corruption, violence, repression and abject abuse of power of the past government still haunt their memories as nightmares, they have begun to believe that running the affairs of a country is not the task of an un-elected non-political government. They have begun to think that the earlier the caretaker government holds national election and hands over power to a truly representative elected government the better it will be.
______________________
Captain Husain Imam is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Dhaka University Observed Black Day
New Age reports on August 24, 2008, Teachers and students at Dhaka University on Saturday rallied for withdrawal of all cases filed against them in connection with the August 2007 campus protests. They also wore black badges observing August 23 as ‘black day’ against state repression on the campus.
Students at the university held protests on August 20, 2007 when some military personnel attacked them over an altercation during a football match in the university playground. The protests continued till August 22 and the government closed all public universities and colleges on August 23 for an indefinite period.
The state filed six cases against teachers and students of Dhaka University and common people, but later decided not to continue with five of them. The government at the time decided to continue with the case against seven of the 25 accused in the case of setting fire to the military vehicle.
The students accused in the case of setting fire to a military vehicle held a solidarity rally at the Aparajeya Bangla were all campus student organisations, including Bangladesh Chhatra League, Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal, Bangladesh Chhatra Union, Samajtantrik Chhatra Front, and Bangladesh Chhatra Federation, expressed their solidarity and demanded withdrawal of the case.
A number of teachers including the university teachers’ association general secretary Anwar Hossain, former association president AAMS Arefin Siddique, and association’s executive committee member Muhammad Samad expressed solidarity with the students.
Anwar said the August 2007 protests were the outburst of the sentiment of all students at the university, but a few students are suffering now because of the movement.
He suggested the military intelligence should not consider the university students to be their opponents. ‘We do not consider them our opponents.’ ‘If the government does not withdraw the case, the teachers and students will make the government to withdraw it as they did in the past,’ he said.
‘It is a constitutional right for every citizen to live without fear. So our students also have the right to continue their education without fear,’ Arefin Siddique said at the rally. He asked the university authorities to ensure legal and financial support for the students.
The Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal president, Azizul Bari Helal, Chhatra League president Mahmud Hasan Ripon, Chhatra Union general secretary Manabendra Dev, university unit Samajtantrik Chhara Front general secretary Moloy Sarkar, and university unit Bangladesh Chhatra Federation general secretary Saikat Mallik joined the rally.
The Progressive Students’ Alliance and the Samajtantrik Chhatra Front also brought out processions on the campus marking the day. The teachers association held a discussion at the Teacher-Student Centre in the afternoon. 'We are observing the day as a ‘black day’ in a mark of protest,’ said the association’s president Sadrul Amin.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
When A War Criminal Visiting USA
This the image of an evil - another Radovan Karadzic of Bangladesh. The only difference is unlike Karadzic, Abul Kalam Azad, an Islamist war criminal of Bangladesh was not in hiding. As a high profile "Islamic scholar" he is in the limelight in Bangladesh and for the last few years has been conducting Islamic theological program for a notable private television in Bangladeshi capital, NTV.
The same Abul Kalam Azad was a cold blooded murderer in the year 1971, when Bangladeshi people were fighting against brutal Pakistani occupational army. Azad was alleged to be directly involved in bringing Pakistani army in Faridpur district's Nagarkanda's Thandia village where the marauding army went on rampage and a killing spree. In one incident, the Pakistani army killed eleven unarmed civilians. Abul Kalam Azad was also alleged to rape two women. In 2001, Daily Janakantha published the testimonials of the victims tortured by this notorious Rajakar in its daily, no action was taken against him as the BNP-Jamat axis came into power. Here are the links of the articles published in Daily Janakantha in 2001:
(1) A graphic testimony of how Abul Kalam Azad tortured Bangladeshis in 1971
(2) Bangla Channel put off his broadcast
(3) Land lease that he lost due to protest
Now Abul Kalam Azad is on a Islamic tour in USA. He is supposed to stay in this country for at least two more weeks. Today, that is Friday, the 22nd of August, he was scheduled to deliver khutba (Islamic sermon) and was supposed to lead Jumma prayer in the most influential Bangladeshi mosque in Jamaica, New York. When the news of his program spread to the community, there was tremendous outrage and resentment among many Bangladeshi-Americans. People against his mosque participation argued with the mosque committee against his appearance and the argument went on till midnight. Ultimately, it was decided he would not lead the prayer, nor would he be allowed to deliver Khutba. This afternoon [Friday, the 22nd], the killer of 1971 quietly came to the mosque and prayed the Jumma prayer with others. Nonetheless, he was allowed to speak a few words. Not surprisingly, he did not stay in the mosque too long.
The Islamist war criminal of Bangladesh, Abul Kalam Azad did not have any problem getting U.S. visa. He is quite lucky to be born in a country, whose majority of the population are the most apathetical bunch of people of the world. His current U.S. schedule involves touring Michigan, Minnesota and a few other states where he would definitely give sermon on spirituality and godliness.
The same Abul Kalam Azad was a cold blooded murderer in the year 1971, when Bangladeshi people were fighting against brutal Pakistani occupational army. Azad was alleged to be directly involved in bringing Pakistani army in Faridpur district's Nagarkanda's Thandia village where the marauding army went on rampage and a killing spree. In one incident, the Pakistani army killed eleven unarmed civilians. Abul Kalam Azad was also alleged to rape two women. In 2001, Daily Janakantha published the testimonials of the victims tortured by this notorious Rajakar in its daily, no action was taken against him as the BNP-Jamat axis came into power. Here are the links of the articles published in Daily Janakantha in 2001:
(1) A graphic testimony of how Abul Kalam Azad tortured Bangladeshis in 1971
(2) Bangla Channel put off his broadcast
(3) Land lease that he lost due to protest
Now Abul Kalam Azad is on a Islamic tour in USA. He is supposed to stay in this country for at least two more weeks. Today, that is Friday, the 22nd of August, he was scheduled to deliver khutba (Islamic sermon) and was supposed to lead Jumma prayer in the most influential Bangladeshi mosque in Jamaica, New York. When the news of his program spread to the community, there was tremendous outrage and resentment among many Bangladeshi-Americans. People against his mosque participation argued with the mosque committee against his appearance and the argument went on till midnight. Ultimately, it was decided he would not lead the prayer, nor would he be allowed to deliver Khutba. This afternoon [Friday, the 22nd], the killer of 1971 quietly came to the mosque and prayed the Jumma prayer with others. Nonetheless, he was allowed to speak a few words. Not surprisingly, he did not stay in the mosque too long.
The Islamist war criminal of Bangladesh, Abul Kalam Azad did not have any problem getting U.S. visa. He is quite lucky to be born in a country, whose majority of the population are the most apathetical bunch of people of the world. His current U.S. schedule involves touring Michigan, Minnesota and a few other states where he would definitely give sermon on spirituality and godliness.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Musharraf's exit: Lessons for them and us
Musharraf's exit: Lessons for them and us
Mahfuz Anam
Source: Daily Star
August 20, 2008
The most obvious and truly heartening meaning of Pervez Musharraf's ouster is that democracy is the best form of government and it is the only one that people prefer. There have often been talks of this or that country, or people not being ready for democracy. Such views are archaic, self-serving and devoid of all lessons of history. People everywhere prefer freedom and the political system that has been found, over and over again, to fulfill that irrepressible aspiration of the people is democracy. However, flawed democracy was and remains the best option for people everywhere. A lesson that we in Bangladesh have learnt the hard way and one that we are determined to preserve under all circumstances.
The other meaning, and of far reaching consequence for people everywhere is that military dictatorship cannot deliver and is not a sustainable option for countries anywhere in the world. Pakistan has proven once again, if proof was at all necessary, that military rulers however smart, efficient, modern, organised and well meaning (and they sometimes are) ultimately fail, and miserably so, to live up to the expectation of the people. Sometimes, if not rarely, they begin well. But ultimately it all ends in disaster as it also happened in Musharraf's case. In addition to curtailing freedom what military dictatorships end up doing is distorting institutions --administrative, financial and supervisory -- including their own. The most efficient of military ends up being corrupt and as such destroy themselves from within. And it all happens because they enjoy power and authority without being held accountable, which corrodes the discipline that is the lifeblood of a genuine military.
Pakistan should serve as the greatest example of how a country's stride into maturity was repeatedly thwarted by self-serving military charlatans. Each time a military dictator came, he promised to make Pakistan stronger and left it weaker and debilitated in every sense of the term. General Ayub Khan (1958-69) created the over-centralised, elitist and insensitive (of people's needs) bureaucracy that widened the rich-poor gap. Fatally it created economic disparity between the two wings of the country and laid the economic foundation of its bifurcation. Gen Yahya (1969-1971) presided over the genocide of the Bangalees and created the ground for Pakistan's immediate destruction. Gen Ziaul Huq (1977-1988) ravaged whatever was left of the original spirit of Pakistan by unleashing the obscurantist forces that might yet ring the death knell of whatever is left. Finally, Gen Musharraf destroyed Pakistan's democratic recovery by staging a coup under the most indefensible of all circumstances --that of saving his own job. In the name of "war on terror" he made Pakistan a backyard for Taliban and safe haven for al-Qaeda. Never has Pakistan been under such dark cloud of religious extremism as it is now. His selfishness and arrogance crossed all limits when he all but destroyed Pakistan's highest judiciary just to cling to power.
If there is a single factor that can be blamed for the gradual destruction of Pakistan it is the repeated military takeover of the state power.
Pakistan's sad story began with another general, Iskandar Mirza, who, back in mid-fifties manipulated himself into the presidency, and then colluded with Gen Ayub Khan to stage the coup, simply to prevent holding of the first-ever general election in Pakistan, scheduled for February 1958. If that election was held, Pakistan's history might well have been far happier.
While the generals in Pakistan were playing havoc with the country, what were the politicians doing? That is another lesson from Musharraf's departure that we need to think of today. Who opened the door for Maj Gen Iskandar Mirza to come to power? Who prevented the adoption of a constitution in Pakistan till 1956 (Pakistan was born in 1947)? Who planned with Gen Ayub to abrogate it in 1958, lest Awami League, led by Shaheed Suhrawardy, comes to power through the ballot? It can be said that two thoughts guided the politicians of Pakistan from 1947 to Ayub's coup. One was to prevent holding of the elections as long as possible and two, to deprive leaders of the eastern wing to have any share of power. (Suhrawardy's cabinet in 1957 was a honourable exception, which was brought down within 13 months of its taking office).
After December 1971, with the civilian rule returning, elections held, and with the lesson of Bangladesh liberation fresh in the mind, people hoped that Pakistan would embark on its journey towards democracy. But Zulfiqur Ali Bhutto turned into a tyrant. Under him the opposition was so oppressed that it ultimately took to streets, making the fatal opening for the much-humiliated Gen Ziaul Huq (The supremely arrogant Bhutto used to call him "My monkey general”) to stage his coup.
Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were elected twice and twice they were forced out of power through civilian-military connivance but not without a widespread reputation of corruption. Benazir's husband, now Pakistan's kingmaker, Asif Ali Zardari, was widely known as "Mr. Ten Percent" under Benazir's premiership. It was Nawaz Sharif's father known as "Abba Ji" who ruled the roost during Nawaz's tenure, not to mention Nawaz's brother Shahbaz Sharif (Chief Minister of Punjab) and his wide network of family members and cronies who joined in the loot. It was corruption, nepotism and cronyism that defeated both the twice-elected Pakistani leaders.
While we rejoice at Pakistan's renewed opportunity to take to the democratic path, the facts cannot be lost on neither the people of Pakistan nor their well-wishers in the Saarc countries that Mr. Zardari's reputation leave a lot of us nervous as to his commitment to democracy. How can we forget that the Presidency of Pakistan's most popular party, the Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP), was bequeath to a minor son, as if it was personal property like a land or a house to be inherited through a will. And in line with Nawabs and Zamindars of the past, a Regent has also been willed, to look after the 'throne' till the minor son is ready to take over fully. So the father, reviled as one of the most corrupt men in the country, is to run the party till then. The leaders and the workers who worked for years risking their lives against the military rule of Musharraf had no say as to who the party's leader will be. The message is clear, lest anybody has any doubt, that Pakistan Peoples' Party is the personal property of the Bhutto family to be given away as an inheritance. Now that really sounds like the party to bring democracy to Pakistan.
If we are to blame the military dictators for the destruction of democracy in Pakistan, the politicians need to share a significant part of the blame. And here lies some crucial lessons for us in Bangladesh. If the colonels who assassinated Bangabandhu, and Gen Ziaur Rahman and Gen Ershad are guilty of bringing the military into politics in Bangladesh, our politicians are also guilty of failing to consolidate, institutionalise and deepen the roots of democracy in the country. Sheikh Mujib did not have to introduce BKSAL. Sheikh Hasina did not have to damage the economy through hartals and weaken the parliament through years of boycott. Khaleda Zia did not have to set up her son to 'inherit' the throne and the other one to gobble up business of others. She needn't have set up the most corrupt regime ever by an elected government. As the leader of two-thirds majority in the parliament she did not need the likes of Harris, Falu, Babar, and hordes of others like them. She did not have to make her sister a minister and allow her two brothers to interfere in the army and in the national airlines, the Biman.
Not withstanding many differences (our tradition of democratic movement is stronger, people are far more aware of their rights, we have better social indicators, and our military today is far different from that of Pakistan and they are far more respectful of democracy and need for elected government than Pakistan army ever was), just as Pakistan looks forward to democracy, so do we. Just as in Pakistan where the two old parties, the PPP and the Muslim League, are set to resume their roles in politics, in Bangladesh, our two major parties, the Awami League and the BNP, are set to regain their dominance in our politics following the elections later this year. The question here is, just as in Pakistan, will our politicians rise to the occasion and play their patriotic and nation-building role so that the likelihood of military dictatorship is forever banished from our realm of possibility?
Mahfuz Anam
Source: Daily Star
August 20, 2008
The most obvious and truly heartening meaning of Pervez Musharraf's ouster is that democracy is the best form of government and it is the only one that people prefer. There have often been talks of this or that country, or people not being ready for democracy. Such views are archaic, self-serving and devoid of all lessons of history. People everywhere prefer freedom and the political system that has been found, over and over again, to fulfill that irrepressible aspiration of the people is democracy. However, flawed democracy was and remains the best option for people everywhere. A lesson that we in Bangladesh have learnt the hard way and one that we are determined to preserve under all circumstances.
The other meaning, and of far reaching consequence for people everywhere is that military dictatorship cannot deliver and is not a sustainable option for countries anywhere in the world. Pakistan has proven once again, if proof was at all necessary, that military rulers however smart, efficient, modern, organised and well meaning (and they sometimes are) ultimately fail, and miserably so, to live up to the expectation of the people. Sometimes, if not rarely, they begin well. But ultimately it all ends in disaster as it also happened in Musharraf's case. In addition to curtailing freedom what military dictatorships end up doing is distorting institutions --administrative, financial and supervisory -- including their own. The most efficient of military ends up being corrupt and as such destroy themselves from within. And it all happens because they enjoy power and authority without being held accountable, which corrodes the discipline that is the lifeblood of a genuine military.
Pakistan should serve as the greatest example of how a country's stride into maturity was repeatedly thwarted by self-serving military charlatans. Each time a military dictator came, he promised to make Pakistan stronger and left it weaker and debilitated in every sense of the term. General Ayub Khan (1958-69) created the over-centralised, elitist and insensitive (of people's needs) bureaucracy that widened the rich-poor gap. Fatally it created economic disparity between the two wings of the country and laid the economic foundation of its bifurcation. Gen Yahya (1969-1971) presided over the genocide of the Bangalees and created the ground for Pakistan's immediate destruction. Gen Ziaul Huq (1977-1988) ravaged whatever was left of the original spirit of Pakistan by unleashing the obscurantist forces that might yet ring the death knell of whatever is left. Finally, Gen Musharraf destroyed Pakistan's democratic recovery by staging a coup under the most indefensible of all circumstances --that of saving his own job. In the name of "war on terror" he made Pakistan a backyard for Taliban and safe haven for al-Qaeda. Never has Pakistan been under such dark cloud of religious extremism as it is now. His selfishness and arrogance crossed all limits when he all but destroyed Pakistan's highest judiciary just to cling to power.
If there is a single factor that can be blamed for the gradual destruction of Pakistan it is the repeated military takeover of the state power.
Pakistan's sad story began with another general, Iskandar Mirza, who, back in mid-fifties manipulated himself into the presidency, and then colluded with Gen Ayub Khan to stage the coup, simply to prevent holding of the first-ever general election in Pakistan, scheduled for February 1958. If that election was held, Pakistan's history might well have been far happier.
While the generals in Pakistan were playing havoc with the country, what were the politicians doing? That is another lesson from Musharraf's departure that we need to think of today. Who opened the door for Maj Gen Iskandar Mirza to come to power? Who prevented the adoption of a constitution in Pakistan till 1956 (Pakistan was born in 1947)? Who planned with Gen Ayub to abrogate it in 1958, lest Awami League, led by Shaheed Suhrawardy, comes to power through the ballot? It can be said that two thoughts guided the politicians of Pakistan from 1947 to Ayub's coup. One was to prevent holding of the elections as long as possible and two, to deprive leaders of the eastern wing to have any share of power. (Suhrawardy's cabinet in 1957 was a honourable exception, which was brought down within 13 months of its taking office).
After December 1971, with the civilian rule returning, elections held, and with the lesson of Bangladesh liberation fresh in the mind, people hoped that Pakistan would embark on its journey towards democracy. But Zulfiqur Ali Bhutto turned into a tyrant. Under him the opposition was so oppressed that it ultimately took to streets, making the fatal opening for the much-humiliated Gen Ziaul Huq (The supremely arrogant Bhutto used to call him "My monkey general”) to stage his coup.
Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were elected twice and twice they were forced out of power through civilian-military connivance but not without a widespread reputation of corruption. Benazir's husband, now Pakistan's kingmaker, Asif Ali Zardari, was widely known as "Mr. Ten Percent" under Benazir's premiership. It was Nawaz Sharif's father known as "Abba Ji" who ruled the roost during Nawaz's tenure, not to mention Nawaz's brother Shahbaz Sharif (Chief Minister of Punjab) and his wide network of family members and cronies who joined in the loot. It was corruption, nepotism and cronyism that defeated both the twice-elected Pakistani leaders.
While we rejoice at Pakistan's renewed opportunity to take to the democratic path, the facts cannot be lost on neither the people of Pakistan nor their well-wishers in the Saarc countries that Mr. Zardari's reputation leave a lot of us nervous as to his commitment to democracy. How can we forget that the Presidency of Pakistan's most popular party, the Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP), was bequeath to a minor son, as if it was personal property like a land or a house to be inherited through a will. And in line with Nawabs and Zamindars of the past, a Regent has also been willed, to look after the 'throne' till the minor son is ready to take over fully. So the father, reviled as one of the most corrupt men in the country, is to run the party till then. The leaders and the workers who worked for years risking their lives against the military rule of Musharraf had no say as to who the party's leader will be. The message is clear, lest anybody has any doubt, that Pakistan Peoples' Party is the personal property of the Bhutto family to be given away as an inheritance. Now that really sounds like the party to bring democracy to Pakistan.
If we are to blame the military dictators for the destruction of democracy in Pakistan, the politicians need to share a significant part of the blame. And here lies some crucial lessons for us in Bangladesh. If the colonels who assassinated Bangabandhu, and Gen Ziaur Rahman and Gen Ershad are guilty of bringing the military into politics in Bangladesh, our politicians are also guilty of failing to consolidate, institutionalise and deepen the roots of democracy in the country. Sheikh Mujib did not have to introduce BKSAL. Sheikh Hasina did not have to damage the economy through hartals and weaken the parliament through years of boycott. Khaleda Zia did not have to set up her son to 'inherit' the throne and the other one to gobble up business of others. She needn't have set up the most corrupt regime ever by an elected government. As the leader of two-thirds majority in the parliament she did not need the likes of Harris, Falu, Babar, and hordes of others like them. She did not have to make her sister a minister and allow her two brothers to interfere in the army and in the national airlines, the Biman.
Not withstanding many differences (our tradition of democratic movement is stronger, people are far more aware of their rights, we have better social indicators, and our military today is far different from that of Pakistan and they are far more respectful of democracy and need for elected government than Pakistan army ever was), just as Pakistan looks forward to democracy, so do we. Just as in Pakistan where the two old parties, the PPP and the Muslim League, are set to resume their roles in politics, in Bangladesh, our two major parties, the Awami League and the BNP, are set to regain their dominance in our politics following the elections later this year. The question here is, just as in Pakistan, will our politicians rise to the occasion and play their patriotic and nation-building role so that the likelihood of military dictatorship is forever banished from our realm of possibility?
Musharraf’s gamble
Musharraf’s gamble
William B Milam
Source: Daily Times
August 20, 2008
Who is gambling on this saga ending as Casablanca did, with Rick feeling that he has done the right thing for a greater good, joining Renault who has sacrificed his security for the same greater good, walking into the sunset together to fight for a better world
Captain Renault’s celebrated exclamation, “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here,” has been used a lot recently, especially in articles about the implosion of financial markets in the US and Western Europe. Writers have been “shocked” they say to find that the great, and trusted, investment wizards have been gambling with the public’s money. The gamble really was that the housing bubble, the rapid escalation of house prices in the US and Europe would continue, and the shaky financial instruments on which the bubble was based, would persist in escaping close inspection, at least until the next bonuses were paid.
They didn’t, the bubble has burst, and so maybe have the bonuses.
Captain Renault, Chief of the French Police, wasn’t really shocked, however, about the gambling in “Rick’s Café Americain”, he just needed an excuse to close the café. Almost as soon as he blows his whistle and shouts that the café is closed, the croupier comes from the back room to give him his nightly winnings. Like most of us who have implicitly had a role in today’s financial market crunch by continuing to pour our investment money into a housing market we had to know was wildly overpriced, so the Captain was complicit in the gambling that he found, publicly, so shocking.
Movie fans have instantly recognised Renault’s famous line from the movie “Casablanca”, released in November 1942, about the same time that the US Army was invading Morocco and capturing Casablanca, putting German General Rommel in a pincer between them and the British forces that by then had pushed the German Afrika Korps back into Libya. The movie did moderately good business in the year following as the battles in North Africa raged — the first blooding of American troops in the European theatre in WWII.
Yet though unmarked as a classic 65 years ago, the movie has assumed that status over the intervening years as it has become an icon of all the nostalgia about the good war — delivering the message to American audiences that there are values worth the sacrifices that war requires. Somehow the film’s attraction has been magnified to younger generations, which have taken it to their hearts as its contemporaries never did. None of its stars or makers would have predicted in 1942 that, 65 years later, it would consistently be rated by fans and many critics near the top of the 100 best movies ever made.
One interesting fact about the movie is that it was, more or less, made on the run. Taken from an unproduced play, it had at least four screen writers that worked on it in addition to the two playwrights. To say the least, this was a team effort. The writers, not always working together, wrote new dialogue every night for the next day’s filming. Yet, haphazardly written or not, I know of no other movie dialogue that is recorded almost in its entirety on the internet, and which movie crowds at revivals shout out many of the lines as they are spoken. Most of us real movie fans can push mute button on the remote and speak most of the dialogue from memory.
Despite its ad hoc production, the film became a classic. This may have been why the news from Pakistan reminded me of it. Or it may have been because once the film came into my mind, I was reminded of Captain Renault’s phoney surprise that gambling was going on in Rick’s back room, and wondered if anybody was really surprised at the turn of events in Islamabad. There has been a lot of gambling going on in the political back rooms of Islamabad since February 18.
The president was, perhaps, gambling that he could count on the army as his leverage in the political tug-of-war that was waged over how to get rid of him. I have pointed out before that the army has other concerns than just personal loyalty to “one of its own”. Similar history in other countries never seems to register in Pakistan, but the lesson of what happened to President/ex-General Ershad in Bangladesh should have been instructive.
When the Bangladesh army perceived that its corporate interests were threatened and its image so badly tarnished by the excesses and mistakes of one of its own, it walked away and left him to his fate (jail). By the time the situation had come to that point, Ershad had no leverage left to insist on immunity.
In the last 18 months, the situation in Pakistan has paralleled in many ways Ershad’s last 18 months in power. Though more unpopular by far than President Musharraf in his early years in power, Ershad became increasingly unpopular in the final years, as Musharraf increasingly has since 9/11. The army’s popularity traced Ershad’s, to the point that troops and officers refused to wear their uniforms when leaving the cantonments because they were suffering public insults and even being spat on. When the leaders of the two major parties of Bangladesh, after 8 years of enmity that enabled Ershad to keep them divided, finally agreed on a one-point programme — get rid of Ershad — his only defence to the pressure the parties jointly mounted was an emergency which the army refused to support.
Musharraf’s final defence against the lawyers and the judges he sacked was the November 3 emergency (in essence a coup against his own government) which only got him and the army in more hot water. The question is, did President Musharraf still have enough leverage (i.e. army support) left to protect him from political reprisals in retirement or, like Ershad, did he gamble too long on that?
The news that he has announced retirement is just coming in as this is written, and it does not make clear if he is leaving office with any kind of immunity or other legal protection from his sworn political enemies. Whether he deserves to be left alone in retirement, or to be brought up on charges similar to those in the charge-sheet we have read about the past few days in the press, is a question better left to a time when the rhetoric and the passions have cooled down. He made many mistakes; that is certain.
One of them is the long, drawn-out drama — really part of each of our mornings since February 18 — that is just coming to denouement. Though retirement itself, rather that restoring the judges, only became the central issue in the past two weeks, it has been the bottom line issue since he was rejected in that election.
The president should have come to this point himself several months ago. Had he done so, I suspect there would be no question of his leverage. The army leaders, many of whom were his willing colleagues until late last year when he finally resigned as COAS, would have not wanted to leave him (and by implication, them) without protection from those political actors who might seek revenge for grievances they hold against either the direct military government of 1999 to 2002 or the military/civilian hybrid one after October 2002.
It seems to me his gamble got riskier as the impasse between the parties on restoring the judges went on — almost causing the government alliance to crumble.
For the army leaders in either case, the question is what happens to the political alliance that has unseated President Musharraf after he is gone to his farm with immunity and the protection he will need or somewhere without immunity. Who is gambling on this saga ending as Casablanca did, with Rick feeling that he has done the right thing for a greater good, joining Renault who has sacrificed his security for the same greater good, walking into the sunset together to fight for a better world.
What are the odds on the PMLN saying to the PPP, as Rick says to Renault as they walk out of view, “...this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship?” Is it likely that two parties which seem to agree on nothing else, which couldn’t even find a compromise formula to restore some, if not all, of the judges and begin to restore the judiciary’s independence set out in the constitution of 1973 (eroded by both parties when they were in power since then) will come to anything like the same conclusion?
The President’s departure was necessary for political progress, but I doubt it will be sufficient for Pakistan to overcome its existential crisis.
______________
William B Milam is a senior policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Centre in Washington and a former US Ambassador to Pakistan and Bangladesh
William B Milam
Source: Daily Times
August 20, 2008
Who is gambling on this saga ending as Casablanca did, with Rick feeling that he has done the right thing for a greater good, joining Renault who has sacrificed his security for the same greater good, walking into the sunset together to fight for a better world
Captain Renault’s celebrated exclamation, “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here,” has been used a lot recently, especially in articles about the implosion of financial markets in the US and Western Europe. Writers have been “shocked” they say to find that the great, and trusted, investment wizards have been gambling with the public’s money. The gamble really was that the housing bubble, the rapid escalation of house prices in the US and Europe would continue, and the shaky financial instruments on which the bubble was based, would persist in escaping close inspection, at least until the next bonuses were paid.
They didn’t, the bubble has burst, and so maybe have the bonuses.
Captain Renault, Chief of the French Police, wasn’t really shocked, however, about the gambling in “Rick’s Café Americain”, he just needed an excuse to close the café. Almost as soon as he blows his whistle and shouts that the café is closed, the croupier comes from the back room to give him his nightly winnings. Like most of us who have implicitly had a role in today’s financial market crunch by continuing to pour our investment money into a housing market we had to know was wildly overpriced, so the Captain was complicit in the gambling that he found, publicly, so shocking.
Movie fans have instantly recognised Renault’s famous line from the movie “Casablanca”, released in November 1942, about the same time that the US Army was invading Morocco and capturing Casablanca, putting German General Rommel in a pincer between them and the British forces that by then had pushed the German Afrika Korps back into Libya. The movie did moderately good business in the year following as the battles in North Africa raged — the first blooding of American troops in the European theatre in WWII.
Yet though unmarked as a classic 65 years ago, the movie has assumed that status over the intervening years as it has become an icon of all the nostalgia about the good war — delivering the message to American audiences that there are values worth the sacrifices that war requires. Somehow the film’s attraction has been magnified to younger generations, which have taken it to their hearts as its contemporaries never did. None of its stars or makers would have predicted in 1942 that, 65 years later, it would consistently be rated by fans and many critics near the top of the 100 best movies ever made.
One interesting fact about the movie is that it was, more or less, made on the run. Taken from an unproduced play, it had at least four screen writers that worked on it in addition to the two playwrights. To say the least, this was a team effort. The writers, not always working together, wrote new dialogue every night for the next day’s filming. Yet, haphazardly written or not, I know of no other movie dialogue that is recorded almost in its entirety on the internet, and which movie crowds at revivals shout out many of the lines as they are spoken. Most of us real movie fans can push mute button on the remote and speak most of the dialogue from memory.
Despite its ad hoc production, the film became a classic. This may have been why the news from Pakistan reminded me of it. Or it may have been because once the film came into my mind, I was reminded of Captain Renault’s phoney surprise that gambling was going on in Rick’s back room, and wondered if anybody was really surprised at the turn of events in Islamabad. There has been a lot of gambling going on in the political back rooms of Islamabad since February 18.
The president was, perhaps, gambling that he could count on the army as his leverage in the political tug-of-war that was waged over how to get rid of him. I have pointed out before that the army has other concerns than just personal loyalty to “one of its own”. Similar history in other countries never seems to register in Pakistan, but the lesson of what happened to President/ex-General Ershad in Bangladesh should have been instructive.
When the Bangladesh army perceived that its corporate interests were threatened and its image so badly tarnished by the excesses and mistakes of one of its own, it walked away and left him to his fate (jail). By the time the situation had come to that point, Ershad had no leverage left to insist on immunity.
In the last 18 months, the situation in Pakistan has paralleled in many ways Ershad’s last 18 months in power. Though more unpopular by far than President Musharraf in his early years in power, Ershad became increasingly unpopular in the final years, as Musharraf increasingly has since 9/11. The army’s popularity traced Ershad’s, to the point that troops and officers refused to wear their uniforms when leaving the cantonments because they were suffering public insults and even being spat on. When the leaders of the two major parties of Bangladesh, after 8 years of enmity that enabled Ershad to keep them divided, finally agreed on a one-point programme — get rid of Ershad — his only defence to the pressure the parties jointly mounted was an emergency which the army refused to support.
Musharraf’s final defence against the lawyers and the judges he sacked was the November 3 emergency (in essence a coup against his own government) which only got him and the army in more hot water. The question is, did President Musharraf still have enough leverage (i.e. army support) left to protect him from political reprisals in retirement or, like Ershad, did he gamble too long on that?
The news that he has announced retirement is just coming in as this is written, and it does not make clear if he is leaving office with any kind of immunity or other legal protection from his sworn political enemies. Whether he deserves to be left alone in retirement, or to be brought up on charges similar to those in the charge-sheet we have read about the past few days in the press, is a question better left to a time when the rhetoric and the passions have cooled down. He made many mistakes; that is certain.
One of them is the long, drawn-out drama — really part of each of our mornings since February 18 — that is just coming to denouement. Though retirement itself, rather that restoring the judges, only became the central issue in the past two weeks, it has been the bottom line issue since he was rejected in that election.
The president should have come to this point himself several months ago. Had he done so, I suspect there would be no question of his leverage. The army leaders, many of whom were his willing colleagues until late last year when he finally resigned as COAS, would have not wanted to leave him (and by implication, them) without protection from those political actors who might seek revenge for grievances they hold against either the direct military government of 1999 to 2002 or the military/civilian hybrid one after October 2002.
It seems to me his gamble got riskier as the impasse between the parties on restoring the judges went on — almost causing the government alliance to crumble.
For the army leaders in either case, the question is what happens to the political alliance that has unseated President Musharraf after he is gone to his farm with immunity and the protection he will need or somewhere without immunity. Who is gambling on this saga ending as Casablanca did, with Rick feeling that he has done the right thing for a greater good, joining Renault who has sacrificed his security for the same greater good, walking into the sunset together to fight for a better world.
What are the odds on the PMLN saying to the PPP, as Rick says to Renault as they walk out of view, “...this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship?” Is it likely that two parties which seem to agree on nothing else, which couldn’t even find a compromise formula to restore some, if not all, of the judges and begin to restore the judiciary’s independence set out in the constitution of 1973 (eroded by both parties when they were in power since then) will come to anything like the same conclusion?
The President’s departure was necessary for political progress, but I doubt it will be sufficient for Pakistan to overcome its existential crisis.
______________
William B Milam is a senior policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Centre in Washington and a former US Ambassador to Pakistan and Bangladesh
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Democracy in South Asia
Democracy in South Asia
Jayshree Bajoria
Source: Council on Foreign Relations
August 18, 2008
Recent elections in Bhutan, Pakistan, and Nepal signal a move toward greater democracy in South Asia. But the region continues to be torn by conflict and remains vulnerable to military interventions in politics, corruption in government, and terrorism.
Security remains a prominent issue in most countries in the region. Pakistan has often been called the world's most dangerous place (Economist), with numerous homegrown and foreign militant groups ensconced in its tribal areas along the Afghan border. Although February elections were hailed as a triumph of democracy after eight years of military rule, the parties returning to power earned venal reputations during previous stints in power. And since then, serious political differences have divided the main parties in the coalition. Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation believes the political maneuvering in Islamabad is distracting the Pakistani government from dealing with growing militancy in the tribal areas.
India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Bangladesh each have long histories of multiparty electoral democracy; however, a few families have dominated political life in all of them. Boston Globe columnist H. D. S. Greenway writes that political parties in the region "often come to be seen as reflecting the will of one powerful personality whose successors view the party as their personal property."
U.S. policy ensures a focus on Pakistan, but its neighbors share many of its ills. India, as the recent spate of bombings in its major cities have shown, remains prone to terrorist attacks. The Sri Lankan state has been fighting a war with the separatist guerilla group known as the Tamil Tigers for over two decades, resulting in high incidence of civilian casualties and numerous human rights violations. Nepal, too, was engaged in a decade-long civil war with Maoist separatists until peace was reached in 2006. After a historic election in April, the country abolished its monarchy, but Kathmandu remains mired in political infighting. The uncertain fate of the 23,000 guerilla fighters of its People's Liberation Army adds to the fragility of the peace process.
Relations between South Asia's democracies also remain strained. India, the largest country in the region and its longest functioning democracy, has ethnic populations that overlap with most of its neighbors. This has led to disputes over borders, frustrations over illegal immigration, and allegations of fueling terrorism in each other's countries. While India charges the Pakistani army and Islamabad's intelligence services have harbored militants to fuel insurgency in Kashmir, Sri Lanka has suffered from India's support to the Tamil Tigers in the past. More recently, India has also blamed Bangladesh-based terrorists for bomb attacks and continues to fear that Nepal's Maoists are strengthening its own homegrown Naxalites.
Such instability has provided rationalization for the countries in the region to keep large armies, which, in turn, have undermined democracy. Elected governments in both Pakistan and Bangladesh have frequently been usurped by military coups. Widespread political corruption and increased instability often lend legitimacy to military rule as a better alternative in these nations. In Sri Lanka, the government employs the security forces to use strong-arm tactics against separatists. Human Rights Watch says the government security forces are implicated in extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, restriction of media freedoms, and widespread impunity for serious human rights violations. The Indian government has also been targeted by human rights groups for arming militias (BBC), including children, to fight Naxalites in the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh. The South Asia Human Rights Index 2008, published by the Asian Center for Human Rights, lists Sri Lanka as the worst violator but underlines that "all countries in the region have very poor records."
Jayshree Bajoria
Source: Council on Foreign Relations
August 18, 2008
Recent elections in Bhutan, Pakistan, and Nepal signal a move toward greater democracy in South Asia. But the region continues to be torn by conflict and remains vulnerable to military interventions in politics, corruption in government, and terrorism.
Security remains a prominent issue in most countries in the region. Pakistan has often been called the world's most dangerous place (Economist), with numerous homegrown and foreign militant groups ensconced in its tribal areas along the Afghan border. Although February elections were hailed as a triumph of democracy after eight years of military rule, the parties returning to power earned venal reputations during previous stints in power. And since then, serious political differences have divided the main parties in the coalition. Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation believes the political maneuvering in Islamabad is distracting the Pakistani government from dealing with growing militancy in the tribal areas.
India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Bangladesh each have long histories of multiparty electoral democracy; however, a few families have dominated political life in all of them. Boston Globe columnist H. D. S. Greenway writes that political parties in the region "often come to be seen as reflecting the will of one powerful personality whose successors view the party as their personal property."
U.S. policy ensures a focus on Pakistan, but its neighbors share many of its ills. India, as the recent spate of bombings in its major cities have shown, remains prone to terrorist attacks. The Sri Lankan state has been fighting a war with the separatist guerilla group known as the Tamil Tigers for over two decades, resulting in high incidence of civilian casualties and numerous human rights violations. Nepal, too, was engaged in a decade-long civil war with Maoist separatists until peace was reached in 2006. After a historic election in April, the country abolished its monarchy, but Kathmandu remains mired in political infighting. The uncertain fate of the 23,000 guerilla fighters of its People's Liberation Army adds to the fragility of the peace process.
Relations between South Asia's democracies also remain strained. India, the largest country in the region and its longest functioning democracy, has ethnic populations that overlap with most of its neighbors. This has led to disputes over borders, frustrations over illegal immigration, and allegations of fueling terrorism in each other's countries. While India charges the Pakistani army and Islamabad's intelligence services have harbored militants to fuel insurgency in Kashmir, Sri Lanka has suffered from India's support to the Tamil Tigers in the past. More recently, India has also blamed Bangladesh-based terrorists for bomb attacks and continues to fear that Nepal's Maoists are strengthening its own homegrown Naxalites.
Such instability has provided rationalization for the countries in the region to keep large armies, which, in turn, have undermined democracy. Elected governments in both Pakistan and Bangladesh have frequently been usurped by military coups. Widespread political corruption and increased instability often lend legitimacy to military rule as a better alternative in these nations. In Sri Lanka, the government employs the security forces to use strong-arm tactics against separatists. Human Rights Watch says the government security forces are implicated in extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, restriction of media freedoms, and widespread impunity for serious human rights violations. The Indian government has also been targeted by human rights groups for arming militias (BBC), including children, to fight Naxalites in the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh. The South Asia Human Rights Index 2008, published by the Asian Center for Human Rights, lists Sri Lanka as the worst violator but underlines that "all countries in the region have very poor records."
Old trick in new package
Old trick in new package
Source: New Age Editorial
August 19, 2008
The military-controlled interim government’s decision to set up a special police intelligence unit to monitor and report on the activities of the political parties is, we believe, its latest attempt at political engineering although the incumbents have claimed that it is aimed at helping the law-enforcement agencies to maintain public order. The decision indicates that the current regime is still busy trying to find ways to harass political parties and activists, undermine the political process, and redraw the political landscape to suit itself. We also agree with several high-profile politicians from different parties who have suggested that this decision pushes us further towards a ‘police state’.
The national security and intelligence agencies of our country have long been used by elected as well as unelected governments to monitor and report on political activities of rival camps, with a view to unduly clinging to power. At a time when our country needed to have moved away from such practices for the sake of democratic growth, the setting up of a Political Intelligence Operation will now formalise the spying on the politicians by the government’s law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. This is not only absolutely unacceptable but is deeply troubling as well.
Since the current regime’s assumption of power in January of last year, it has seemingly tried to redraw the political landscape through overt and covert attempts at political engineering. For example, there have been repeated attempts by this regime at implementing the ‘minus-two’ plan of politically neutralising Awami League president Sheikh Hasina and Bangladesh Nationalist Party chairperson Khaleda Zia in addition to the apparent efforts to fracture the Awami League and the BNP and to promote alternative leadership within these parties. Even the Election Commission got in on the act late last year when it recognised a splinter faction of the BNP as the party’s mainstream faction and invited it for formal dialogue. Moreover, we have witnessed, with growing disillusionment, the government’s much-hyped anti-corruption campaign be reduced to a mere political tool. We have also heard loud murmurs by those close to the regime about plans for a National Security Council, which, in our opinion, would do nothing more than formalise a role for the country’s armed forces in the running of the state. All these actions, we feel, have complicated the political process and made our democratic quest more difficult.
Against this backdrop, we cannot but be wary of the government’s decision to set up a separate intelligence unit to spy on political leaders and activities, that too only a few months prior to the promised general elections to the ninth parliament. The decision, as already hinted by the politicians, will further complicate the situation. Our recommendations to this regime, therefore, are that it should abandon plans for a Political Intelligence Operation, lift the state of emergency, allow full political activity that is within the bounds of the law, and devote its energy to creating grounds for credible and participatory general elections to be held.
Source: New Age Editorial
August 19, 2008
The military-controlled interim government’s decision to set up a special police intelligence unit to monitor and report on the activities of the political parties is, we believe, its latest attempt at political engineering although the incumbents have claimed that it is aimed at helping the law-enforcement agencies to maintain public order. The decision indicates that the current regime is still busy trying to find ways to harass political parties and activists, undermine the political process, and redraw the political landscape to suit itself. We also agree with several high-profile politicians from different parties who have suggested that this decision pushes us further towards a ‘police state’.
The national security and intelligence agencies of our country have long been used by elected as well as unelected governments to monitor and report on political activities of rival camps, with a view to unduly clinging to power. At a time when our country needed to have moved away from such practices for the sake of democratic growth, the setting up of a Political Intelligence Operation will now formalise the spying on the politicians by the government’s law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. This is not only absolutely unacceptable but is deeply troubling as well.
Since the current regime’s assumption of power in January of last year, it has seemingly tried to redraw the political landscape through overt and covert attempts at political engineering. For example, there have been repeated attempts by this regime at implementing the ‘minus-two’ plan of politically neutralising Awami League president Sheikh Hasina and Bangladesh Nationalist Party chairperson Khaleda Zia in addition to the apparent efforts to fracture the Awami League and the BNP and to promote alternative leadership within these parties. Even the Election Commission got in on the act late last year when it recognised a splinter faction of the BNP as the party’s mainstream faction and invited it for formal dialogue. Moreover, we have witnessed, with growing disillusionment, the government’s much-hyped anti-corruption campaign be reduced to a mere political tool. We have also heard loud murmurs by those close to the regime about plans for a National Security Council, which, in our opinion, would do nothing more than formalise a role for the country’s armed forces in the running of the state. All these actions, we feel, have complicated the political process and made our democratic quest more difficult.
Against this backdrop, we cannot but be wary of the government’s decision to set up a separate intelligence unit to spy on political leaders and activities, that too only a few months prior to the promised general elections to the ninth parliament. The decision, as already hinted by the politicians, will further complicate the situation. Our recommendations to this regime, therefore, are that it should abandon plans for a Political Intelligence Operation, lift the state of emergency, allow full political activity that is within the bounds of the law, and devote its energy to creating grounds for credible and participatory general elections to be held.
New DMP branch to police political parties
New DMP branch to police political parties
AL, BNP deem it a move to harass leaders, activists
Source: Daily Star
August 18, 2008
Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) has launched a new intelligence wing recently to gather information in advance about the activities of different political parties and their front organisations.
Two major political parties--the Awami League (AL) and BNP--said the new intelligence wing has been set up to harass political party leaders and activists.
DMP Commissioner Naim Ahmed, however, said the objective of the Political Intelligence Office (PIO) is not to harass anyone; it is rather to collect information about any incident quickly so that the police can take preventive measures before it escalates into something bigger which may become difficult to handle.
Police sources said after collecting information the PIO will inform the deputy commissioners' offices of the area concerned about the matter.
The PIO will be given the responsibility of collecting details of leaders and activists of different political parties and their front organisations and make a database with the collected data. The PIO will also prepare analytical reports on important political matters.
It has already started gathering information on political agitations, student unrests and violence in garment factories in coordination with Special Branch (SB) of Police in Dhaka.
The PIO has been set up with a specialised team of officials from the Detective Branch (DB) of Police. Deputy Commissioner of South Zone DB Awlad Hossain will supervise the team led by an assistant commissioner of DB.
DB sources said DMP Commissioner Naim Ahmed in an order dated August 12 set up the PIO. Initially, five officials led by an assistant commissioner are working to figure out the PIO's modus operandi.
"The PIO has been set up so that we can get information on any kind of political and other agitations as those initiate and before those spread," DB Deputy Commissioner Awalad Hossain told The Daily Star.
He said, "If we can get any information in advance, we will be able to take preventive measures before the small incident escalates into something big."
DMP Commissioner Naim Ahmed told BBC Bangla Service yesterday that he has set up the PIO under Dhaka Metropolitan Police Rules, 2006.
REACTION
Major political parties, meantime, termed the move illogical and anti-democratic.
Awami League presidium member Motia Chowdhury said it is a ploy to control politics even further and turn the country into a police state.
She said when the government cannot maintain law and order and give people security, it wants to let loose the police on the political parties.
Terming the move illogical, BNP chairperson's adviser Brig Gen (retd) ASM Hannan Shah said the police department should open a new wing to improve the deteriorating law and order instead of snooping on political parties.
"No civilised society has such practices. It is immoral of the present caretaker government. All including the civil society should protest it," he told The Daily Star.
Jatiya Party (JP) acting chairman barrister Anisul Islam Mahmud said no political party would welcome the move.
"It won't be right to engage the police in gathering intelligence on political parties when there is a normal process of collecting information for maintaining law and order," he said.
"Covert surveillance by the police on political parties and political activities is against democratic principles and practices," said Workers' Party President Rahsed Khan Menon.
"I see no reason to launch it," he said.
Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD) President Hasanul Haque Inu said the government should instead increase the competence and manpower of traditional intelligence agencies.
"The intention to spy on political parties is bad," Inu said.
AL, BNP deem it a move to harass leaders, activists
Source: Daily Star
August 18, 2008
Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) has launched a new intelligence wing recently to gather information in advance about the activities of different political parties and their front organisations.
Two major political parties--the Awami League (AL) and BNP--said the new intelligence wing has been set up to harass political party leaders and activists.
DMP Commissioner Naim Ahmed, however, said the objective of the Political Intelligence Office (PIO) is not to harass anyone; it is rather to collect information about any incident quickly so that the police can take preventive measures before it escalates into something bigger which may become difficult to handle.
Police sources said after collecting information the PIO will inform the deputy commissioners' offices of the area concerned about the matter.
The PIO will be given the responsibility of collecting details of leaders and activists of different political parties and their front organisations and make a database with the collected data. The PIO will also prepare analytical reports on important political matters.
It has already started gathering information on political agitations, student unrests and violence in garment factories in coordination with Special Branch (SB) of Police in Dhaka.
The PIO has been set up with a specialised team of officials from the Detective Branch (DB) of Police. Deputy Commissioner of South Zone DB Awlad Hossain will supervise the team led by an assistant commissioner of DB.
DB sources said DMP Commissioner Naim Ahmed in an order dated August 12 set up the PIO. Initially, five officials led by an assistant commissioner are working to figure out the PIO's modus operandi.
"The PIO has been set up so that we can get information on any kind of political and other agitations as those initiate and before those spread," DB Deputy Commissioner Awalad Hossain told The Daily Star.
He said, "If we can get any information in advance, we will be able to take preventive measures before the small incident escalates into something big."
DMP Commissioner Naim Ahmed told BBC Bangla Service yesterday that he has set up the PIO under Dhaka Metropolitan Police Rules, 2006.
REACTION
Major political parties, meantime, termed the move illogical and anti-democratic.
Awami League presidium member Motia Chowdhury said it is a ploy to control politics even further and turn the country into a police state.
She said when the government cannot maintain law and order and give people security, it wants to let loose the police on the political parties.
Terming the move illogical, BNP chairperson's adviser Brig Gen (retd) ASM Hannan Shah said the police department should open a new wing to improve the deteriorating law and order instead of snooping on political parties.
"No civilised society has such practices. It is immoral of the present caretaker government. All including the civil society should protest it," he told The Daily Star.
Jatiya Party (JP) acting chairman barrister Anisul Islam Mahmud said no political party would welcome the move.
"It won't be right to engage the police in gathering intelligence on political parties when there is a normal process of collecting information for maintaining law and order," he said.
"Covert surveillance by the police on political parties and political activities is against democratic principles and practices," said Workers' Party President Rahsed Khan Menon.
"I see no reason to launch it," he said.
Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD) President Hasanul Haque Inu said the government should instead increase the competence and manpower of traditional intelligence agencies.
"The intention to spy on political parties is bad," Inu said.
4 military dictators among 14 heads of state so far
4 military dictators among 14 heads of state so far
By Hasan Ali
Source: Daily Times
August 19, 2008
LAHORE: In its 61 years’ history, Pakistan has witnessed 14 heads of state including four governors general and ten presidents, out of whom four were military dictators and ten civilians.
Pakistan has remained under military rule for 33 years, and civilian rule for 28 years.
The first governor general of Pakistan was Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Following his death on September 11, 1948, Khawaja Nazimuddin became the second governor general of the country on September 14, 1948. After the assassination of then prime minister Liaqat Ali Khan he resigned from the post of president in October 1951 and became the new prime minister of Pakistan.
On October 19, 1951, the third governor general of Pakistan Malik Ghulam Muhammad took oath as head of state. He forced Nazimuddin to resign from office and when the latter refused to do so he dismissed him from his post in 1953. Ghulam Muhammad appointed Muhammad Ali Bogra as the new PM, but in 1954 he dismissed Bogra as well, citing his unsatisfactory performance.
Ghulam Muhammad took leave of absence on August 7, 1955. The acting governor general Iskander Mirza dismissed him. Mirza took oath as the fourth governor general of Pakistan on October 7, 1955. In 1956, Pakistan promulgated its first constitution. The president replaced the governor general as head of state. Mirza was elected as president.
In 1958, army chief General Ayub Khan declared the first martial law in the country on October 7, 1958. Ayub took oath as president on October 27, 1958. On June 8, 1962, martial law was lifted and a new constitution was introduced.
On March 25, 1969, he resigned and handed over power to the commander-in-chief of Pakistan Army, General Yahya Khan, who became president of Pakistan on the same day. In 1970 he held general elections, but just after the elections India attacked Pakistan. Bangladesh was established as an independent republic. Most of the blame was heaped on Yahya and on December 20, 1971 he hastily surrendered his powers to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Bhutto took oath as president of Pakistan on December 20, 1971 and remained the head of the state till August 14, 1973. The military took control of government under General Muhammad Ziaul Haq in 1978.
Zia took the president’s oath on September 16, 1978. He later had Bhutto executed. Zia initially ruled for a year as martial law administrator, and later assumed the post of president of Pakistan. He died in an aircraft crash near Bahawalpur on August 17, 1988.
Chairman of Senate Ghulam Ishaq Khan became the acting president and was formally elected to the position in December 1988. He remained president until 1993. In 1993, with the support of the Pakistan People’s Party, Farooq Leghari won the presidential election against Wasim Sajjad. In November 1996, utilising his powers under Article 58(2b) of the constitution of Pakistan, Leghari dismissed the PPP government of Benazir Bhutto. He remained president till December 2, 1997.
Justice (r) Muhammad Rafiq Tarar took oath as the 11th president of Pakistan on January 1, 1998. Tarar was mostly a figurehead. He was not removed from office when General Pervez Musharraf seized control of government in 1999.
In 1999, General Pervez Musharraf deposed the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif and served the country as chief executive till 2001. He formally became the president on June 20, 2001 as a result of a referendum. On November 3, 2007, Musharraf declared emergency in the country. However, he retired from the military on November 28, 2007. Musharraf remained the president of Pakistan for nine months after taking off his uniform. He resigned on August 18, 2008 after the ruling coalition decided to impeach him.
By Hasan Ali
Source: Daily Times
August 19, 2008
LAHORE: In its 61 years’ history, Pakistan has witnessed 14 heads of state including four governors general and ten presidents, out of whom four were military dictators and ten civilians.
Pakistan has remained under military rule for 33 years, and civilian rule for 28 years.
The first governor general of Pakistan was Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Following his death on September 11, 1948, Khawaja Nazimuddin became the second governor general of the country on September 14, 1948. After the assassination of then prime minister Liaqat Ali Khan he resigned from the post of president in October 1951 and became the new prime minister of Pakistan.
On October 19, 1951, the third governor general of Pakistan Malik Ghulam Muhammad took oath as head of state. He forced Nazimuddin to resign from office and when the latter refused to do so he dismissed him from his post in 1953. Ghulam Muhammad appointed Muhammad Ali Bogra as the new PM, but in 1954 he dismissed Bogra as well, citing his unsatisfactory performance.
Ghulam Muhammad took leave of absence on August 7, 1955. The acting governor general Iskander Mirza dismissed him. Mirza took oath as the fourth governor general of Pakistan on October 7, 1955. In 1956, Pakistan promulgated its first constitution. The president replaced the governor general as head of state. Mirza was elected as president.
In 1958, army chief General Ayub Khan declared the first martial law in the country on October 7, 1958. Ayub took oath as president on October 27, 1958. On June 8, 1962, martial law was lifted and a new constitution was introduced.
On March 25, 1969, he resigned and handed over power to the commander-in-chief of Pakistan Army, General Yahya Khan, who became president of Pakistan on the same day. In 1970 he held general elections, but just after the elections India attacked Pakistan. Bangladesh was established as an independent republic. Most of the blame was heaped on Yahya and on December 20, 1971 he hastily surrendered his powers to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Bhutto took oath as president of Pakistan on December 20, 1971 and remained the head of the state till August 14, 1973. The military took control of government under General Muhammad Ziaul Haq in 1978.
Zia took the president’s oath on September 16, 1978. He later had Bhutto executed. Zia initially ruled for a year as martial law administrator, and later assumed the post of president of Pakistan. He died in an aircraft crash near Bahawalpur on August 17, 1988.
Chairman of Senate Ghulam Ishaq Khan became the acting president and was formally elected to the position in December 1988. He remained president until 1993. In 1993, with the support of the Pakistan People’s Party, Farooq Leghari won the presidential election against Wasim Sajjad. In November 1996, utilising his powers under Article 58(2b) of the constitution of Pakistan, Leghari dismissed the PPP government of Benazir Bhutto. He remained president till December 2, 1997.
Justice (r) Muhammad Rafiq Tarar took oath as the 11th president of Pakistan on January 1, 1998. Tarar was mostly a figurehead. He was not removed from office when General Pervez Musharraf seized control of government in 1999.
In 1999, General Pervez Musharraf deposed the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif and served the country as chief executive till 2001. He formally became the president on June 20, 2001 as a result of a referendum. On November 3, 2007, Musharraf declared emergency in the country. However, he retired from the military on November 28, 2007. Musharraf remained the president of Pakistan for nine months after taking off his uniform. He resigned on August 18, 2008 after the ruling coalition decided to impeach him.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Bangabandhu trial lingers on and on
Dhaka, Aug 14 (bdnews24.com) – The Supreme Court is not sitting anytime soon to hear the appeal against the death verdict in the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman murder case trial as it is hamstrung by a lack of judges.
It has been a year since the highest court of the country accepted petitions by the five death convicts for a review of the High Court verdict.
The trial court handed down ruling in the case in 1998 and the High Court gave its verdict in 2001.
The trial hit snags as three of the five judges who sit on the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court are unable to hear the appeals for varied reasons, which means another judge is needed to start the hearing.
The appeals hearing can start only with the appointment of a new judge, either on a permanent or ad-hoc basis.
Independence leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was killed with much of his family by some disgruntled military officers on August 15, 1975 and the case was filed 21 years after the assassination that shook the nation to the core and changed the political landscape forever.
Proceedings in the trial court were tediously protracted because of different reasons including sickness of judges and the trial being challenged in the High Court. And then the hearing of appeals in the High Court was delayed as several judges felt embarrassed in the High Court.
Six judges of the High Court Division and the Appellate Division felt embarrassed to hear the case.
A three-strong bench was formed on August 2 last year to hear the petition by the convicts to file an appeal against the High Court verdict. The bench made of Justice Tafazzal Islam, Justice Zainal Abedin and Justice Md Hasan Amin started hearing on Aug 7 last year.
After hearing for 25 workdays the Appellate Division on September 23 last year agreed to hear a regular appeal by the five death convicts. It ordered the defence to prepare a paper book by October 30 that year and submit it, which they did. Since then a good year has gone by without the hearing resuming.
The trial of Bangabandhu murder case will not come full circle until the court disposes of the appeal,
Special counsel of the prosecution in the case, advocate Anisul Haq, explained the delay to bdnews24.com a day before the state officially mourns after a six-year break.
There had been a lot of progress in the appeals hearing since 2007. Unfortunately, he said, there are not sufficient judges now in the Appellate Division to hear the appeal.
There are five judges in the Appellate Division and at least three judges are required for hearing the appeal. But the incumbent chief justice, MM Ruhul Amin, and Justice MA Matin had felt embarrassed to hear the case during their stint as High Court judges.
The other judge, Mohammad Fazlul Karim, had given the verdict in the case as the third High Court judge. It means these three judges have to be counted out from the appeals hearing .
Only Justice Tafazzal Islam and Justice Zainal Abedin can hear the appeal given the current composition of the highest appeals court, Haq added.
"We hope the two vacant posts in the Appellate Division will be filled out soon. Once the Appellate Division gets the necessary number of judges we'll appeal to it to hear the appeal."
Convict Sultan Shahriar Rashid Khan's counsel Abdur Rezzak Khan told bdnews24.com, "The hearing on the appeal of the case can be held by ad-hoc appointment of judges."
"Important legal questions are involved with this case. So a bigger bench with a greater number of judges should hear the appeal."
Convict major (retd) Bazlul Huda and major (retd) AKM Mohiuddin Ahmed's counsel barrister Abdullah Al Mamun said, "Bangabandhu murder case trial should end. The hearing on the appeal can start with the intervention of the chief justice."
After the murder of Sheikh Mujib, as he is generally called, no-one was allowed to file a case. The government of Khandker Mustaque Ahmed that was installed after the military putsch passed an ordinance in November that year indemnifying the perpetrators and closing the door on the possibility of a trial.
The Awami League government revoked the indemnity ordinance in 1996 and cleared the way for that trial.
After 21 years of the killing, the then president Sheikh Mujib's personal assistant Muhitul Islam on October 2, 1996 filed a case with Dhanmondi Police Station against 20 persons.
On November 8, 1998 Dhaka sessions judge Golam Rasul awarded death sentence to 15 of the 20 accused persons. Four jailed accused major (retd) Bazlul Huda, lt col (sacked) Syed Faruk Rahman, lt col (retd) Sultan Shahriar Rashid Khan and lt col (red) Mohiuddin Ahmed appealed in the High Court against the trial court verdict.
On December 14, 2000 the High Court gave a split verdict in the case: Justice Md Ruhul Amin upheld death sentence of 10 accused but Justice ABM Khairul Haque upheld death sentence of 15 accused.
On April 30, 2001 Justice Mohammad Fazlul Karim of the High Court's third bench upheld death sentence of 12 accused persons and acquitted three.
Of the 12 death convicts, four jailed accused submitted leave to appeal in the Appellate Division in the same year.
Another death convict, lancer AKM Mohiuddin, made an appeal from jail after he was deported from the United States on June 18 last year.
Of those having received death sentence, Rashid, lt col Shariful Haq Dalim, lt col Noor, Risalder Moslemuddin, lt col Rashed Chowdhury and col Majed are absconding.
Absconding accused Aziz Pasha died in Zimbabwe.
It has been a year since the highest court of the country accepted petitions by the five death convicts for a review of the High Court verdict.
The trial court handed down ruling in the case in 1998 and the High Court gave its verdict in 2001.
The trial hit snags as three of the five judges who sit on the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court are unable to hear the appeals for varied reasons, which means another judge is needed to start the hearing.
The appeals hearing can start only with the appointment of a new judge, either on a permanent or ad-hoc basis.
Independence leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was killed with much of his family by some disgruntled military officers on August 15, 1975 and the case was filed 21 years after the assassination that shook the nation to the core and changed the political landscape forever.
Proceedings in the trial court were tediously protracted because of different reasons including sickness of judges and the trial being challenged in the High Court. And then the hearing of appeals in the High Court was delayed as several judges felt embarrassed in the High Court.
Six judges of the High Court Division and the Appellate Division felt embarrassed to hear the case.
A three-strong bench was formed on August 2 last year to hear the petition by the convicts to file an appeal against the High Court verdict. The bench made of Justice Tafazzal Islam, Justice Zainal Abedin and Justice Md Hasan Amin started hearing on Aug 7 last year.
After hearing for 25 workdays the Appellate Division on September 23 last year agreed to hear a regular appeal by the five death convicts. It ordered the defence to prepare a paper book by October 30 that year and submit it, which they did. Since then a good year has gone by without the hearing resuming.
The trial of Bangabandhu murder case will not come full circle until the court disposes of the appeal,
Special counsel of the prosecution in the case, advocate Anisul Haq, explained the delay to bdnews24.com a day before the state officially mourns after a six-year break.
There had been a lot of progress in the appeals hearing since 2007. Unfortunately, he said, there are not sufficient judges now in the Appellate Division to hear the appeal.
There are five judges in the Appellate Division and at least three judges are required for hearing the appeal. But the incumbent chief justice, MM Ruhul Amin, and Justice MA Matin had felt embarrassed to hear the case during their stint as High Court judges.
The other judge, Mohammad Fazlul Karim, had given the verdict in the case as the third High Court judge. It means these three judges have to be counted out from the appeals hearing .
Only Justice Tafazzal Islam and Justice Zainal Abedin can hear the appeal given the current composition of the highest appeals court, Haq added.
"We hope the two vacant posts in the Appellate Division will be filled out soon. Once the Appellate Division gets the necessary number of judges we'll appeal to it to hear the appeal."
Convict Sultan Shahriar Rashid Khan's counsel Abdur Rezzak Khan told bdnews24.com, "The hearing on the appeal of the case can be held by ad-hoc appointment of judges."
"Important legal questions are involved with this case. So a bigger bench with a greater number of judges should hear the appeal."
Convict major (retd) Bazlul Huda and major (retd) AKM Mohiuddin Ahmed's counsel barrister Abdullah Al Mamun said, "Bangabandhu murder case trial should end. The hearing on the appeal can start with the intervention of the chief justice."
After the murder of Sheikh Mujib, as he is generally called, no-one was allowed to file a case. The government of Khandker Mustaque Ahmed that was installed after the military putsch passed an ordinance in November that year indemnifying the perpetrators and closing the door on the possibility of a trial.
The Awami League government revoked the indemnity ordinance in 1996 and cleared the way for that trial.
After 21 years of the killing, the then president Sheikh Mujib's personal assistant Muhitul Islam on October 2, 1996 filed a case with Dhanmondi Police Station against 20 persons.
On November 8, 1998 Dhaka sessions judge Golam Rasul awarded death sentence to 15 of the 20 accused persons. Four jailed accused major (retd) Bazlul Huda, lt col (sacked) Syed Faruk Rahman, lt col (retd) Sultan Shahriar Rashid Khan and lt col (red) Mohiuddin Ahmed appealed in the High Court against the trial court verdict.
On December 14, 2000 the High Court gave a split verdict in the case: Justice Md Ruhul Amin upheld death sentence of 10 accused but Justice ABM Khairul Haque upheld death sentence of 15 accused.
On April 30, 2001 Justice Mohammad Fazlul Karim of the High Court's third bench upheld death sentence of 12 accused persons and acquitted three.
Of the 12 death convicts, four jailed accused submitted leave to appeal in the Appellate Division in the same year.
Another death convict, lancer AKM Mohiuddin, made an appeal from jail after he was deported from the United States on June 18 last year.
Of those having received death sentence, Rashid, lt col Shariful Haq Dalim, lt col Noor, Risalder Moslemuddin, lt col Rashed Chowdhury and col Majed are absconding.
Absconding accused Aziz Pasha died in Zimbabwe.
The sinister darkness in which Sheikh Mujib died
The sinister darkness in which Sheikh Mujib died
A.L. Khatib
Source: Daily Star
August 15, 2008
AUGUST 1975 was a transitional time in Bangladesh. Mujib was making radical administrative changes and adopting measures that would have a tremendous social impact. There was only one political party in the country now -- the Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League (BAKSAL). BAKSAL on which all sections of the people, including the armed forces and the police, were represented, would be an integral part of the administration. The importance of bureaucrats would diminish, when the governors-designate of the districts took up their new offices on 1 September 1975. The army was to be split and made to join in productive work at the district level. It was a revolutionary step.
The evening of August 14, 1975 did not seem different from any other evening in August.
Dhaka University was preparing to welcome Mujib the next day.
Mujib was arrested in March 1948, when he was a law student, for leading a black-flag demonstration against Jinnah on the highly emotional issue of making Bengali one of the two State languages.
Mujib was arrested again next year for leading a strike of lower grade university employees. When he was released, he found that he had in the meantime been rusticated from the university.
He would be visiting the university the next day as the Chancellor.
Following the exploding of a hand grenade on the university campus, security arrangements for Mujib's visit to the university were tightened. Bomb blasts and grenade explosions had, ever since the Pakistani army's crackdown on Bengalis on the night of March 25/26 , 1971, become almost a part of life in Dacca and did not disturb one's sleep. But there were rumours
Mujib returned home from Gano Bhaban around 8.30 pm. Russell, Mujib's ten-year-old son, was all excitement. He was one of the six boys chosen by the Principal of the University Laboratory School to welcome Mujib when he visited the university the next morning.
Kader Siddiqui, better known as Tiger (Baga) Siddiqui for his exploits in the Liberation War, was one of the governors-designate. When he was going to the Post Graduate Hospital in Dhaka to see his ailing mother on the evening of August 14, he saw a tank near Karwan Bazar. There was another tank near the hospital, which is almost opposite the Radio Station.
After seeing his mother, Kader drove down to Motijheel. Yet another tank; three tanks within a radius of one kilometre. He turned back. There was still another tank near the Engineer's Institute, hardly two hundred metres from the hospital. It was a little past 11 pm.
Kader Siddiqui drove on to the Rakkhi Bahini camp near Gano Bhaban in Sher-e-Bangla Nagar. Anwarul Alam Shahid, Deputy Director of the Rakkhi Bahini, told Kader Siddiqui that the Bengal Lancers had been authorised to take out three tanks. But why were there four tanks? Shahid said, "You may have seen one tank twice." Could be. Shahid was a former student leader and had fought in the liberation war. There was no reason to doubt what he said.
Tank manoeuvres were a Thursday-night routine and twice a month the Bengal Lancers and the Second Field Artillery held combined exercise.
It was late by the time Kader Siddiqui returned home. He asked his sister not to wake him up in the morning. He had been leaving home early for many days now, but the training program for governors-designate would end tomorrow with a lunch meeting at which all the ministers would be present. He could take it easy.
Brigadier Jamil, the President's Security Chief, spent a restless night. His wife was ill, and he had to escort the president to the university in the morning. It was not a new duty for him, but he was very uneasy. He had been appointed Director of the Field Intelligence Unit, but handing over charge of the Unit to him had somehow not been completed still. Jamil's wife asked him to go to sleep. "I can't sleep," he said.
Khandaker Moshtaque Ahmed too spent a sleepless night. There were a number of visitors to 54 Agha Mashi Lane, Moshtaque's house in old Dhaka. One of the visitors was his nephew Major Rashid.
Taheruddin Thakur was like a cat on hot bricks that night. Any call would make him jump. He tried to calm his nerves with prayers. He had a bath and got ready as if he had to keep an appointment at an unearthly hour. A guest in the house wondered why Taheruddin was so tense.
Kamal, Mujib's son, came back home after midnight from the university campus, where last-minute touches were being given to the preparations to welcome Mujib. At the same time finishing touches were being given to a plot at the Dhaka cantonment.
When it was still dark, Col. Farook addressed the Bengal Lancers, whom he had trained to hunt in killer packs. The Lancers in their black overalls were like the hordes of Satan in Milton's Paradise Lost.
Farook spat fire and venom. He said that Mujib had sold the country to foreign powers and was going to break up the army and disband the Lancers. He played on their fears and incited them in the name of Islam. It was time to strike.
They moved out in three columns. Their targets were less than two kilometres away.
In the glimmering before dawn, the Rakkhi Bahini hurriedly took up positions in front of their camp near the MNA's hostel in Sher-e-Bangla Nagar. Most of them were wearing lungis and were bare-footed. While some living in the area were still wondering what was happening, the Rakkhi Bahini were withdrawn. A tank raced down the airport runway, bridged a wall and trained its gun on the camp.
Thirty tanks were deployed at strategic points in the city.
The houses of Mujib, his brother-in-law Abdur Rab Serneabat and his nephew Sheikh Fazlul Huq Moni were surrounded simultaneously.
Soldiers started shooting at Mujib's house from all directions. Bullets were whizzing in through the windows on the first floor, where all the bedrooms were. A bullet grazed the hand of Sheikh Nasser, Mujib's younger brother.
They all took shelter in Mujib's dressing room, which was the least exposed. It was a repetition of March 26, 1971, when Pakistani troops had encircled the house. Mujib rang up some officers. Begum Mujib tore a strip from her sari and bandaged Nasser's hand.
Kamal came down and asked the guards to take action, but they had been 'neutralised.' While Kamal was still trying to persuade the guards to act, Major Huda entered the house with some men. The guards saluted him. One of the men with Huda shot Kamal.
Meanwhile, Brigadier Jamil was hurrying to Mujib's house. When his jeep was only a few hundred metres from Mujib's house, some soldiers who were waiting near Subhan Bagh mosque barked: "Halt." Jamil identified himself. They knew who he was; they had been posted there to intercept him. "We have orders to shoot anyone who passes this way," they threatened. When Jamil did not heed their warning, they shot him.
Soldiers were by then swarming all over Mujib's house. They found a room closed on all sides -- it was Rehana's bedroom. They forced a door open, sending a cupboard full of things crashing to the floor.
"Let me see what they want," Mujib said and came out of the room as he had done on the night of March 26, 1971. He had faced the Pakistani soldiers. These were his own men.
Mujib was wearing a checked lungi and a white kurta.
Mujib met Huda on the staircase. "It is you. What do you want?" Mujib asked. "We have come to take you," Huda said. "Do you think it is fun?" Mujib thundered. "I will not allow the country to be ruined." Huda was unnerved. A servant cried: "Kamal Bhai is dead." Havildar Moslemuddin, who was coming down from the terrace, swore and opened fire from behind with an automatic weapon, riddling Mujib's body with bullets.
Soldiers were picking up whatever they could. "Take whatever you want but don't kill us," Begum Mujib pleaded. But hearing the burst of firing, she came out. "You have killed him, kill me," she wailed. She was silenced forever.
Jamal, his wife Rosy, and Sultana, Kamal's wife, were still in the dressing room. A burst from a sten gun and the three were dead.
The gunmen found Nasser in a bathroom and shot him. Russell was cowering in a corner. "Take me to my mother," he whimpered. "We will take you to your mother," one of the homicidal maniacs said. A police officer pleaded for Russell's life: "He is only a child." The officer was killed. One arm of Russell had been shot off, yet he begged: "Don't kill me, don't kill me." The answer was a bullet. Russell lay dead by his mother's side.
Farook and Rashid were late in reaching Mujib's house. Farook went up to satisfy himself that all had been killed. He telephoned someone.
______________
The article is an extract from the work, Who Killed Mujib? by the eminent journalist (now deceased) A.L. Khatib.
A.L. Khatib
Source: Daily Star
August 15, 2008
AUGUST 1975 was a transitional time in Bangladesh. Mujib was making radical administrative changes and adopting measures that would have a tremendous social impact. There was only one political party in the country now -- the Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League (BAKSAL). BAKSAL on which all sections of the people, including the armed forces and the police, were represented, would be an integral part of the administration. The importance of bureaucrats would diminish, when the governors-designate of the districts took up their new offices on 1 September 1975. The army was to be split and made to join in productive work at the district level. It was a revolutionary step.
The evening of August 14, 1975 did not seem different from any other evening in August.
Dhaka University was preparing to welcome Mujib the next day.
Mujib was arrested in March 1948, when he was a law student, for leading a black-flag demonstration against Jinnah on the highly emotional issue of making Bengali one of the two State languages.
Mujib was arrested again next year for leading a strike of lower grade university employees. When he was released, he found that he had in the meantime been rusticated from the university.
He would be visiting the university the next day as the Chancellor.
Following the exploding of a hand grenade on the university campus, security arrangements for Mujib's visit to the university were tightened. Bomb blasts and grenade explosions had, ever since the Pakistani army's crackdown on Bengalis on the night of March 25/26 , 1971, become almost a part of life in Dacca and did not disturb one's sleep. But there were rumours
Mujib returned home from Gano Bhaban around 8.30 pm. Russell, Mujib's ten-year-old son, was all excitement. He was one of the six boys chosen by the Principal of the University Laboratory School to welcome Mujib when he visited the university the next morning.
Kader Siddiqui, better known as Tiger (Baga) Siddiqui for his exploits in the Liberation War, was one of the governors-designate. When he was going to the Post Graduate Hospital in Dhaka to see his ailing mother on the evening of August 14, he saw a tank near Karwan Bazar. There was another tank near the hospital, which is almost opposite the Radio Station.
After seeing his mother, Kader drove down to Motijheel. Yet another tank; three tanks within a radius of one kilometre. He turned back. There was still another tank near the Engineer's Institute, hardly two hundred metres from the hospital. It was a little past 11 pm.
Kader Siddiqui drove on to the Rakkhi Bahini camp near Gano Bhaban in Sher-e-Bangla Nagar. Anwarul Alam Shahid, Deputy Director of the Rakkhi Bahini, told Kader Siddiqui that the Bengal Lancers had been authorised to take out three tanks. But why were there four tanks? Shahid said, "You may have seen one tank twice." Could be. Shahid was a former student leader and had fought in the liberation war. There was no reason to doubt what he said.
Tank manoeuvres were a Thursday-night routine and twice a month the Bengal Lancers and the Second Field Artillery held combined exercise.
It was late by the time Kader Siddiqui returned home. He asked his sister not to wake him up in the morning. He had been leaving home early for many days now, but the training program for governors-designate would end tomorrow with a lunch meeting at which all the ministers would be present. He could take it easy.
Brigadier Jamil, the President's Security Chief, spent a restless night. His wife was ill, and he had to escort the president to the university in the morning. It was not a new duty for him, but he was very uneasy. He had been appointed Director of the Field Intelligence Unit, but handing over charge of the Unit to him had somehow not been completed still. Jamil's wife asked him to go to sleep. "I can't sleep," he said.
Khandaker Moshtaque Ahmed too spent a sleepless night. There were a number of visitors to 54 Agha Mashi Lane, Moshtaque's house in old Dhaka. One of the visitors was his nephew Major Rashid.
Taheruddin Thakur was like a cat on hot bricks that night. Any call would make him jump. He tried to calm his nerves with prayers. He had a bath and got ready as if he had to keep an appointment at an unearthly hour. A guest in the house wondered why Taheruddin was so tense.
Kamal, Mujib's son, came back home after midnight from the university campus, where last-minute touches were being given to the preparations to welcome Mujib. At the same time finishing touches were being given to a plot at the Dhaka cantonment.
When it was still dark, Col. Farook addressed the Bengal Lancers, whom he had trained to hunt in killer packs. The Lancers in their black overalls were like the hordes of Satan in Milton's Paradise Lost.
Farook spat fire and venom. He said that Mujib had sold the country to foreign powers and was going to break up the army and disband the Lancers. He played on their fears and incited them in the name of Islam. It was time to strike.
They moved out in three columns. Their targets were less than two kilometres away.
In the glimmering before dawn, the Rakkhi Bahini hurriedly took up positions in front of their camp near the MNA's hostel in Sher-e-Bangla Nagar. Most of them were wearing lungis and were bare-footed. While some living in the area were still wondering what was happening, the Rakkhi Bahini were withdrawn. A tank raced down the airport runway, bridged a wall and trained its gun on the camp.
Thirty tanks were deployed at strategic points in the city.
The houses of Mujib, his brother-in-law Abdur Rab Serneabat and his nephew Sheikh Fazlul Huq Moni were surrounded simultaneously.
Soldiers started shooting at Mujib's house from all directions. Bullets were whizzing in through the windows on the first floor, where all the bedrooms were. A bullet grazed the hand of Sheikh Nasser, Mujib's younger brother.
They all took shelter in Mujib's dressing room, which was the least exposed. It was a repetition of March 26, 1971, when Pakistani troops had encircled the house. Mujib rang up some officers. Begum Mujib tore a strip from her sari and bandaged Nasser's hand.
Kamal came down and asked the guards to take action, but they had been 'neutralised.' While Kamal was still trying to persuade the guards to act, Major Huda entered the house with some men. The guards saluted him. One of the men with Huda shot Kamal.
Meanwhile, Brigadier Jamil was hurrying to Mujib's house. When his jeep was only a few hundred metres from Mujib's house, some soldiers who were waiting near Subhan Bagh mosque barked: "Halt." Jamil identified himself. They knew who he was; they had been posted there to intercept him. "We have orders to shoot anyone who passes this way," they threatened. When Jamil did not heed their warning, they shot him.
Soldiers were by then swarming all over Mujib's house. They found a room closed on all sides -- it was Rehana's bedroom. They forced a door open, sending a cupboard full of things crashing to the floor.
"Let me see what they want," Mujib said and came out of the room as he had done on the night of March 26, 1971. He had faced the Pakistani soldiers. These were his own men.
Mujib was wearing a checked lungi and a white kurta.
Mujib met Huda on the staircase. "It is you. What do you want?" Mujib asked. "We have come to take you," Huda said. "Do you think it is fun?" Mujib thundered. "I will not allow the country to be ruined." Huda was unnerved. A servant cried: "Kamal Bhai is dead." Havildar Moslemuddin, who was coming down from the terrace, swore and opened fire from behind with an automatic weapon, riddling Mujib's body with bullets.
Soldiers were picking up whatever they could. "Take whatever you want but don't kill us," Begum Mujib pleaded. But hearing the burst of firing, she came out. "You have killed him, kill me," she wailed. She was silenced forever.
Jamal, his wife Rosy, and Sultana, Kamal's wife, were still in the dressing room. A burst from a sten gun and the three were dead.
The gunmen found Nasser in a bathroom and shot him. Russell was cowering in a corner. "Take me to my mother," he whimpered. "We will take you to your mother," one of the homicidal maniacs said. A police officer pleaded for Russell's life: "He is only a child." The officer was killed. One arm of Russell had been shot off, yet he begged: "Don't kill me, don't kill me." The answer was a bullet. Russell lay dead by his mother's side.
Farook and Rashid were late in reaching Mujib's house. Farook went up to satisfy himself that all had been killed. He telephoned someone.
______________
The article is an extract from the work, Who Killed Mujib? by the eminent journalist (now deceased) A.L. Khatib.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)