Mushfique Wadud searches out Kakon Bibi, a Khasia woman and wife of a Pakistani soldier who helped the Mukti Bahini win over 20 battles until her eventual capture, torture, abandonment and poverty...
‘I won against Pakistan but lost to poverty’
____________________________________________
It is 1971. A secret midnight meeting is going on at Dowarapara Thana, Chhatak Upazilla of Sunamganj district. Silence and darkness permeate. The plan is to capture the enemy camp at Tengratilla. The Pakistani soldiers from this camp have been carrying out attacks on the Mukti Bahini for too long. But the Mukti Bahini commander has no information about the capacity or numbers of the enemy. Everyone at the meeting is tense. No one speaks. The long silence is broken by a woman.
'I will get you information about the Tengratilla camp,' she says. 'But how will you do that?' the commander asks her. She is the same woman who tends to the wounded freedom fighters. 'I will go there disguised as a beggar and collect information for you.'
She was successful in her task, and with her help, Mukti Bahini was able to capture Tengratilla camp.
That woman was Kakon Bibi. Like a professional spy, she would go out, sometimes as a beggar, sometimes a hawker, and sometimes a pedestrian, and collect information about the Pakistani camp's capacity. During the war of liberation, Dowarapara area was an important front for freedom fighters in Sylhet as the area was at the border. With the help of Kakon Bibi, the freedom fighters of this area defeated the Pakistani soldiers. Kakon Bibi provided strong support in 20 operations of Mukti Bahini in this area. In the East Banglabazaar fight, in the Dowarabazaar fight, the Tengratilla fight, the Roshlay fight, the Betigoan fight, the Kandigoan fight and the Mohabbatpur fight, Kakon Bibi was the main reason for Mukti Bahini's success. Kakon Bibi maintained contact with Sector Commander Mir Shawkat Ali and supplied important information to him.
'I knew that one bullet could easily end my life as I wandered as a beggar, but the Pakistan Army's inhumane activities stirred me to do what I did,' she says.
Kakon Bibi now lives in Lokhipur village, Dowarapara Thana in Sunamganj district. She is difficult to reach. After arriving in Sylhet, we had to go to Chhatok of Sunamganj district. From Chhatok we went to Dowarapara by boat and then by CNG auto-rickshaw. From there to Kakon Bibi's home in Lokhipur, there is no easy route. Part of the road was traversed by motorbike and the rest on foot. In a remote corner of the village of Lokhipur, Kakon Bibi's home is situated. She was homeless earlier until she got a tiny plot of land from the government. She lives in this house with her daughter, son-in-law and two grand-daughters.
We arrived at her house at around 4pm. She had not eaten lunch. 'It is no exception for me. Many a day I stay without having a single meal, as I have no son and my son-in-law is the only earning member of my family,' she says.
Known as 'Khasia Mukti beti'in this area, Kakon Bibi was born in Tripura, India. She belongs to the Khasia ethnic minority. She had an affair with a Bangladeshi, Shahed Ali. For him, she migrated to Bangladesh from India. At the same time she converted to Islam and took the name Nurjahan Begum. Kakon Bibi is her nickname. She then married Abdul Majid Khan, a Pakistani border security jawan. The rest of her family members remained in India. Even now her three brothers live in India, financially much better off than she.
'Her brothers wanted to take her to India but she refused to leave Bangladesh,' says Sokhina, Kakon Bibi's daughter. When asked why she did not go to India though she was living in poverty here, Kakon Bibi says 'I love Bangladesh. Though I was born in India, Bangladesh is my soul. I fought for Bangladesh and I will never leave this country.'
In 1971, when the war of independence started, Kakon Bibi could not get any news about her husband Abdul Majid Khan. She became anxious. In the meantime, she met some members of the Mukti Bahini. When she was asked to work for Mukti Bahini she agreed, thinking that she might find out her husband's whereabouts while visiting different places with them. Then she became a spy for the Mukti Bahini. Initially when she was asked why she came to the Pakistani camp, she told them that she was in search of her husband, Abdul Majid Khan. The Pakistani officials contacted other camps with the wireless network to ask whether there was a soldier by the name of Abdul Majid Khan and learned that Kakon Bibi was Majid Khan's wife. Then the Pakistani Army officials requested her to work for them. Kakon Bibi agreed, and did not demur when they asked her to find out about the Mukti Bahini. They gave her a document that would verify her mission with other Pakistani camps and said 'If Pakistani soldiers find you, they will help you when they see this document. But if you are caught by Mukti Bahini soldiers, you must eat this paper.'
'I told them that I would follow their instructions exactly. They trusted me,' Kakon Bibi says. She assured the Pakistani soldiers that she would work for and act as their spy on the Mukti Bahini, but even the written document helped her in her role of double agent. 'They thought I supported the Pakistani army as my husband was a Pakistani soldier, but I did the opposite,' she says.
Once she was caught, the Pakistani Army showed her no pity. 'The Pakistani soldiers tortured me by pressing white-hot iron into my flesh, all over my body. Till today, I can feel the burns,' she says.
When the war ended, her husband returned to Pakistan but did not take Kakon Bibi with him, as she was an ally of Mukti Bahini. To support herself financially, she started a grocery shop. She and her daughter spent days and nights in this shop. But within time she lost her shop due to lack of capital. Then she started to work on farming lands. When she could not manage her livelihood anymore, she started begging ' the same profession she had pretended to take up to help the Mukti Bahini. 'Finding no other way, I had to become a beggar. This is also my fight. A fight against poverty,' she says.
The brave woman who was so vital in freeing the country now leads a miserable life. 'I was successful in the fight against the Pakistan Army, but I failed in my fight against the poverty,'she says. 'Now I cannot even manage two meals a day.'
However, Kakon Bibi is not a beggar now - though perilously close to one. After the publication of a report on her begging status in some dailies, the government and some other organisations extended aid to her in 1997. But the help ended there. Now she is almost back to her begging life. According to her, as a freedom fighter she now receives Tk 5000 every six months from the government. This amount is not enough for her to live on. 'I do not have a son. My son-in-law is the only earning member of my family. He is a van driver. In this profession he does not get enough money to manage our five member family. So we are struggling to survive,' she says.
'Some days ago I went to the local Union Parishad Chairman Amirul's office to collect VGF card. He said 'Hey woman, get out of my office. You won't get anything from us' she says. 'I risked my life for this country, and now I must receive foul words like 'Get out' from Amirul,' she says with tears.
Kakon Bibi's daughter Sokhina says that some days ago the local Union Parishad chairman made a list of freedom fighters but Kakon Bibi was not on that list. 'When I asked why my mother is not on the list, the chairman Amirul told us 'You are the government's people. You won't get any help and won't be listed.' she says.
Independence Day will have many programmes and many people celebrating, but on that day, Kakon Bibi may not have a single meal. 'How much longer will I fight against poverty? At the age of 85 I want to live a peaceful life. I want to live a poverty-free life,' Kakon Bibi says.
www.newagebd.com
Read more about her in Bangla -
http://www.gunijan.org/GjProfDetails.php?GjProfId=184
Showing posts with label JUSTICE 1971. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JUSTICE 1971. Show all posts
Sunday, 3 May 2009
Friday, 17 April 2009
DID BANGABANDHU ACTUALLY PARDON ALL WAR CRIMINALS?
Contrary to the misconception that all the war criminals have been pardoned
If a society that allows the war criminals to roam around free for so many years, it is not at all surprising that such a society will become a breeding ground for criminals. The trial of those who actively opposed Bangladesh's liberation by taking up arms to fight for the occupying Pakistani army has been one of the unfinished legacies of our history.
The process of trial of the war criminals was originally began in 1972 and stopped abruptly after the assignation of the country’s founding president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in August 1975.
A total of 37,000 war criminals were arrested between 1972 and 1975.
Twenty-six thousands (26,000) of the detainees with records of minor offence, were pardoned under a general amnesty announced by Mujib government, in which the accused against whom there was no clear evidence of killing, rape, arson and looting were given clemency. There was this clause that even those who were pardoned if new allegations of killing, rape, arson and looting turned up against them they could be tried.
But the trial process of 11,000 others, against whom there was clear evidence of killing, rape, arson and looting was on. Among them 752 were handed down with sentences after the trial under the Collaborators Act 1972. By December 31, the trials of these 752 war criminals were finished, even death penalties were handed down, and one war criminal walked the gallows.
Notably, the first death penalty executed in the history of Bangladesh was in fact that of a war criminal.
But, unfortunately, after the assassination of Bangabandhu (Sheikh Mujibur Rahman) the ruling general Ziaur Rahman halted the process of trial of the war criminals by scrapping the Collaborators Act, resulting in rehabilitation of the hated criminals in the society.
Around 11,000 were behind bars when the government of Justice Sayem and General Zia repealed the Collaborators’ Act on December 31, 1975. They in fact stopped the trial and investigation process. Even those who had been punished were then freed.
sources: online
If a society that allows the war criminals to roam around free for so many years, it is not at all surprising that such a society will become a breeding ground for criminals. The trial of those who actively opposed Bangladesh's liberation by taking up arms to fight for the occupying Pakistani army has been one of the unfinished legacies of our history.
The process of trial of the war criminals was originally began in 1972 and stopped abruptly after the assignation of the country’s founding president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in August 1975.
A total of 37,000 war criminals were arrested between 1972 and 1975.
Twenty-six thousands (26,000) of the detainees with records of minor offence, were pardoned under a general amnesty announced by Mujib government, in which the accused against whom there was no clear evidence of killing, rape, arson and looting were given clemency. There was this clause that even those who were pardoned if new allegations of killing, rape, arson and looting turned up against them they could be tried.
But the trial process of 11,000 others, against whom there was clear evidence of killing, rape, arson and looting was on. Among them 752 were handed down with sentences after the trial under the Collaborators Act 1972. By December 31, the trials of these 752 war criminals were finished, even death penalties were handed down, and one war criminal walked the gallows.
Notably, the first death penalty executed in the history of Bangladesh was in fact that of a war criminal.
But, unfortunately, after the assassination of Bangabandhu (Sheikh Mujibur Rahman) the ruling general Ziaur Rahman halted the process of trial of the war criminals by scrapping the Collaborators Act, resulting in rehabilitation of the hated criminals in the society.
Around 11,000 were behind bars when the government of Justice Sayem and General Zia repealed the Collaborators’ Act on December 31, 1975. They in fact stopped the trial and investigation process. Even those who had been punished were then freed.
sources: online
NO WAY JAMAAT-E-ISLAMI DENY THEIR ROLE AS WAR CRIMINALS
Jamaat-e-Islami, which yesterday once again denied its anti-liberation role during the 1971 War of Independence, had many of its top leaders among the Razakar members surrendering along with the Pakistan occupation forces on December 16, 1971.
Present Jamaat chief Motiur Rahman Nizami was the chief of Al-Badr, one of the two wings of the Army of Razakars that worked for the Pakistan armed forces to eliminate freedom fighters. The Al Badr is thought to be behind the massacre of the intellectuals on December 14, 1971 when a hundred intellectuals were picked up to be slaughtered.
Lt Gen Niazi’s account:
According to the account of events chronicled by Lt Gen AAK Niazi, who led the Pakistan occupation forces as the chief of Eastern Command of the Pakistan Army in 1971, render the Jamaat’s claim untrue, whom the Jamaat wholeheartedly supported in eliminating freedom fighters in 1971.
Niazi in his book ''The Betrayal of East Pakistan" has categorically said the Army of Razakars was formed by the Pakistan government to fight against the liberation forces. Niazi also describes the formation of the Razakars, training and procurement of weapons and other logistics for them and deployment of the paramilitary vigilante force.
In his book, he says Jamaat-e-Islami, Nizam-i-Islam Party and several factions of Muslim League were known as rightist political parties at the time and the Army of Razakars was formed with the men recruited from these parties.
"Seventy percent of the target ceiling, of 50,000 Razakars spread over all the districts of the province, was achieved. Battle schools were established to train Razakar platoon and company commanders. To provide an effective command structure to this organisation, about sixty young officers were selected to be appointed as Razakar Group Commanders," Niazi says.
Pleased with their performance, Niazi dedicated his book to the Razakars and Mujahids of East Pakistan along with the members of the armed forces, civil armed forces, civilian officers and the West Pakistan police, saying they "strove hard, made supreme sacrifices and suffered humiliation to keep Pakistan united".
Maj Siddiq Salik’s account:
In fact, Jamaat's dominance in the paramilitary force annoyed other parties.
Maj Siddiq Salik, who was the public relations officer of the then Eastern Command of Pakistan Army and worked closely with Niazi in 1971, in his book "Witness to Surrender" says in September 1971 a political delegation from West Pakistan complained to Niazi that he had raised an army dominated by Jamaat men.
"The General called me to his office and said: From now on, you will call the Razakars--Al-Badr and Al-Shams--to give the impression that they do not belong to one single party," Salik writes.
He observes that the Jamaat leaders collaborated with the Pakistan army "not only to advance their ideals of Pakistan as an Islamic state, but also to wreak vengeance on people they were at enmity with".
There are Historic Documents:
According to the historic document of surrender, the Razakars also conceded defeat in the country's Liberation War along with the Pakistan armed forces. "...This surrender includes all Pakistan land, air, and naval forces as also all paramilitary forces and civil armed forces," says the instrument of surrender signed between the chiefs of the Pakistan occupation forces and the Indian and Bangladesh liberation forces.
Military schools were set up to train the Razakars and a separate Razakars Directorate was established. The Razakars were provided with machine guns, sten guns and intelligence against Bangalee freedom fighters, their supporters and sympathisers.
Jamaat leaders Golam Azam, Abbas Ali Khan, Motiur Rahman Nizami and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojahid launched a countrywide campaign urging youths to join the Razakars, Al-Badr, and the Al-Shams to resist the liberation forces of Bangladesh. The then home ministry also sent reports to West Pakistan about the activities of these forces in favour of the Pakistan occupation forces.
As the newspapers suggest, the top leadership of the Jamaat has been involved in the rape and killing during the war of liberation. Due to their involvement in the anti-liberation activities, Jamaat was constitutionally banned after the country's independence and many Jamaat leaders had to face trial on charges of war crimes.
Source: Online
Present Jamaat chief Motiur Rahman Nizami was the chief of Al-Badr, one of the two wings of the Army of Razakars that worked for the Pakistan armed forces to eliminate freedom fighters. The Al Badr is thought to be behind the massacre of the intellectuals on December 14, 1971 when a hundred intellectuals were picked up to be slaughtered.
Lt Gen Niazi’s account:
According to the account of events chronicled by Lt Gen AAK Niazi, who led the Pakistan occupation forces as the chief of Eastern Command of the Pakistan Army in 1971, render the Jamaat’s claim untrue, whom the Jamaat wholeheartedly supported in eliminating freedom fighters in 1971.
Niazi in his book ''The Betrayal of East Pakistan" has categorically said the Army of Razakars was formed by the Pakistan government to fight against the liberation forces. Niazi also describes the formation of the Razakars, training and procurement of weapons and other logistics for them and deployment of the paramilitary vigilante force.
In his book, he says Jamaat-e-Islami, Nizam-i-Islam Party and several factions of Muslim League were known as rightist political parties at the time and the Army of Razakars was formed with the men recruited from these parties.
"Seventy percent of the target ceiling, of 50,000 Razakars spread over all the districts of the province, was achieved. Battle schools were established to train Razakar platoon and company commanders. To provide an effective command structure to this organisation, about sixty young officers were selected to be appointed as Razakar Group Commanders," Niazi says.
Pleased with their performance, Niazi dedicated his book to the Razakars and Mujahids of East Pakistan along with the members of the armed forces, civil armed forces, civilian officers and the West Pakistan police, saying they "strove hard, made supreme sacrifices and suffered humiliation to keep Pakistan united".
Maj Siddiq Salik’s account:
In fact, Jamaat's dominance in the paramilitary force annoyed other parties.
Maj Siddiq Salik, who was the public relations officer of the then Eastern Command of Pakistan Army and worked closely with Niazi in 1971, in his book "Witness to Surrender" says in September 1971 a political delegation from West Pakistan complained to Niazi that he had raised an army dominated by Jamaat men.
"The General called me to his office and said: From now on, you will call the Razakars--Al-Badr and Al-Shams--to give the impression that they do not belong to one single party," Salik writes.
He observes that the Jamaat leaders collaborated with the Pakistan army "not only to advance their ideals of Pakistan as an Islamic state, but also to wreak vengeance on people they were at enmity with".
There are Historic Documents:
According to the historic document of surrender, the Razakars also conceded defeat in the country's Liberation War along with the Pakistan armed forces. "...This surrender includes all Pakistan land, air, and naval forces as also all paramilitary forces and civil armed forces," says the instrument of surrender signed between the chiefs of the Pakistan occupation forces and the Indian and Bangladesh liberation forces.
Military schools were set up to train the Razakars and a separate Razakars Directorate was established. The Razakars were provided with machine guns, sten guns and intelligence against Bangalee freedom fighters, their supporters and sympathisers.
Jamaat leaders Golam Azam, Abbas Ali Khan, Motiur Rahman Nizami and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojahid launched a countrywide campaign urging youths to join the Razakars, Al-Badr, and the Al-Shams to resist the liberation forces of Bangladesh. The then home ministry also sent reports to West Pakistan about the activities of these forces in favour of the Pakistan occupation forces.
As the newspapers suggest, the top leadership of the Jamaat has been involved in the rape and killing during the war of liberation. Due to their involvement in the anti-liberation activities, Jamaat was constitutionally banned after the country's independence and many Jamaat leaders had to face trial on charges of war crimes.
Source: Online
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
BANGLADESH AND WAR CRIMES etc.
Government has fundamental responsibility to prosecute ‘The 1971 criminals’.
To ensure trial of ‘the 1971 criminals’ the government in 1973 amended the constitution for the first time. The Bangladesh constitution provides the government with unlimited power to try ‘the 1971 criminals’ by any laws no matter whether those contradict the provisions of the constitution or not, denying protection of law, protection in respect of trial and punishment and seek remedy from the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
Power given in Article 47 (3) of the constitution: The government has absolute power to try ‘the 1971 criminals’.
Article 47 (3): “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, no law nor any provision thereof providing for detention, prosecution or punishment of any person, who is a member of any armed or defence or auxiliary forces or who is a prisoner of war, for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes and other crimes under international law shall be deemed void or unlawful, or ever to have become void or unlawful, on the ground that such law or provision of any such law is inconsistent with, or repugnant to any of the provisions of this Constitution.”
Article 47-A: “In applicability of certain articles,(1) The rights guaranteed under article 31. clauses (1) and (3) of article 35 and article 44 shall not apply to any person to whom a law specified in clause (3) of article 47 applies.(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, no person to whom a law specified in clause (3) of article 47 applies shall have the right to move the Supreme Court for any of the remedies under this Constitution.”
The International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973:
The International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973, promulgated on July 20, 1973 empowers the government to try individuals on specific charges of crimes against humanity and peace, genocide, war crimes, violation of the Geneva Convention and international laws, for assistance or conspiracy to commit such crimes, and for failure to prevent commissioning of such crimes.
The government only needs to set up a tribunal under this act which is still applicable, as the general amnesty granted to ‘1971 criminals’ by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1973 does not apply to individuals, “those who were punished for or accused of rape, murder, attempt to murder or arson will not come under the general amnesty” [The press note on the general amnesty on November 30, 1973].
The gazette notification promulgating the Act on July 20, 1973 says the tribunal set up under the act shall have the power to try and punish any person irrespective of his nationality, who, being a member of any armed, defence or auxiliary forces commits or has committed in the territory of Bangladesh, whether before or after the commencement of this act, any of the above mentioned crimes.
In principle the Act is still in force. The Act requires a thorough review. The definition of auxiliary forces needs special care and proper examination.
The government framed the Bangladesh Collaborators (Special Tribunals) Order, 1972, and started prosecuting ‘the 1971 criminals’. But the ‘dark August 1975’ budge changed the situation since the law was repealed on December 31 that year.
Let’s think about it and do something:
"I have got millions of sons losing mine. I have got a country, which is my great achievement. I have a demand--when will the war criminals be tried? "MOKIDUNNESA mother of shaheed Birshreshtha Munshi Abdur Rob.
"My father's soul won't be in peace until the war criminals are tried. The government had conferred the highest respect on the valiant fighters. Why can't they put the war criminals on trial?"FATEMA AMIN daughter of shaheed Birshreshtha Ruhul Amin.
"My husband sacrificed his life for the country. I am proud of him. We want the trial of those who had slaughtered people during the liberation war."MILI RAHMAN wife of shaheed Birshreshtha Matiur Rahman.
"The state needs to file a case in order to try and punish the accused."Professor FARIDA BANU sister of shaheed intellectual Giasuddin. She filed the case with Ramna Police Station on September 24, 1997 against two al-Badr cadres--Chowdhury Mainuddin and Ashrafuzzaman--for killing her brother on December 14 in 1971.
"The government has absolute power to frame any sort of law to try the war criminals."GHULAM RABBANI former judge of Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
"If the present government does not try the war criminals, then we will try the war criminals after reinstating the Collaborators Act if voted to power."ZILLUR RAHMAN acting president of Awami League.[now president of Bangladesh State]
"The government must move to try the war criminals. An individual cannot do it."ABDUL MANNAN BHUIYAN senior leader of Bangladesh Nationalist Party. He has also said: "The war criminals killed many intellectuals. Nobody took action against them even after there were strong allegations against them. The government must take the responsibility of trying them in line with people's demand."
"People will be able to offer their tributes to the seven gallant soldiers together if they are reburied in the same place. I have requested the chief adviser."Gen MOEEN U AHMED Army chief saying the seven war heroes should be buried in the same place.
Quotations Are Taken From Star Weekend Magazine Volume 6 Issue 49 December 28, 2007.
To ensure trial of ‘the 1971 criminals’ the government in 1973 amended the constitution for the first time. The Bangladesh constitution provides the government with unlimited power to try ‘the 1971 criminals’ by any laws no matter whether those contradict the provisions of the constitution or not, denying protection of law, protection in respect of trial and punishment and seek remedy from the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
Power given in Article 47 (3) of the constitution: The government has absolute power to try ‘the 1971 criminals’.
Article 47 (3): “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, no law nor any provision thereof providing for detention, prosecution or punishment of any person, who is a member of any armed or defence or auxiliary forces or who is a prisoner of war, for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes and other crimes under international law shall be deemed void or unlawful, or ever to have become void or unlawful, on the ground that such law or provision of any such law is inconsistent with, or repugnant to any of the provisions of this Constitution.”
Article 47-A: “In applicability of certain articles,(1) The rights guaranteed under article 31. clauses (1) and (3) of article 35 and article 44 shall not apply to any person to whom a law specified in clause (3) of article 47 applies.(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, no person to whom a law specified in clause (3) of article 47 applies shall have the right to move the Supreme Court for any of the remedies under this Constitution.”
The International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973:
The International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973, promulgated on July 20, 1973 empowers the government to try individuals on specific charges of crimes against humanity and peace, genocide, war crimes, violation of the Geneva Convention and international laws, for assistance or conspiracy to commit such crimes, and for failure to prevent commissioning of such crimes.
The government only needs to set up a tribunal under this act which is still applicable, as the general amnesty granted to ‘1971 criminals’ by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1973 does not apply to individuals, “those who were punished for or accused of rape, murder, attempt to murder or arson will not come under the general amnesty” [The press note on the general amnesty on November 30, 1973].
The gazette notification promulgating the Act on July 20, 1973 says the tribunal set up under the act shall have the power to try and punish any person irrespective of his nationality, who, being a member of any armed, defence or auxiliary forces commits or has committed in the territory of Bangladesh, whether before or after the commencement of this act, any of the above mentioned crimes.
In principle the Act is still in force. The Act requires a thorough review. The definition of auxiliary forces needs special care and proper examination.
The government framed the Bangladesh Collaborators (Special Tribunals) Order, 1972, and started prosecuting ‘the 1971 criminals’. But the ‘dark August 1975’ budge changed the situation since the law was repealed on December 31 that year.
Let’s think about it and do something:
"I have got millions of sons losing mine. I have got a country, which is my great achievement. I have a demand--when will the war criminals be tried? "MOKIDUNNESA mother of shaheed Birshreshtha Munshi Abdur Rob.
"My father's soul won't be in peace until the war criminals are tried. The government had conferred the highest respect on the valiant fighters. Why can't they put the war criminals on trial?"FATEMA AMIN daughter of shaheed Birshreshtha Ruhul Amin.
"My husband sacrificed his life for the country. I am proud of him. We want the trial of those who had slaughtered people during the liberation war."MILI RAHMAN wife of shaheed Birshreshtha Matiur Rahman.
"The state needs to file a case in order to try and punish the accused."Professor FARIDA BANU sister of shaheed intellectual Giasuddin. She filed the case with Ramna Police Station on September 24, 1997 against two al-Badr cadres--Chowdhury Mainuddin and Ashrafuzzaman--for killing her brother on December 14 in 1971.
"The government has absolute power to frame any sort of law to try the war criminals."GHULAM RABBANI former judge of Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
"If the present government does not try the war criminals, then we will try the war criminals after reinstating the Collaborators Act if voted to power."ZILLUR RAHMAN acting president of Awami League.[now president of Bangladesh State]
"The government must move to try the war criminals. An individual cannot do it."ABDUL MANNAN BHUIYAN senior leader of Bangladesh Nationalist Party. He has also said: "The war criminals killed many intellectuals. Nobody took action against them even after there were strong allegations against them. The government must take the responsibility of trying them in line with people's demand."
"People will be able to offer their tributes to the seven gallant soldiers together if they are reburied in the same place. I have requested the chief adviser."Gen MOEEN U AHMED Army chief saying the seven war heroes should be buried in the same place.
Quotations Are Taken From Star Weekend Magazine Volume 6 Issue 49 December 28, 2007.
SOME IMPORTANT ISSUES
The original sin
Justice for 1971 crimes
Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin
Bangladesh still has not dealt with its past and past never left her. For any society, traumatized by serious crimes and widespread victimizations, dealing definitively with past is critical, or else, it will hunt present and future. A tormented society cannot just be expected to forget or even forgive, unless ways are found to bring the society to terms. In nearly four decades, Bangladesh has failed to reconcile with its past, an “original sin” according to a noted commentator.
Societal victimizations have innate characteristics. It also victimizes succeeding generations. It would be wrong to assume that passing off those directly victimized would lessen traumas, pains, grievances of their successors. It would not. Only “justice” guarantees compressive closure and that is what is preciously needed now in Bangladesh.
If the current Caretaker Government has its way, it's not likely to take steps to initiate the process of long denied and demanded justice for 1971 crimes. In that case, the Government risks being accused of exploiting sensitivities of 1971 for short-term political gains, like many of its predecessors. The Chief Advisor and Chief of Army, two key players of the current administration, early in their regime, in a synchronized way, raised spectrum of expectations of justice. That opened up torrents of pent-up feelings and emotions of pains as well as hope that those responsible would finally be brought to account and victims get justice.
Crimes of 1971
It's very difficult to decipher how in Bangladesh “War Crimes” and “War Criminals” became only issue to denote 1971. All campaigns, for justice or otherwise, organizations, newspapers and other medias, commentaries “exclusively” focus on War Crimes. It is as if, only one crime was committed in Bangladesh in 1971. Trial of War Criminals is the only call that emanates from Bangladesh today and this excessive focus on War Crimes has enabled those allegedly responsible, to spin and play around legal technicalities of definition of War Crimes.
In reality, most victims in Bangladesh in 1971 were victims of Genocide and Crimes against humanity, two most abhorrent crimes known to the world. National, ethnicity, racial and religion determined fates of victims of 1971.
Pakistani military and their local cohorts intentionally targeted Bangalis, to destroy in part or whole, because of their national, ethnical, racial identities. Others were exclusively targeted because of their religion, such as Hindus. Once transposed, such facts neatly fit the Crime of Genocide as defined in the Genocide Convention of 1948 and the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973.
The next crime, which victimized large numbers of other victims, was Crimes against humanity. In short, international laws, it means, widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with the knowledge of attack. In other words, Crimes against humanity are large-scale attacks, and inhumane acts against or persecutions of civilians. In 1971, most victims were unarmed civilians and not armed combatants. For those carrying weapons, different laws apply but under no circumstances, civilians could be targeted.
So, it's very important to keep in mind while demanding justice for crimes committed in 1971, that one particular crime is not overemphasized so that it becomes synonymous to 1971.
Highest criminal responsibility
Anyone who has committed any of these crimes or ordered, solicited, induced, facilitated, aided, abetted, incited or contributed in any other way in furthering the criminal activity with the knowledge, should be individually held accountable. However, it's important that attention is given to those in superior authority, who planned or organized or ran criminal organizations like Al Badar, bore highest criminal responsibility, and should be pursued in all earnest. Bringing those to justice with higher criminal responsibility should thus be made a priority.
Duty to prosecute
Investigation and prosecution is not an “option” for a State but a “duty” under international and national laws for international crimes like Crime of Genocide, Crimes against humanity, War Crimes etc. The Government as the authority of the State, is obliged to “prevent” the commission of Genocide in the first place, and committed, investigate and then prosecute those responsible.
In regard to Bangladesh Genocide, this is preciously what the Government of Pakistan said in its case against India concerning Trail of Pakistani Prisoners War on 11 May, 1973. Pakistan filed a case on that day before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judicial organ of the UN that mainly resolves disputes between its members and is based in The Hague, Holland, to prevent India from transferring 195 POWs accused of Genocide, Crimes against humanity and War Crimes to Bangladesh for trials in Bangladesh.
In its application, Pakistan maintained that “Pakistan has an exclusive right to exercise jurisdiction over one hundred and ninety-five Pakistani nationals or any other number, now in Indian custody, and accused of committing acts of genocide in Pakistani territory, by virtue of the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 December 1948, and that no other Government or authority is competent to exercise such jurisdiction.”
Pakistan further said, “That the allegations against the aforesaid prisoners of war are related to acts of genocide, and the concept of “crimes against humanity” or “war crimes” is not applicable.” In other words, Pakistan accepted that 195 POWs, who were top ranking military leaders in Bangladesh, committed “acts of genocide” and thus reinforcing what Bangladesh has always maintained. Pakistan's sojourn to the World Court, however, failed as India did not recognize jurisdiction of the ICJ.
Unfortunately, despite admitting Genocide before the International Court of Justice, Pakistan negated from its claim to investigate and prosecute of those of its nationals for committing Genocide, and so also Bangladesh, whose nationals were victims and on whose territory, crimes were committed. The losers, at the end, were those millions of victims.
The Government of Bangladesh thus cannot circumvent its duty to investigate and prosecute crimes of 1971 on any pretext, such as, failures of previous Governments, or shortages of time, or on other grounds. Obligation to investigate and prosecute is a duty that the Government cannot withdraw from and further perpetuate culture of impunity that is so endemic in Bangladesh.
Two laws, same crimes
Why Bangladesh adopted two different sets of laws for the same sets of crimes committed in 1971 has since been an enigma.
The first legislation, proclaimed within weeks of liberation of Bangladesh on 24 January, 1972, the Presidential Order no 8, titled the Bangladesh Collaborators (Special Tribunals) Order, 1972, was designed to prosecute “certain persons, individuals or as members of organizations, directly or indirectly have been collaborators of the Pakistan armed forces, which has illegally occupied Bangladesh by brute force, and have aided and abetted the Pakistan armed forces in occupation, in committing genocide and crimes against humanity..” etc. In other words, the law was for prosecution of collaborators.
The other one passed a year and half later on 20 July 1973, the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, was to try and punish any member of “armed forces, defence or auxiliary forces” who committed seven major crimes, including Crimes against humanity, Genocide and War Crimes. It baffles many, why it took so long to enact this law, purportedly to judge main protagonists of these crimes, while within five weeks after victory from occupations; laws were ready to try locals!
The two laws dealt with collaborators and members of armed forces differently for committing very same crimes. In fact, no members of armed forces were ever brought under the International Crimes Act 1973, while several thousand collaborators were brought under the net.
This duality, apparently with no plausible justifications, essentially went against an important principle of law, equal treatment under law, and as a result, when final batch of 195 POWs were allowed to return to Pakistan, for whom the International Crimes Act 1973 was primarily meant for, then the Collaborators Order lost some of its edge. If there was one law, for the crimes committed in 1971 and given adequate constitutional protection, perhaps that law would have played more significant roles.
Non-prosecution or amnestySeveral Special Tribunals under Collaborators Order processed numerous cases and leading members of East Pakistan Government headed by Dr. M.A. Malik were convicted. Senior Jamaat leaders were also convicted for participating and collaborating in crimes. Many more were being investigated and thousands of others remained detained.
The Government, on 16 May, 1973, for the first time, declared clemency to certain categories of persons who had been convicted for or charged with the offences under the Bangladesh Collaborators (Special Tribunals) Order, 1972. On November 30, 1973, the Government made second announcement of clemency to those who had been convicted or accused of offences under the Collaborators Order, except those accused of murder, rape or arson. The en mass release was premised that this would contribute to national reconciliation but in reality, it had exact opposite effects.
There was no consultation of any sort with victims of 1971 crimes, who lost most and thus, the proverbial first seed of the 'original sin” was planted though this unilateral decision. Not only small fries but big fishes then wiggled out of prison because of corruption, favoritism and misuse of powers.
The amnesty order was also legally flawed, in that, only the President of Bangladesh under Article 57 has been authorized to grant pardons to “convicted” persons, not those accused or under trial. Under the misnomer of amnesty, the Government in fact stopped all prosecutions, did not press charges further and released others. It acted illegally in releasing those convicted.
If analyzed, it transpires that what happened was, in absence of better expression, non-prosecution, where the Government decided not to pursue complaints. This was in no way clemency or amnesty, and therefore, successive Governments are under no legal obligations not to prosecute because this amnesty order. This amnesty order in no way is a hindrance to initiate investigations against those freed. Moreover, another similar order could easily replace that amnesty order.
Approaches followed
Nobody could imagine seismic effects of Genocide, Crimes against humanity and War crimes on lives, properties and future of Bangladesh. The new Government just could not get grips over tsunami of pains and sorrows. Victims were helped in some ways but mostly left to fend for themselves. Many new civil society actors emerged and organizations formed, but nobody organized the victims that would have given them some voice. There was no “policy” produced to deal with victims and aftermaths of Genocide and a Libration war.
In some ways, however, Bangladesh, even in absence of a policy, victim's organizations or effective consultations, made attempts to deal with consequences. It picked up local collaborators to avoid private vengeances. Law to prosecute and punish collaborators was brought in, and Special Tribunals started to operate.
Some key individuals were stripped of their citizenship; a strategy though received initial supports, was legally flawed. Such disqualifications were not made as a part of punishment, after a legal process, but done with executive fiat. All such disqualifications were subsequently reversed.
Amnesty, perceived to be panacea of reconciliation, simply collapsed on weights of injustice. Those beneficiaries of amnesty or non-prosecution, regrouped, eventually re-energized and mounted opposition to very ethos of Bangladesh, a liberal and secular society. Today's Islamists are by and large same individuals, believing in same ideologies, and belonging to same organizations that benefited reconciliation gesture.
Virtually nobody received compensation in a meaningful way, nor was lost properties restored. Obviously, there was no question of reparations and victims then forced to pick-up themselves and move on. Some monuments and mausoleums were constructed, symbolizing struggles and sufferings. Even within victims, some sort of artificial hierarchy emerged though marking of Intellectual Martyrs Day on each 14th December, while million other victims have not got such a day for collective grievances and reflection. As yet, Bangladesh doesn't commemorate a Victim's Day or even a Genocide Day.
Conclusion
Those who thought that with disappearances of victims, calls for justice would also die. They could not be more. Now the nation united in calling for justice for crimes of 1971. The past has returned with force, that many tried to bypass.
Bangladesh has to deal with its past, and now, or else, schism and fault lines developed on 1971 would further widen. The wounds are too deep to heal without justice.
All out efforts should be made to organize victims of Genocide and other crimes of 1971. Victims should be reminded that their pains are felt and shared by all. Victims should also be made center of all activities and all approaches should be victims centric.
Without prosecutions, there would be no healing. In post conflict societies, peace only comes with justice. The Government of Bangladesh cannot shrink off its responsibilities, if it aims at a democratic, developed and peaceful Bangladesh. It has to fulfill its obligations, without which, all aims will remain elusive. Experiences around the world tell us, justice is the best healer and that; there is no peace without justice.
The writer is international law expert and can be reached at Bangladesh Center for Genocide Studies, Belgium. Email: bdcgs@aim.com.
© All Rights Reservedthedailystar.net
Justice for 1971 crimes
Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin
Bangladesh still has not dealt with its past and past never left her. For any society, traumatized by serious crimes and widespread victimizations, dealing definitively with past is critical, or else, it will hunt present and future. A tormented society cannot just be expected to forget or even forgive, unless ways are found to bring the society to terms. In nearly four decades, Bangladesh has failed to reconcile with its past, an “original sin” according to a noted commentator.
Societal victimizations have innate characteristics. It also victimizes succeeding generations. It would be wrong to assume that passing off those directly victimized would lessen traumas, pains, grievances of their successors. It would not. Only “justice” guarantees compressive closure and that is what is preciously needed now in Bangladesh.
If the current Caretaker Government has its way, it's not likely to take steps to initiate the process of long denied and demanded justice for 1971 crimes. In that case, the Government risks being accused of exploiting sensitivities of 1971 for short-term political gains, like many of its predecessors. The Chief Advisor and Chief of Army, two key players of the current administration, early in their regime, in a synchronized way, raised spectrum of expectations of justice. That opened up torrents of pent-up feelings and emotions of pains as well as hope that those responsible would finally be brought to account and victims get justice.
Crimes of 1971
It's very difficult to decipher how in Bangladesh “War Crimes” and “War Criminals” became only issue to denote 1971. All campaigns, for justice or otherwise, organizations, newspapers and other medias, commentaries “exclusively” focus on War Crimes. It is as if, only one crime was committed in Bangladesh in 1971. Trial of War Criminals is the only call that emanates from Bangladesh today and this excessive focus on War Crimes has enabled those allegedly responsible, to spin and play around legal technicalities of definition of War Crimes.
In reality, most victims in Bangladesh in 1971 were victims of Genocide and Crimes against humanity, two most abhorrent crimes known to the world. National, ethnicity, racial and religion determined fates of victims of 1971.
Pakistani military and their local cohorts intentionally targeted Bangalis, to destroy in part or whole, because of their national, ethnical, racial identities. Others were exclusively targeted because of their religion, such as Hindus. Once transposed, such facts neatly fit the Crime of Genocide as defined in the Genocide Convention of 1948 and the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973.
The next crime, which victimized large numbers of other victims, was Crimes against humanity. In short, international laws, it means, widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with the knowledge of attack. In other words, Crimes against humanity are large-scale attacks, and inhumane acts against or persecutions of civilians. In 1971, most victims were unarmed civilians and not armed combatants. For those carrying weapons, different laws apply but under no circumstances, civilians could be targeted.
So, it's very important to keep in mind while demanding justice for crimes committed in 1971, that one particular crime is not overemphasized so that it becomes synonymous to 1971.
Highest criminal responsibility
Anyone who has committed any of these crimes or ordered, solicited, induced, facilitated, aided, abetted, incited or contributed in any other way in furthering the criminal activity with the knowledge, should be individually held accountable. However, it's important that attention is given to those in superior authority, who planned or organized or ran criminal organizations like Al Badar, bore highest criminal responsibility, and should be pursued in all earnest. Bringing those to justice with higher criminal responsibility should thus be made a priority.
Duty to prosecute
Investigation and prosecution is not an “option” for a State but a “duty” under international and national laws for international crimes like Crime of Genocide, Crimes against humanity, War Crimes etc. The Government as the authority of the State, is obliged to “prevent” the commission of Genocide in the first place, and committed, investigate and then prosecute those responsible.
In regard to Bangladesh Genocide, this is preciously what the Government of Pakistan said in its case against India concerning Trail of Pakistani Prisoners War on 11 May, 1973. Pakistan filed a case on that day before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judicial organ of the UN that mainly resolves disputes between its members and is based in The Hague, Holland, to prevent India from transferring 195 POWs accused of Genocide, Crimes against humanity and War Crimes to Bangladesh for trials in Bangladesh.
In its application, Pakistan maintained that “Pakistan has an exclusive right to exercise jurisdiction over one hundred and ninety-five Pakistani nationals or any other number, now in Indian custody, and accused of committing acts of genocide in Pakistani territory, by virtue of the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 December 1948, and that no other Government or authority is competent to exercise such jurisdiction.”
Pakistan further said, “That the allegations against the aforesaid prisoners of war are related to acts of genocide, and the concept of “crimes against humanity” or “war crimes” is not applicable.” In other words, Pakistan accepted that 195 POWs, who were top ranking military leaders in Bangladesh, committed “acts of genocide” and thus reinforcing what Bangladesh has always maintained. Pakistan's sojourn to the World Court, however, failed as India did not recognize jurisdiction of the ICJ.
Unfortunately, despite admitting Genocide before the International Court of Justice, Pakistan negated from its claim to investigate and prosecute of those of its nationals for committing Genocide, and so also Bangladesh, whose nationals were victims and on whose territory, crimes were committed. The losers, at the end, were those millions of victims.
The Government of Bangladesh thus cannot circumvent its duty to investigate and prosecute crimes of 1971 on any pretext, such as, failures of previous Governments, or shortages of time, or on other grounds. Obligation to investigate and prosecute is a duty that the Government cannot withdraw from and further perpetuate culture of impunity that is so endemic in Bangladesh.
Two laws, same crimes
Why Bangladesh adopted two different sets of laws for the same sets of crimes committed in 1971 has since been an enigma.
The first legislation, proclaimed within weeks of liberation of Bangladesh on 24 January, 1972, the Presidential Order no 8, titled the Bangladesh Collaborators (Special Tribunals) Order, 1972, was designed to prosecute “certain persons, individuals or as members of organizations, directly or indirectly have been collaborators of the Pakistan armed forces, which has illegally occupied Bangladesh by brute force, and have aided and abetted the Pakistan armed forces in occupation, in committing genocide and crimes against humanity..” etc. In other words, the law was for prosecution of collaborators.
The other one passed a year and half later on 20 July 1973, the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, was to try and punish any member of “armed forces, defence or auxiliary forces” who committed seven major crimes, including Crimes against humanity, Genocide and War Crimes. It baffles many, why it took so long to enact this law, purportedly to judge main protagonists of these crimes, while within five weeks after victory from occupations; laws were ready to try locals!
The two laws dealt with collaborators and members of armed forces differently for committing very same crimes. In fact, no members of armed forces were ever brought under the International Crimes Act 1973, while several thousand collaborators were brought under the net.
This duality, apparently with no plausible justifications, essentially went against an important principle of law, equal treatment under law, and as a result, when final batch of 195 POWs were allowed to return to Pakistan, for whom the International Crimes Act 1973 was primarily meant for, then the Collaborators Order lost some of its edge. If there was one law, for the crimes committed in 1971 and given adequate constitutional protection, perhaps that law would have played more significant roles.
Non-prosecution or amnestySeveral Special Tribunals under Collaborators Order processed numerous cases and leading members of East Pakistan Government headed by Dr. M.A. Malik were convicted. Senior Jamaat leaders were also convicted for participating and collaborating in crimes. Many more were being investigated and thousands of others remained detained.
The Government, on 16 May, 1973, for the first time, declared clemency to certain categories of persons who had been convicted for or charged with the offences under the Bangladesh Collaborators (Special Tribunals) Order, 1972. On November 30, 1973, the Government made second announcement of clemency to those who had been convicted or accused of offences under the Collaborators Order, except those accused of murder, rape or arson. The en mass release was premised that this would contribute to national reconciliation but in reality, it had exact opposite effects.
There was no consultation of any sort with victims of 1971 crimes, who lost most and thus, the proverbial first seed of the 'original sin” was planted though this unilateral decision. Not only small fries but big fishes then wiggled out of prison because of corruption, favoritism and misuse of powers.
The amnesty order was also legally flawed, in that, only the President of Bangladesh under Article 57 has been authorized to grant pardons to “convicted” persons, not those accused or under trial. Under the misnomer of amnesty, the Government in fact stopped all prosecutions, did not press charges further and released others. It acted illegally in releasing those convicted.
If analyzed, it transpires that what happened was, in absence of better expression, non-prosecution, where the Government decided not to pursue complaints. This was in no way clemency or amnesty, and therefore, successive Governments are under no legal obligations not to prosecute because this amnesty order. This amnesty order in no way is a hindrance to initiate investigations against those freed. Moreover, another similar order could easily replace that amnesty order.
Approaches followed
Nobody could imagine seismic effects of Genocide, Crimes against humanity and War crimes on lives, properties and future of Bangladesh. The new Government just could not get grips over tsunami of pains and sorrows. Victims were helped in some ways but mostly left to fend for themselves. Many new civil society actors emerged and organizations formed, but nobody organized the victims that would have given them some voice. There was no “policy” produced to deal with victims and aftermaths of Genocide and a Libration war.
In some ways, however, Bangladesh, even in absence of a policy, victim's organizations or effective consultations, made attempts to deal with consequences. It picked up local collaborators to avoid private vengeances. Law to prosecute and punish collaborators was brought in, and Special Tribunals started to operate.
Some key individuals were stripped of their citizenship; a strategy though received initial supports, was legally flawed. Such disqualifications were not made as a part of punishment, after a legal process, but done with executive fiat. All such disqualifications were subsequently reversed.
Amnesty, perceived to be panacea of reconciliation, simply collapsed on weights of injustice. Those beneficiaries of amnesty or non-prosecution, regrouped, eventually re-energized and mounted opposition to very ethos of Bangladesh, a liberal and secular society. Today's Islamists are by and large same individuals, believing in same ideologies, and belonging to same organizations that benefited reconciliation gesture.
Virtually nobody received compensation in a meaningful way, nor was lost properties restored. Obviously, there was no question of reparations and victims then forced to pick-up themselves and move on. Some monuments and mausoleums were constructed, symbolizing struggles and sufferings. Even within victims, some sort of artificial hierarchy emerged though marking of Intellectual Martyrs Day on each 14th December, while million other victims have not got such a day for collective grievances and reflection. As yet, Bangladesh doesn't commemorate a Victim's Day or even a Genocide Day.
Conclusion
Those who thought that with disappearances of victims, calls for justice would also die. They could not be more. Now the nation united in calling for justice for crimes of 1971. The past has returned with force, that many tried to bypass.
Bangladesh has to deal with its past, and now, or else, schism and fault lines developed on 1971 would further widen. The wounds are too deep to heal without justice.
All out efforts should be made to organize victims of Genocide and other crimes of 1971. Victims should be reminded that their pains are felt and shared by all. Victims should also be made center of all activities and all approaches should be victims centric.
Without prosecutions, there would be no healing. In post conflict societies, peace only comes with justice. The Government of Bangladesh cannot shrink off its responsibilities, if it aims at a democratic, developed and peaceful Bangladesh. It has to fulfill its obligations, without which, all aims will remain elusive. Experiences around the world tell us, justice is the best healer and that; there is no peace without justice.
The writer is international law expert and can be reached at Bangladesh Center for Genocide Studies, Belgium. Email: bdcgs@aim.com.
© All Rights Reservedthedailystar.net
JUSTICE FOR 1971
The Trial We are Waiting For
Julfikar Ali Manik
When Awami League Chief Sheikh Hasina announced her election manifesto in a jam-packed hall room on December 12, everyone was listening with rapt attention. Suddenly her supporters gave a huge round of applause breaking the silence. The jubilant applause was a clear message to Hasina, other politicians, foreign diplomats and journalists in the air-conditioned hall room of a five star hotel where the announcement had been made: even after 37 years people are highly emotional about this long-standing issue.
Hasina’s election pledge about trying war crimes has uplifted the spirits of not only the party workers, but has given hope to the entire nation despite its growing disillusionment from past experience of successive governments including the AL’s, of ignoring this popular demand. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s government had initiated the trial of the war criminals but could not continue due to the horrific events of 1975. The onus had been on all the governments that followed, some of which assumed power illegitimately or legitimately. Sadly, even the elected governments did not make the trial of war criminals a priority.
Hasina is pledge-bound to try the war criminals now as her election pledge about war crime has been endorsed by the ballot. There is little doubt that it was her promise to try war criminals that helped her to bag people’s landslide mandate. After the Grand Alliance’s landslide victory she said, “People have already ‘tried’ the war criminals and the anti-Liberation forces through ballots, but our government would obviously take legal steps to try them.” This, together with Hasina seeking support from the UN to bring war criminals under trial, has given people the hope that she is committed to her promise and intends to carry it out.
Chief of the UN Secretary General’s six-member high-level panel Francese Vendrel has said that it would be up to the new government to take up the matter with the UN Secretary General and make it clear what they want the UN to do. Experts, researchers on war crime and victims of the war crimes are also getting ready to help the government and UN. They think the new government should formally request the UN immediately for its involvement in the trial process.
Ferdousi Priyabhashini, one of the survivors of the 1971 war crimes, says, “I am really optimistic this time about the trial of war criminals. I am also eagerly waiting to deposit my witness as a victim in the war crime tribunal, which should be set up as quickly as possible.” Ferdousi, who is also a renowned sculptor of the country, already gave her testimony in many publications. She was imprisoned and tortured by the Pakistani occupation forces and their collaborators in Khulna during the nine-month liberation war in 1971. She witnessed the genocide, atrocities and destruction of the occupation force.
“As a witness I know many names of war criminals from the Pakistani army and their collaborators, I can place my deposition before the court when the tribunal is set up for the trial of war criminals,” she says.
Dr MA Hasan, convener of War Crimes Facts Finding Committee (WCFFC) says that there is enough evidence to try the war criminals of 1971. “We have many victims still alive, witnesses to the atrocities, documents and other evidence,” he says. Deputy Chief of Liberation Forces Air Vice Marshal (retd) AK Khandker, former advisor of caretaker government and human rights activist advocate Sultana Kamal, war crime researcher and human rights activist Shahriar Kabir and many other experts are equally confident about the availability of the evidence even after a lapse of 37 years.
“If it was possible to try German Nazis fifty years after their war crime,” says Khandker, “there is no question of not holding trials of war criminals of 1971 after 37 years.”
According to Ghulam Rabbani, former judge of Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, the necessary documentary materials for convicting the collaborators including the killers of intellectuals are all there with the home ministry. “Since the materials are more than 30 years old, according to the Evidence Act those are to be treated as ancient documents,” explains Rabbani. “No other evidence is required as those at the disposal of the ministry would be sufficient as exhibits in the case records, and conviction and sentence on the basis of that are very much possible.”
Some war crime researchers and leading freedom fighters think it would be better if international jurists, other experts and especially the United Nations help the Bangladesh government in the inquiry commission and trials as the UN has done in the case of many countries across the globe. But Justice Ghulam Rabbani thinks, that if we say the trial will be held under the supervision of the UN it will be a dangerous proposition because the country will have to surrender sovereignty.
“We have the necessary Act namely the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973,” says Rabbani, “now the government will have to constitute one or more tribunals by appointing the members according to the terms of the Act.”
Shahriar Kabir, acting president of Ekatturer Ghatok Dalal Nirmul Committee (A Forum for secular Bangladesh) has similar views, “We expect the UN’s role in trying the Pakistani war criminals but now we are more concerned about the trial of Bangladeshi war criminals.” Hasan emphasises on the terms of references of the trial. “The UN can help us in many ways but terms of references should be formulated by our government considering our social, political and historic perspective.”
Regarding evidence, International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973 states — “A Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence; and it shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and non-technical procedure, and may admit any evidence, including reports and photographs published in newspapers, periodicals and magazines, film and tape - recordings and other materials as may be tendered before it, which it deems to have probative value.”
Rules of evidence of the Act also says, “A Tribunal may receive in evidence any statement recorded by a magistrate or an Investigation Officer being a statement, made by any person, who at the time of trial, is dead or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which the tribunal considers unreasonable.”
“A Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof.” It continues, “A Tribunal shall take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations and its subsidiary agencies or other international bodies including non-governmental organisations.”
Some war crime and legal experts say there is scope to categorise offences of war criminals of the Liberation War of Bangladesh as in the past few decades many new laws have been formulated, adding new universally accepted definitions of offences such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace. The International Criminal Court and many other special tribunals in different countries have dealt with war crime and have defined offences in different categories.
“We will have to check thoroughly who were involved with the crimes during our liberation war and under which category of the offences they fall,” says Advocate Sultana Kamal. “We should proceed very carefully with a clear idea as the war criminals cannot evade justice due to the loopholes in laws,” she adds.
Hasan points out the importance of involving the UN as it can play a key role in neutralising pressures from outside that may stand in the way of the process to try war criminals. Says Hasan, “I came to know that when the caretaker government expressed their sincerity to the demand of trial of war criminals, some countries, even from the Middle East put pressure on the government not to try the war criminals.”
Khandker, a newly elected law maker from the AL, also a leader of the Sector Commanders’ Forum, a newly formed organisation that came into the forefront in the last two years with the demand for trial of war criminals, says that an inquiry commission can be set up under the tribunal and the commission would go through the existing evidence and will investigate further.
Justice Rabbani says, “We already have the list of war criminals in Bangladesh and other necessary records and evidence. We have many documents with the names of the people who collaborated with the Pakistani occupation forces under different names including Razakar, Al-Badr and Al-Shams. Now the procedures should be started to try them.”
Hasan expects the new government would place the matter in the first session of the ninth parliament to initiate the process to try war criminals. He thinks an inquiry commission should be formed and be made functional by March and a tribunal for war crime should start functioning by the middle of this year “as we can have plenty of time to finish the long process of trial.”
Hasan’s stance is clear about those war collaborators who did not directly carry out the crimes, rather masterminded them or assisted the Pak Army in committing them. “I think those who were not involved directly in the killing, rape and other war crimes but through provocation masterminded genocide and other crimes politically, must also be tried,” he says. He adds that amending the constitution we can have provisions that those war criminals will not have any right to get involved with any organisation, politics and in any beneficiary post, but can only have voting rights as citizens.
The government of independent Bangladesh in its first decision banned five communal outfits including Jamaat-e-Islami, which not only opposed the nation’s independence but also actively helped Pakistani occupation forces commit genocide and other war crimes.
After the country’s independence in 1971, the first issue of newspapers of the new nation carried the government’s decision to ban five communal parties on December 18. The Morning News ran the report that read: “The government of the peoples’ republic of Bangla Desh (Bangladesh) has banned four communal parties with immediate effect. These four political parties are Muslim League and all its factions, Pakistan Democratic Party, Nezam-e-Islam and Jamat-e-Islami. In addition to these the government has also banned the Pakistan People’s Party. The announcement was made by the Bangla Desh government in a radio broadcast.”
The banned parties including Jamaat were given the green light to do politics during the rule of late president Ziaur Rahman after the assassination of the nation’s founding father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975. In January 1972, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s government passed a law to try the collaborators and war criminals and set up 73 special tribunals, including 11 in Dhaka to try Razakar, Al-Badr and Al-Shams forces, defined as collaborators in the Act. A section of the political groups campaigned for the last three decades saying that the war criminals’ trial issue had turned irrelevant with granting of a general amnesty to all by the then Awami League government. But the Collaborators Act, which was unveiled in a gazette notification on November 30, 1973, clearly states that none of the war criminals have been pardoned.
“Those who were punished for or accused of rape, murder, attempt to murder or arson will not come under general amnesty under Section 1,” reads Section 2 of the Act.
Out of the 37,000 sent to jail on charges of collaboration, about 26,000 were freed following announcement of the general amnesty. Around 11,000 were behind bars when the government of Justice Sayem and General Zia repealed the Collaborators’ Act on December 31, 1975. An appeal glut and release of criminals en masse followed the scrapping of the law.
. Anticipating sure defeat, the Pakistani occupation forces and their collaborators — Razakar, Al-Badr and Al-Shams (mostly leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami and its student front Islami Chhatra Shangha) — picked up leading Bangali intellectuals and professionals on that day and killed them en masse with a view to crippling the nation intellectually. War records show that Jamaat formed Razakar and Al-Badr forces to counter the freedom fighters. ‘Razakar’ was established by former Secretary General of Jamaat Moulana Abul Kalam Mohammad Yousuf, and ‘Badr Bahini’ including the Islami Chhatra Shangha members.
Thousands of people still bear the brunt of war crimes by Jamaat and its student front (now known as Islami Chhatra Shibir), and some other groups such as Muslim League and Nizam-e Islami. Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojahid, presently Jamaat’s secretary general and then head of Al-Badr in Dhaka, led the killings of the intellectuals a couple of days before independence, according to numerous research works, academic papers, accounts of both victims and collaborators, publications including newspapers and secret documents of the Pakistani home department.
Historical documents and newspapers published during and after the Liberation War show Matiur Rahman Nizami, the incumbent Aamir of Jamaat and the then president of Islami Chhatra Shangha, was also commander-in-chief of Al-Badr. He was quoted as saying on September 15, 1971 by Jamaat’s mouthpiece the Daily Sangram: “Everyone of us should assume the role of a soldier of an Islamic country. To assist the poor and the oppressed, we must kill those who are engaged in war against Pakistan and Islam.”
Nizami’s predecessor Golam Azam was the brain behind Jamaat’s anti-liberation efforts. Immediately after independence Golam Azam, ex-Jamaat chief and many others like him fled to Pakistan and returned only after the brutal killing of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family in 1975.
However, some newspaper reports show how the collaborators were considered as a threat to sovereignty of the country even immediately after the liberation.
Bangla national daily The Azad on January 20, 1972 published the lead story titled, “Al-Badr and Jamaat goons are carrying out subversive activities from their hiding places,” and “Liberty is still at stake” (Al-Badr O Jamaater Pandara Ga Dhaka Die Nashokotamulok Tatporota Chalachhe, Swadhinata Rokkhar Bipod Ekhono Kateni)”
Some infamous collaborators currently live abroad, for instance, Chowdhury Moeenuddin who was ‘operation in charge’ of the killings of intellectuals, lives in London. The newspapers published a report after December 1971 with a photograph of Moeenuddin, titled, “Absconding Al-Badr gangster.”
A similar report published in a Bangla national Daily Purbadesh on January 13, 1972 with a photograph of Ashrafuzzaman Khan, titled, “Nab the butcher of intellectual killings.” Ashrafuzzaman reportedly lives in the United States.
During the nine-month bloody liberation war in 1971, Pakistani occupation forces and their Bangladeshi collaborators committed genocide and war crimes that left three million people killed and a quarter million women violated, let alone the planned elimination of the best Bangali brains of the soil on December 14, 1971. Demands for trial of war criminals is the oldest issue of the country, linked to the birth of Bangladesh.
Reports in the newspapers published immediately after the liberation gives proof of the peoples’ cry for justice. On December 19, 1971, Daily Ittefaq carried a banner headline,” Golden Bangla sees the worst massacre in human history (in Bangla–Sonar Banglai Manobetihasher Nrishongshotomo Hottyajoggo).
“Bangabandhu said that if Hitler lived today even he would have been ashamed to see what happened in Bengal,” Bangladesh Observer reported on January 15, 1972. Former German ruler Adolph Hitler led the Nazi Party, infamous for genocide and war crimes committed during the Second World War.
On the same issue, the English daily published a report titled, “War criminals will not go unpunished.” The Report said, “Prime Minister Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman held out an assurance that the war criminals will not go unpunished because people must have a feeling that justice was done.”
The same newspaper in its issue of January 22, 1972 published a report titled, “Mass Killers will be tried: Mujib, We want peace.” The report was on a team of World Peace Council’s call on to the then Prime Minister Sheikh Mujib.
The report reads: “The Prime Minister (Sheikh Mujib) was of the opinion that the United Nations should come forward and take the initiative in instituting a tribunal to go into the genocide of civil population. Such a step was necessary, he emphasised because many of those who had taken active part in massacres or were responsible for planning it, were now living outside the jurisdiction of Bangladesh Governemnt. For the sake of justice those people should also be brought to book, he said…”
After repealing the Collaborators’ Act in December, 1975 the demand for the trial of war criminals lay dormant in the hearts of Bangladeshis and was rekindled by the historic mass movement by Shaheed Janani Jahanara Imam in the 90s.
Shyamoli Nasrin Chowdhury, widow of Martyr Dr Alim Chowdhury says, ” I want to believe this time that war criminals would be tried. I am ready to give my statement as a witness and victim when the special tribunal starts functioning. I have been waiting for the last 37 years for this most desired day.”
“I believe the trial of war criminals of Bangladesh’s liberation war is not only the responsibility of our state, people, country and government. It is a prerequisite to create a just and civilised society. Those who have committed the worst crimes in this nation’s history must be tried for the sake of humanity,” Sultana Kamal opines.
Sultana says, “Following the election result now, it is evident that the issue of the trial of the war criminals has unanimous people’s support. This issue played a vital role for the overwhelming victory of Awami League. So there is no scope to have an excuse this time in failing to try war criminals.”
Ferdousi says, “It is disgraceful for us when we claim ourselves to be civilised without trying the war criminals. This issue (war crime) has shattered our lives. I hope we do not have to continue the movement for the trial of war criminals any further; this time we expect it to come to an end with the trial of the war criminals.”
Cover Story: Star Weekend Magazine: Volume 8 Issue 52 January 9, 2009
Copyright (R) thedailystar.net 2009
Julfikar Ali Manik
When Awami League Chief Sheikh Hasina announced her election manifesto in a jam-packed hall room on December 12, everyone was listening with rapt attention. Suddenly her supporters gave a huge round of applause breaking the silence. The jubilant applause was a clear message to Hasina, other politicians, foreign diplomats and journalists in the air-conditioned hall room of a five star hotel where the announcement had been made: even after 37 years people are highly emotional about this long-standing issue.
Hasina’s election pledge about trying war crimes has uplifted the spirits of not only the party workers, but has given hope to the entire nation despite its growing disillusionment from past experience of successive governments including the AL’s, of ignoring this popular demand. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s government had initiated the trial of the war criminals but could not continue due to the horrific events of 1975. The onus had been on all the governments that followed, some of which assumed power illegitimately or legitimately. Sadly, even the elected governments did not make the trial of war criminals a priority.
Hasina is pledge-bound to try the war criminals now as her election pledge about war crime has been endorsed by the ballot. There is little doubt that it was her promise to try war criminals that helped her to bag people’s landslide mandate. After the Grand Alliance’s landslide victory she said, “People have already ‘tried’ the war criminals and the anti-Liberation forces through ballots, but our government would obviously take legal steps to try them.” This, together with Hasina seeking support from the UN to bring war criminals under trial, has given people the hope that she is committed to her promise and intends to carry it out.
Chief of the UN Secretary General’s six-member high-level panel Francese Vendrel has said that it would be up to the new government to take up the matter with the UN Secretary General and make it clear what they want the UN to do. Experts, researchers on war crime and victims of the war crimes are also getting ready to help the government and UN. They think the new government should formally request the UN immediately for its involvement in the trial process.
Ferdousi Priyabhashini, one of the survivors of the 1971 war crimes, says, “I am really optimistic this time about the trial of war criminals. I am also eagerly waiting to deposit my witness as a victim in the war crime tribunal, which should be set up as quickly as possible.” Ferdousi, who is also a renowned sculptor of the country, already gave her testimony in many publications. She was imprisoned and tortured by the Pakistani occupation forces and their collaborators in Khulna during the nine-month liberation war in 1971. She witnessed the genocide, atrocities and destruction of the occupation force.
“As a witness I know many names of war criminals from the Pakistani army and their collaborators, I can place my deposition before the court when the tribunal is set up for the trial of war criminals,” she says.
Dr MA Hasan, convener of War Crimes Facts Finding Committee (WCFFC) says that there is enough evidence to try the war criminals of 1971. “We have many victims still alive, witnesses to the atrocities, documents and other evidence,” he says. Deputy Chief of Liberation Forces Air Vice Marshal (retd) AK Khandker, former advisor of caretaker government and human rights activist advocate Sultana Kamal, war crime researcher and human rights activist Shahriar Kabir and many other experts are equally confident about the availability of the evidence even after a lapse of 37 years.
“If it was possible to try German Nazis fifty years after their war crime,” says Khandker, “there is no question of not holding trials of war criminals of 1971 after 37 years.”
According to Ghulam Rabbani, former judge of Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, the necessary documentary materials for convicting the collaborators including the killers of intellectuals are all there with the home ministry. “Since the materials are more than 30 years old, according to the Evidence Act those are to be treated as ancient documents,” explains Rabbani. “No other evidence is required as those at the disposal of the ministry would be sufficient as exhibits in the case records, and conviction and sentence on the basis of that are very much possible.”
Some war crime researchers and leading freedom fighters think it would be better if international jurists, other experts and especially the United Nations help the Bangladesh government in the inquiry commission and trials as the UN has done in the case of many countries across the globe. But Justice Ghulam Rabbani thinks, that if we say the trial will be held under the supervision of the UN it will be a dangerous proposition because the country will have to surrender sovereignty.
“We have the necessary Act namely the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973,” says Rabbani, “now the government will have to constitute one or more tribunals by appointing the members according to the terms of the Act.”
Shahriar Kabir, acting president of Ekatturer Ghatok Dalal Nirmul Committee (A Forum for secular Bangladesh) has similar views, “We expect the UN’s role in trying the Pakistani war criminals but now we are more concerned about the trial of Bangladeshi war criminals.” Hasan emphasises on the terms of references of the trial. “The UN can help us in many ways but terms of references should be formulated by our government considering our social, political and historic perspective.”
Regarding evidence, International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973 states — “A Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence; and it shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and non-technical procedure, and may admit any evidence, including reports and photographs published in newspapers, periodicals and magazines, film and tape - recordings and other materials as may be tendered before it, which it deems to have probative value.”
Rules of evidence of the Act also says, “A Tribunal may receive in evidence any statement recorded by a magistrate or an Investigation Officer being a statement, made by any person, who at the time of trial, is dead or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which the tribunal considers unreasonable.”
“A Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof.” It continues, “A Tribunal shall take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations and its subsidiary agencies or other international bodies including non-governmental organisations.”
Some war crime and legal experts say there is scope to categorise offences of war criminals of the Liberation War of Bangladesh as in the past few decades many new laws have been formulated, adding new universally accepted definitions of offences such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace. The International Criminal Court and many other special tribunals in different countries have dealt with war crime and have defined offences in different categories.
“We will have to check thoroughly who were involved with the crimes during our liberation war and under which category of the offences they fall,” says Advocate Sultana Kamal. “We should proceed very carefully with a clear idea as the war criminals cannot evade justice due to the loopholes in laws,” she adds.
Hasan points out the importance of involving the UN as it can play a key role in neutralising pressures from outside that may stand in the way of the process to try war criminals. Says Hasan, “I came to know that when the caretaker government expressed their sincerity to the demand of trial of war criminals, some countries, even from the Middle East put pressure on the government not to try the war criminals.”
Khandker, a newly elected law maker from the AL, also a leader of the Sector Commanders’ Forum, a newly formed organisation that came into the forefront in the last two years with the demand for trial of war criminals, says that an inquiry commission can be set up under the tribunal and the commission would go through the existing evidence and will investigate further.
Justice Rabbani says, “We already have the list of war criminals in Bangladesh and other necessary records and evidence. We have many documents with the names of the people who collaborated with the Pakistani occupation forces under different names including Razakar, Al-Badr and Al-Shams. Now the procedures should be started to try them.”
Hasan expects the new government would place the matter in the first session of the ninth parliament to initiate the process to try war criminals. He thinks an inquiry commission should be formed and be made functional by March and a tribunal for war crime should start functioning by the middle of this year “as we can have plenty of time to finish the long process of trial.”
Hasan’s stance is clear about those war collaborators who did not directly carry out the crimes, rather masterminded them or assisted the Pak Army in committing them. “I think those who were not involved directly in the killing, rape and other war crimes but through provocation masterminded genocide and other crimes politically, must also be tried,” he says. He adds that amending the constitution we can have provisions that those war criminals will not have any right to get involved with any organisation, politics and in any beneficiary post, but can only have voting rights as citizens.
The government of independent Bangladesh in its first decision banned five communal outfits including Jamaat-e-Islami, which not only opposed the nation’s independence but also actively helped Pakistani occupation forces commit genocide and other war crimes.
After the country’s independence in 1971, the first issue of newspapers of the new nation carried the government’s decision to ban five communal parties on December 18. The Morning News ran the report that read: “The government of the peoples’ republic of Bangla Desh (Bangladesh) has banned four communal parties with immediate effect. These four political parties are Muslim League and all its factions, Pakistan Democratic Party, Nezam-e-Islam and Jamat-e-Islami. In addition to these the government has also banned the Pakistan People’s Party. The announcement was made by the Bangla Desh government in a radio broadcast.”
The banned parties including Jamaat were given the green light to do politics during the rule of late president Ziaur Rahman after the assassination of the nation’s founding father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975. In January 1972, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s government passed a law to try the collaborators and war criminals and set up 73 special tribunals, including 11 in Dhaka to try Razakar, Al-Badr and Al-Shams forces, defined as collaborators in the Act. A section of the political groups campaigned for the last three decades saying that the war criminals’ trial issue had turned irrelevant with granting of a general amnesty to all by the then Awami League government. But the Collaborators Act, which was unveiled in a gazette notification on November 30, 1973, clearly states that none of the war criminals have been pardoned.
“Those who were punished for or accused of rape, murder, attempt to murder or arson will not come under general amnesty under Section 1,” reads Section 2 of the Act.
Out of the 37,000 sent to jail on charges of collaboration, about 26,000 were freed following announcement of the general amnesty. Around 11,000 were behind bars when the government of Justice Sayem and General Zia repealed the Collaborators’ Act on December 31, 1975. An appeal glut and release of criminals en masse followed the scrapping of the law.
. Anticipating sure defeat, the Pakistani occupation forces and their collaborators — Razakar, Al-Badr and Al-Shams (mostly leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami and its student front Islami Chhatra Shangha) — picked up leading Bangali intellectuals and professionals on that day and killed them en masse with a view to crippling the nation intellectually. War records show that Jamaat formed Razakar and Al-Badr forces to counter the freedom fighters. ‘Razakar’ was established by former Secretary General of Jamaat Moulana Abul Kalam Mohammad Yousuf, and ‘Badr Bahini’ including the Islami Chhatra Shangha members.
Thousands of people still bear the brunt of war crimes by Jamaat and its student front (now known as Islami Chhatra Shibir), and some other groups such as Muslim League and Nizam-e Islami. Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojahid, presently Jamaat’s secretary general and then head of Al-Badr in Dhaka, led the killings of the intellectuals a couple of days before independence, according to numerous research works, academic papers, accounts of both victims and collaborators, publications including newspapers and secret documents of the Pakistani home department.
Historical documents and newspapers published during and after the Liberation War show Matiur Rahman Nizami, the incumbent Aamir of Jamaat and the then president of Islami Chhatra Shangha, was also commander-in-chief of Al-Badr. He was quoted as saying on September 15, 1971 by Jamaat’s mouthpiece the Daily Sangram: “Everyone of us should assume the role of a soldier of an Islamic country. To assist the poor and the oppressed, we must kill those who are engaged in war against Pakistan and Islam.”
Nizami’s predecessor Golam Azam was the brain behind Jamaat’s anti-liberation efforts. Immediately after independence Golam Azam, ex-Jamaat chief and many others like him fled to Pakistan and returned only after the brutal killing of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family in 1975.
However, some newspaper reports show how the collaborators were considered as a threat to sovereignty of the country even immediately after the liberation.
Bangla national daily The Azad on January 20, 1972 published the lead story titled, “Al-Badr and Jamaat goons are carrying out subversive activities from their hiding places,” and “Liberty is still at stake” (Al-Badr O Jamaater Pandara Ga Dhaka Die Nashokotamulok Tatporota Chalachhe, Swadhinata Rokkhar Bipod Ekhono Kateni)”
Some infamous collaborators currently live abroad, for instance, Chowdhury Moeenuddin who was ‘operation in charge’ of the killings of intellectuals, lives in London. The newspapers published a report after December 1971 with a photograph of Moeenuddin, titled, “Absconding Al-Badr gangster.”
A similar report published in a Bangla national Daily Purbadesh on January 13, 1972 with a photograph of Ashrafuzzaman Khan, titled, “Nab the butcher of intellectual killings.” Ashrafuzzaman reportedly lives in the United States.
During the nine-month bloody liberation war in 1971, Pakistani occupation forces and their Bangladeshi collaborators committed genocide and war crimes that left three million people killed and a quarter million women violated, let alone the planned elimination of the best Bangali brains of the soil on December 14, 1971. Demands for trial of war criminals is the oldest issue of the country, linked to the birth of Bangladesh.
Reports in the newspapers published immediately after the liberation gives proof of the peoples’ cry for justice. On December 19, 1971, Daily Ittefaq carried a banner headline,” Golden Bangla sees the worst massacre in human history (in Bangla–Sonar Banglai Manobetihasher Nrishongshotomo Hottyajoggo).
“Bangabandhu said that if Hitler lived today even he would have been ashamed to see what happened in Bengal,” Bangladesh Observer reported on January 15, 1972. Former German ruler Adolph Hitler led the Nazi Party, infamous for genocide and war crimes committed during the Second World War.
On the same issue, the English daily published a report titled, “War criminals will not go unpunished.” The Report said, “Prime Minister Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman held out an assurance that the war criminals will not go unpunished because people must have a feeling that justice was done.”
The same newspaper in its issue of January 22, 1972 published a report titled, “Mass Killers will be tried: Mujib, We want peace.” The report was on a team of World Peace Council’s call on to the then Prime Minister Sheikh Mujib.
The report reads: “The Prime Minister (Sheikh Mujib) was of the opinion that the United Nations should come forward and take the initiative in instituting a tribunal to go into the genocide of civil population. Such a step was necessary, he emphasised because many of those who had taken active part in massacres or were responsible for planning it, were now living outside the jurisdiction of Bangladesh Governemnt. For the sake of justice those people should also be brought to book, he said…”
After repealing the Collaborators’ Act in December, 1975 the demand for the trial of war criminals lay dormant in the hearts of Bangladeshis and was rekindled by the historic mass movement by Shaheed Janani Jahanara Imam in the 90s.
Shyamoli Nasrin Chowdhury, widow of Martyr Dr Alim Chowdhury says, ” I want to believe this time that war criminals would be tried. I am ready to give my statement as a witness and victim when the special tribunal starts functioning. I have been waiting for the last 37 years for this most desired day.”
“I believe the trial of war criminals of Bangladesh’s liberation war is not only the responsibility of our state, people, country and government. It is a prerequisite to create a just and civilised society. Those who have committed the worst crimes in this nation’s history must be tried for the sake of humanity,” Sultana Kamal opines.
Sultana says, “Following the election result now, it is evident that the issue of the trial of the war criminals has unanimous people’s support. This issue played a vital role for the overwhelming victory of Awami League. So there is no scope to have an excuse this time in failing to try war criminals.”
Ferdousi says, “It is disgraceful for us when we claim ourselves to be civilised without trying the war criminals. This issue (war crime) has shattered our lives. I hope we do not have to continue the movement for the trial of war criminals any further; this time we expect it to come to an end with the trial of the war criminals.”
Cover Story: Star Weekend Magazine: Volume 8 Issue 52 January 9, 2009
Copyright (R) thedailystar.net 2009
Saturday, 7 March 2009
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF BANGLADESH
The Declaration of independence of BangladeshThe violence unleashed by the Pakistani forces on 25 March 1971, proved the last straw to the efforts to negotiate a settlement. Following these outrages, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman signed an official declaration that read:
Today Bangladesh is a sovereign and independent country. On Thursday night, West Pakistani armed forces suddenly attacked the police barracks at Razarbagh and the EPR headquarters at Pilkhana in Dhaka. Many innocent and unarmed have been killed in Dhaka city and other places of Bangladesh. Violent clashes between E.P.R. and Police on the one hand and the armed forces of Pakistan on the other, are going on. The Bengalis are fighting the enemy with great courage for an independent Bangladesh. May Allah aid us in our fight for freedom. Joy Bangla.
Sheikh Mujib also called upon the people to resist the occupation forces through a radio message. Mujib was arrested on the night of 25–26 March 1971 at about 1:30 a.m. (as per Radio Pakistan’s news on 29 March 1971).
A telegram containing the text of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's declaration reached some students in Chittagong. The message was translated to Bangla by Dr. Manjula Anwar. The students failed to secure permission from higher authorities to broadcast the message from the nearby Agrabad Station of Radio Pakistan. They crossed Kalurghat Bridge into an area controlled by an East Bengal Regiment under Major Ziaur Rahman. Bengali soldiers guarded the station as engineers prepared for transmission. At 19:45 hrs on 27 March 1971, Major Ziaur Rahman broadcast announcement of the declaration of independence on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur. On 28 March Major Ziaur Rahman made another announcement,which is as follows:
This is Shadhin Bangla Betar Kendro. I, Major Ziaur Rahman, at the direction of Bangobondhu sheikh Mujibur Rahman, hereby declare that the independent People's Republic of Bangladesh has been established. At his direction, I have taken command as the temporary Head of the Republic. In the name of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, I call upon all Bengalis to rise against the attack by the West Pakistani Army. We shall fight to the last to free our Motherland. By the grace of Allah, victory is ours. Joy Bangla. [ THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ANNOUNCEMENT BY ZIA. TO KNOW THE TRUTH CLICK HERE](Audio of Zia's announcement (interview - Belal Mohammed)
The Kalurghat Radio Station's transmission capability was limited. The message was picked up by a Japanese ship in Bay of Bengal. It was then re-transmitted by Radio Australia and later by the British Broadcasting Corporation.
M A Hannan, an Awami League leader from Chittagong, is said to have made one announcement of the declaration of independence over the radio on 26 March 1971. There is controversy now as to when Major Zia gave his speech. BNP sources maintain that it was 26 March, and there was no message regarding declaration of independence from Mujibur Rahman. Pakistani sources, like Siddiq Salik in Witness to Surrender had written that he heard about Mujibor Rahman's message on the Radio while Operation Searchlight was going on, and Maj. Gen. Hakeem A. Qureshi in his book The 1971 Indo-Pak War: A Soldier's Narrative, gives the date of Zia's speech as 27 March 1971.
26 March 1971 is considered the official Independence Day of Bangladesh, and the name Bangladesh was in effect henceforth. In July 1971, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi openly referred to the former East Pakistan as Bangladesh. Some Pakistani and Indian officials continued to use the name "East Pakistan" until 16 December 1971.
online sources
Edited by HRS
Friday, 4 April 2008
Time to wake up!
"...and how many times can a man turn his head And pretend that he just doesn’t see...
...and how many ears must one man have Before he can hear people cry...
...and how many deaths will it take till he knows That too many people have died".
Bob Dylan.
...and how many ears must one man have Before he can hear people cry...
...and how many deaths will it take till he knows That too many people have died".
Bob Dylan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
