By Bhaskar Roy
Paper No. 5353, Dated 09-Jan-2013
Since its bloody and violent birth in 1971, Bangladesh’s
history has been pronounced for political assassinations and military coups
than reasons of development the country so richly deserves. Certainly, there still remain deep
religio-political differences among the people.
The main conflict is between right wing elements who
continue to strive for Sharia law, discrimination against women and minorities
and spiritual regression on the one side, and the progressive and liberal
section of the population especially the educated youth who want jobs, progress
and development.
After 2008, there has been some forward movement. Social indicators have improved. Economic growth reached 7%. International stature moved from ‘near a
state sponsor of terrorism’ in early 2002 to “a frontline state against
terrorism” in the last two years.
Bangladesh began to be cited internationally as an example among
developing countries. Women’s emancipation
in Bangladesh under the present government is the highest in the region despite
opposition from right wing political parties and groups.
Of course, everything has not been wonderful. Corruption has
sapped the energy of the government in various areas and impacted development
efforts. There are many other
problems. But the country attained
escape velocity to break the gravitation pull of under development.
The nation, however, remains threatened by the festering
wounds of the 1971 war of liberation and the crimes against humanity committed
not only by the occupying Pakistani army but by Bangladeshis who joined the
Pakistanis in perpetrating
atrocities against their
country-men and women. It is no
longer argued that these atrocities did not happen, though no money or effort
was spared by interested parties to obliterate them from living memory and
history books. The evidence is too
strong.
An ingenious approach to downplay the impact of the 1971
genocide seems to be in the works. The
Economist, UK (Dec. 15th 2012) wrote “It was very late to begin the search for
justice, for the accused as well as victims”, but conceded that war crimes are
subject to no statute of limitation.
The weekly further said in the
same article “The main perpetrators are not in the dock, since they are
either dead or living in Pakistan. But some suspects are still leading
prominent lives in Bangladesh”.
In an internet posting by the Bangladesh Jamaet-e-Islami
(JEI) international (Dec. 24, 2012) of which the writer is a recipient, The
Economist is profusely thanked. The
posting starts with the following sentences “Initiated by The Economist, the
global media have now kindly exposed the myth behind the so called free, fair,
just, transparent, international standard
and not politically motivated trial
as shamelessly claimed by the government (current government in
Bangladesh) and all its political and ideological agencies, allies and
cohorts” The Economist suggests
that without the exposure it has made, the people would have remained
in the dark about the machinations of the Awami League (AL) led government.
The current controversy is related to the conversation of
Justice Mohammad Nizamul Huq, Chairman of war crimes Tribunal-I with an
expatriate Bangladeshi lawyer based in Brussels, Ahmed Ziauddin. Justice Huq was discussing the
trial and revealed
that the government
was pressing for a
verdict against one of the offenders before December 16, the day the Pakistani
army surrendered in Dhaka. Judges all
over the world do research, but discussing the case in hand is not
ethical. The Economist had access to
these conversations as had the
Bangladeshi vernacular daily Amar Desh.
Both published the conversation between Justice Huq and Ziauddin.
Justice Nizamul Huq resigned, as he
should have. The other question,
however, is whether the Huq-Ziauddin conversation was privileged? Who hacked into the conversations over
e-mail, skype, u-tube or whatever else?
This is illegal, and suggests
that a well funded network is working to illegally penetrate the
internal proceedings of the court, the judges and the prosecution.
The demand that the trials of Tribunal-I start ab initio is
unfounded. The erring judge has stepped
down. The trial must go on from here
according to the rules laid down. The
first accused in this trial is Dilwar Hossain Sayeedi, a top leader in the JEI,
and one of the cruellest activists
in 1971. Sayeedi is the dominant
ideologue of the JEI who openly supports the extreme Wahabi ideology of the Al
Qaeda and Taliban and has two options for minorities, that is, either convert
to Islam or be prepared to be eliminated.
Those who emphasize “injustice in Bangladesh” should take a
short break and examine how the minorities in Bangladesh especially the Hindus, have suffered at the hands of the
Islamists they are trying to defend, and how the minority population has
declined from 18 percent in 1970 to barely 10 per cent today.
The manner in which the JEI international has presented The
Economist’s contribution to their cause needs deeper research than this article
can present, because of shortage of space. But the common cause made by the two
raise serious questions.
It is more than obvious that efforts are afoot to scuttle
the war crimes trial or shift it to after the year end general elections, in
the hope that the Awami League led government would not return to power. The arguments put forth by the anti-war
crimes proponents are neither legal nor moral.
A dangerous game is being imposed on this region.
It is becoming increasingly evident that The Economist has
wittingly or unwittingly become a powerful communication tool of a much larger
conspiracy that aspires to subvert the secular character of Bangladesh. The bigger concern is that the India led economic
development and social stability in South Asia may be the bigger target. This writer would like to be corrected if he
is wrong.
Attention of readers is drawn to two issues of The Economist
of July-August, 2011 (SAAG Paper No. 4665, 25 Aug. 2011). India was projected as a regional thug
executing negative policies towards its South Asian neighbours, shooting
Bangladeshi cattle smugglers, cozying up to Myanmar’s dictators, prosecuting
conflicting relations with Sri Lanka and meddling “madly” in Nepal’s internal
affairs, concluding New Delhi lacked any kind of vision.
In its excitement, the weekly, perhaps, exposed its
intention of going for the kill when it
alleged that the Awami League won the 2008 elections in a land slide victory with “bags
of Indian money and advice”, when international observers verified that this
was Bangladesh’s fairest elections ever.
The Economist went ahead to second the opinion of the Bangladeshi
opposition parties campaigning against giving India land corridor facility to
its North East, as it would annoy the Indian insurgents if military
transportation were to take place.
Astonishing! Was this weekly
supporting Indian insurgents getting support from and sanctuary in Bangladesh
as had happened openly during the BNP-JEI four party alliance rule in
2001-2006? This weekly must answer and
explain. It even tried to ridicule the
Awami League led Bangladesh government honouring the late Indian Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi posthumously for her contribution to Bangladesh’s liberation.
The Economist’s approach is confounding. It appears to condemn the independence of
Bangladeshis suffocated under Islamabad; it tries to brush aside the genocide
unleashed by the Pakistani army, the Bangladeshi Razakars, Al Badrs and Al
Shams (together forming Jamaat-e-Islami of Bangladesh – at least two Pakistani
army officers who witnessed the genocide have written about it in their
memoirs); it accuses the government of decimating the Islamic political party,
the JEI, among others. After Bangladesh
attained independence, the JEI, (Pakistan army’s and ISI’s surrogate) was
banned and the citizenship of its Amir, Golam Azam rescinded. It was rehabilitated when Gen. Zia-ur-Rehman
became President and formed the BNP in
1978, and a relationship was established between the BNP and JEI. Zia’s wife Begum Khaleda Zia became the
chairperson of the BNP after Zia’s assassination in 1981.
Complicating matters further, Turkish President Abdullah Gul
called on Bangladesh President Zillur Rehman for clemency for the war crimes
accused. In a letter, (Dec. 23, 2012) to
the Bangladesh President, Abdullah Gul pleaded that the
accused Jamaat-e-Islami leaders
were too old
to stand trial,
and apprehended that the trial may lead to civil war in the country. A 14-member delegation from the Turkish NGO
Cansuyu Aid and Solidarity Organization visited Bangladesh, met opposition
leaders and visited the Tribunal-I court, accompanied by the Turkish ambassador
in Dhaka. The delegation misused visa on
arrival meant for tourists and business delegations and indulged in political
activities.
The Bangladesh government firmly rejected the Turkish
overtures, but it was a case of gross interference in the internal affairs of a
sovereign country and, that too, in favour of criminals accused of crimes
against humanity. Most of these accused
have links with Islamic terrorists in Bangladesh.
President Gul’s plea that most of the accused are old and
not fit for trial is misplaced. Only
Golam Azam, former Amir of JEI, is 90 years old. The rest who held either ministerial
positions in the BNP-JEI government or high level position in the party, are
very active publicly. Although the
Tribunal has the power to sentence a proven criminal to death, it is not
necessary that this will be done.
The lapse of time between the acts committed and the trials
is not an issue. War crimes are not
bound by the statute of limitation. The
Nuremburg trials continued till all noted Nazi war criminals were accounted
for. The
age of the criminals were considered.
In Cambodia/Kampuchea, the Khmer Rouge leaders who exterminated almost a
fourth of the country’s population during their bloody rule in the 1970s have
not been spared either.
What is Turkey’s game plan?
It is a member of NATO and is expected to be liberal and secular. From a once secular state
Turkey has shifted to
a more Islamist orientation. The
ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) to which President Gul and Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan belong is generally described as Islamist rooted
and of Islamic leaning. Turkey is also
the current chair of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC). But that does not mean it is part of AKP’s social,
moral and religious duty to try and save criminals who committed crimes against
humanity in a distant country just because the Jamaat is involved.
What made President Gul intervene in Bangladesh? Is the AKP trying to save the JEI who want
Sharia law to be introduced in Bangladesh and put women behind burkhas and
within the confines of the house? Does
the AKP have such a plan for Turkey? Or
is there a much larger conspiracy to demolish the development of the region.
Both The Economist and the Turkish government seem to have
conveniently avoided any consideration of the sudden spurt of Islamic
fundamentalist terrorism led by groups such a Jamatul Mujahidin Bangladesh
(JMB), Harkat-ul-Jihad Islami (HUJI), Ahle Hadis, Hizbut Tehrir and others
between 2001 and 2006. There are over
120 such fundamentalist terrorist groups in Bangladesh. Funding came to them from Islamic NGOs in
Saudi Arabia, UAE, Pakistan and some other countries. A group of Al Qaida cadres were spotted in
the jungles of Chittagong Hill Tracts in December 2006, hosted by the JEI. They fled after the BNP-JEI government fell.
It is imperative that the international community revisit
the roles of the gentlemen facing war crimes trial and some BNP leaders in
promoting terrorism and political assassination between 2001 and 2006. If a moral issue is being cited, then the
entire series of developments must be revisited. The last question is why involve India?
It is well known that in some capitals of the world Sk.
Hasina is seen as an obstructionist to influence mongering. India is perceived as the large neighbour
which is promoting Sk. Hasina and her
government to a trans-Asia development connectivity.
This is not a case of a simple regime change in
Bangladesh. A very serious risk is being taken by the powers and
forces that be, to convert the country into a puppet of a new great game
without even thinking that the strategy might blow up in their faces.
As in Alice in Wonderland, the situation is getting
“curiouser and curiouser”.
_______________________
(The writer is a New Delhi based strategic analyst. He can be reached at grouchohart@yahoo.com.)
