Rashid Askari
Published in The Financial Express: Tuesday, 26 March 2013
In the current political whirl in Bangladesh created by the prolonged vandalism of the Jamaat-Shibir activists, on one hand, and the emergence of a glorious revolution triggered off by the peace-loving new generation protesters, on the other, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) seems to be caught in the cleft stick.
It claims in theory that theirs' is the party of a freedom fighter, but in reality they have come down on the side of the anti-liberation forces. They argue that they, too, want the trial of the war criminals if it is held fairly, but they are covertly and overtly working in favour of the war criminals to secure their release.
What they really mean by 'free and fair' manner is not, however, clarified. It is beyond our wildest dreams to see the BNP trying the war criminals, most of whom belong to Jamaat-e-Islami. Because, BNP and Jamaat are the Siamese twins in the politics of Bangladesh. BNP is born of right-wing parents and always has fundamentalist political leanings. It is the party that lifted the ban on Jamaat-e-Islami and rewarded the known war criminals with high positions and portfolios after Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was brutally killed in 1975. Although there are some misplaced freedom fighters in BNP, the party is basically a breeding ground for right-wing activists and a sanctuary for the religious fanatics.
So, while the earmarked war criminals are languishing in prison and the whole gamut of the fundamentalist politics in Bangladesh is going through a sticky patch, the BNP is trying to clutch at straws by way of spinning strange tales and manufacturing weird ideas with a view to fishing in the troubled waters. Their motive is to pass the buck on to others, and prove their 'accused' allies as innocent. They try to establish that the real war criminals are not the ones who are being tried by the tribunals. They point their accusing fingers at the Pakistani occupation army, and ask to try the 195 captured Pakistani soldiers who were acquitted as per the conditions of the Simla Treaty, drawn up on July 2, 1972. But that was virtually impossible at the moment.
There were obvious reasons for that. About 400,000 Bangladeshis stranded in the then West Pakistan during the Liberation War were held hostage by the Pakistan government, who used them as a bargaining chip to free the Pakistani war criminals captured in Bangladesh. Besides, 16,000 Bangladeshi civil servants were dismissed from job and barred from leaving Pakistan. Many of the army officers were put in concentration camps. So, while Bangladesh made an attempt to try those 195 POWs (prisoners of war) keeping them out of the repatriation process negotiated for the release of most of the stranded Bengalis and Pakistanis, Bhutto furiously refused and threatened that if Bangladesh carried out the trial, Pakistan too would hold similar tribunals against the Bangladeshis detained in Pakistan. The then government of Pakistan also rejected Bangladesh's right to try the prisoners of war on criminal charges and quickly seized 203 Bengalis as "virtual hostages" for the 195 soldiers. They, however, expressed their willingness to constitute a judicial tribunal and try those 195 through a similar international tribunals.
Bangladesh, being apprehensive about the fate of 400,000 Bengalis trapped in the then Pakistan and to gain access to the United Nations beating China's veto, called a halt to its attempt at trying the Pakistanis in Dhaka with the hope that Pakistan would keep its promise, and hold the trial of the accused 195 Pakistani soldiers in their own country. Upon this formal understanding, the last group of 203, who were detained Bangladeshis, were repatriated to Bangladesh on March 24, 1974. But it is clear that the 195 Pakistanis were not freed without charges. The trial of the local collaborators, however, was being carried out in Bangladesh under different tribunals until the killing of the Bangabandhu.
To make the current trial process conditional upon the trial of those 195 accused Pakistani soldiers as the BNP is making, is nothing but a legal sleight of hand to save the local war criminals. It is also an indirect denial of the strong popular demand raised in favour of the trial. The Awami League-led Grand Alliance Government is trying to try the local criminals who were involved in killing, plunder, arson attacks, rape, molestation, and all other crimes against humanity perpetrated against the people of Bangladesh during the Liberation War with the backing of the Pakistani occupation army. The local criminals, too, are war criminals for aiding and abetting the war criminals, and, in one sense, more criminal than their the then Pakistani masters. The occupation army could not have perpetrated the massacre by themselves, if these local collaborators had not assisted them.
But, BNP is mysteriously soft on the crimes against humanity committed during the Liberation War. They are treating the unprovoked brutal attacks on the unarmed civilians and the heinous genocide of that time and the resistance of the law enforcers and the stray accidental killings of some armed vandals on an equal footing. It does not necessarily mean that they do not know the difference between right and wrong. They are doing everything possible in their self-interest, nothing in the national interest. So, to simultaneously save their face and their friends, they are running with the hare and hunting with the hound.
And therefore, they are using the conditional -- 'ifs' and 'buts' to hide their real stance on the war crimes issue. By doing this, they are actually burying their heads in the sand, for, people can very well nose out their ulterior motive. Standing against the vast popular demand for trial of the local war criminals, they are committing political suicide. This is how the Muslim League, one-time political giant, gradually died away. If the BNP keeps doing this politics of 'ifs' and 'buts' and stands against the public interest, it will sure meet its waterloo.
Dr Rashid Askari writes fiction and columns and teaches English literature at Kushtia Islamic University. rashidaskari65@yahoo.com
Published in The Financial Express: Tuesday, 26 March 2013
In the current political whirl in Bangladesh created by the prolonged vandalism of the Jamaat-Shibir activists, on one hand, and the emergence of a glorious revolution triggered off by the peace-loving new generation protesters, on the other, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) seems to be caught in the cleft stick.
It claims in theory that theirs' is the party of a freedom fighter, but in reality they have come down on the side of the anti-liberation forces. They argue that they, too, want the trial of the war criminals if it is held fairly, but they are covertly and overtly working in favour of the war criminals to secure their release.
What they really mean by 'free and fair' manner is not, however, clarified. It is beyond our wildest dreams to see the BNP trying the war criminals, most of whom belong to Jamaat-e-Islami. Because, BNP and Jamaat are the Siamese twins in the politics of Bangladesh. BNP is born of right-wing parents and always has fundamentalist political leanings. It is the party that lifted the ban on Jamaat-e-Islami and rewarded the known war criminals with high positions and portfolios after Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was brutally killed in 1975. Although there are some misplaced freedom fighters in BNP, the party is basically a breeding ground for right-wing activists and a sanctuary for the religious fanatics.
So, while the earmarked war criminals are languishing in prison and the whole gamut of the fundamentalist politics in Bangladesh is going through a sticky patch, the BNP is trying to clutch at straws by way of spinning strange tales and manufacturing weird ideas with a view to fishing in the troubled waters. Their motive is to pass the buck on to others, and prove their 'accused' allies as innocent. They try to establish that the real war criminals are not the ones who are being tried by the tribunals. They point their accusing fingers at the Pakistani occupation army, and ask to try the 195 captured Pakistani soldiers who were acquitted as per the conditions of the Simla Treaty, drawn up on July 2, 1972. But that was virtually impossible at the moment.
There were obvious reasons for that. About 400,000 Bangladeshis stranded in the then West Pakistan during the Liberation War were held hostage by the Pakistan government, who used them as a bargaining chip to free the Pakistani war criminals captured in Bangladesh. Besides, 16,000 Bangladeshi civil servants were dismissed from job and barred from leaving Pakistan. Many of the army officers were put in concentration camps. So, while Bangladesh made an attempt to try those 195 POWs (prisoners of war) keeping them out of the repatriation process negotiated for the release of most of the stranded Bengalis and Pakistanis, Bhutto furiously refused and threatened that if Bangladesh carried out the trial, Pakistan too would hold similar tribunals against the Bangladeshis detained in Pakistan. The then government of Pakistan also rejected Bangladesh's right to try the prisoners of war on criminal charges and quickly seized 203 Bengalis as "virtual hostages" for the 195 soldiers. They, however, expressed their willingness to constitute a judicial tribunal and try those 195 through a similar international tribunals.
Bangladesh, being apprehensive about the fate of 400,000 Bengalis trapped in the then Pakistan and to gain access to the United Nations beating China's veto, called a halt to its attempt at trying the Pakistanis in Dhaka with the hope that Pakistan would keep its promise, and hold the trial of the accused 195 Pakistani soldiers in their own country. Upon this formal understanding, the last group of 203, who were detained Bangladeshis, were repatriated to Bangladesh on March 24, 1974. But it is clear that the 195 Pakistanis were not freed without charges. The trial of the local collaborators, however, was being carried out in Bangladesh under different tribunals until the killing of the Bangabandhu.
To make the current trial process conditional upon the trial of those 195 accused Pakistani soldiers as the BNP is making, is nothing but a legal sleight of hand to save the local war criminals. It is also an indirect denial of the strong popular demand raised in favour of the trial. The Awami League-led Grand Alliance Government is trying to try the local criminals who were involved in killing, plunder, arson attacks, rape, molestation, and all other crimes against humanity perpetrated against the people of Bangladesh during the Liberation War with the backing of the Pakistani occupation army. The local criminals, too, are war criminals for aiding and abetting the war criminals, and, in one sense, more criminal than their the then Pakistani masters. The occupation army could not have perpetrated the massacre by themselves, if these local collaborators had not assisted them.
But, BNP is mysteriously soft on the crimes against humanity committed during the Liberation War. They are treating the unprovoked brutal attacks on the unarmed civilians and the heinous genocide of that time and the resistance of the law enforcers and the stray accidental killings of some armed vandals on an equal footing. It does not necessarily mean that they do not know the difference between right and wrong. They are doing everything possible in their self-interest, nothing in the national interest. So, to simultaneously save their face and their friends, they are running with the hare and hunting with the hound.
And therefore, they are using the conditional -- 'ifs' and 'buts' to hide their real stance on the war crimes issue. By doing this, they are actually burying their heads in the sand, for, people can very well nose out their ulterior motive. Standing against the vast popular demand for trial of the local war criminals, they are committing political suicide. This is how the Muslim League, one-time political giant, gradually died away. If the BNP keeps doing this politics of 'ifs' and 'buts' and stands against the public interest, it will sure meet its waterloo.
Dr Rashid Askari writes fiction and columns and teaches English literature at Kushtia Islamic University. rashidaskari65@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment