War Criminal Lt Gen Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi of Pakistan

A research body in Bangladesh, tracking those who worked against the country’s freedom movement and killed unarmed civilians at the behest of the then Pakistan regime in 1971, has unveiled a list of what it calls “war criminals”. The list includes several top Bangladeshi politicians and Pakistani military officers.

The list, along with documents and witnesses, buttresses the ongoing demand for “trial for war crimes” for which the current caretaker government ruling the country last week approached the United Nations.

War Crimes Facts Finding Committee (WCFFC) Thursday released a list of 1,597 war criminals responsible for the mass killings, rapes and other atrocities during the Liberation War.

The Pakistani regime of military ruler Gen Yahya Khan ordered a crackdown in the then East Pakistan after elections gave winners of the east wing a majority. Atrocities were carried out between March and December 1971.

Of those on the list, 369 are members of Pakistan military and 1,238 are their local collaborators including members of Razakar and Al Badr (forces formed to aid the Pakistani authorities) and Peace Committee.

The list was not complete and more names would come with more evidence and documents, the committee told media Thursday, The Daily Star reported.

The list and evidence would be handed to the government and Election Commission to help them try the war criminals and disqualify them from elections. Besides, those would be circulated to the international community.

Four women who were tortured by the Pakistan forces were present.

While many have died in the 37 years that have elapsed, Bangladeshi ‘collaborators’ on the list and still alive mostly belong to Jamaat-e-Islami.

Some of them who were then involved in Muslim League and Nezam-e-Islam parties and are now leaders of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Jatiya Party, that have ruled the country at different times.

Despite the time-gap, the list reads like the who’s who in the present-day Bangladesh.

Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI)’s former Ameer (chief) Golam Azam, the present chief Matiur Rahman Nizami and secretary general Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mojahid figure on the list.

Both Nizami and Mojahid were ministers in the government of Khaleda Zia (2001-06).

Others on the list, now JeI leaders, are assistant secretaries General Muhammad Kamaruzzaman and A.K.M. Yusuf. Central committee members Delawar Hussain Sayedee, Abdus Sobhan, Abul Kalam Muhammad Yusuf and Abdul Quader Molla are among the high-profile Jamaat leaders on the list.

Former BNP lawmakers Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury and Abdul Alim, and Anwar Zahid, a former minister during military ruler H.M. Ershad rule (1982-90), are also on the list that contains division- and thana-wise (police station) names of Razakar, Al Badr, and Peace Committee members.

“We have drawn up the list on the basis of field-level investigation, statements of eyewitnesses and victims, and examination of relevant documents for 17 long years,” said M.A. Hasan, convener of the committee dedicated to research on acts of genocide and atrocities committed in 1971.

He said they are ready to place all the necessary evidence and documents once the government forms a special tribunal to try the war criminals.

“We have prepared the list not to take revenge but to break the silence of impunity,” said Hasan.

Several Pakistanis figure on the list, many of whom are dead. They include the then military ruler, Gen A.M. Yahya Khan, Lt Gen Tikka Khan, who went on to become the Pakistan Army chief, governor and martial law administrator of the then East Pakistan, Maj Gen Khadim Hussain Raja, general officer commanding (GOC) of the then East Pakistan, Maj Gen Rao Forman Ali, adviser to governor of the then East Pakistan, Gen Abdul Hamid Khan, the then chief of staff of Pakistan army, Maj Gen A.O. Mittha Khan, Gen S.G.M. Pirjadah, Gen Iftekhar Janjua, Brig Jahanjeb Arbab and Lt Gen Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi, the then commander of Eastern Command, are among the Pakistan military personnel listed as war criminals. None of them are in service now.

Niazi surrendered with 93,000 soldiers, ending the war that made Bangladesh free.

 

See also: Evolution of Pakistan Eastern Command plan and Instrument of Surrender (1971)

Following the resignation of Vice-Admiral Syed Mohammad Ahsan on 7 March 1971, as the Unified Commander of Eastern Military High Command and Martial Law Administrator, the General Yahya Khan's military government was unable to find an active duty officer who was willing to take this task. During this 9 month period, several officers assumed the command but was repeatedly removed as they were brutally failed to restore the order. And, many other high and senior officers of Pakistan Armed Forces were cautious on the posting and none of the senior officers were willing to take the charge of the East Pakistan. Meanwhile, on December 14, General Niazi himself volunteered for the job of Martial Law Administrator of East Pakistan. General Yahya Khan immediately made him as the Martial Law Administrator of East Pakistan and the Unified Commander of the Eastern Military High Command. General Yahya Khan sent him a telegram message stating, "You have fought a heroic battle against overwhelming odds. The nation is proud of you …You have now reached a stage where further resistance is no longer humanly possible nor will it serve any useful purpose… You should now take all necessary measures to stop the fighting and preserve the lives of armed forces personnel, all those from West Pakistan and all loyal elements".

The situation in East-Pakistan was extremely difficult, as Bengali forces in the Pakistani Army had gone into mutiny, large segments of the population were hostile, and an independence movement was gaining steam among the Bengalis. Despite this, Niazi and Mohammad Shariff were able to reaffirm Pakistan's control over wide parts of East Pakistan territory, opening the window for a political solution to the turmoil - this would not come to fruition.

Pakistani Army Commander in the Eastern Command, Lt. General A. A. K. Niazi, signing the Instrument of Surrender in front of General of Officer Commanding in Chief of India and Bangladesh Forces in the Eastern Theatre, Lt. General Jagjit Singh Aurora. 16th December, 1971

However, on December 16 of 1971, East-Pakistan Intelligence Directorate (EPID) learned the Indo-Bengali siege of Dhaka. Niazi appealed for a cease-fire but Sam Manekshaw set the deadline for the surrender. Failing to surrender on time, a siege on Dhaka will take place. Not wanting to deterioration of the city, General Niazi signed an instrument of surrender with his counterpart Lieutenant-General Jagjit Singh Aurora, General Officer Commanding-in-chief of Eastern Command of the Indian Army. The meeting was set at Ramna Race Course in Dhaka at 16:31 IST on 16 December 1971, and General Niazi surrendered the Eastern Military High Command's nearly 93,000 personnel to the hands of India.

Aftermath: Revelation

It was only after returning to Pakistan as empty-handed prisoner of war did Niazi criticize Tikka and Rao Farman. Niazi himself admitted that he raised the Razakar forces, who were employed against the Mukti Bahini (guerilla forces) and were used to kill, terrorize people and destroy rural villages. His vows against the Indian Army and Mukti Bahini were notorious. The crackdown against the Bengalis had gone too far, and the result saw Pakistan Combatant forces involved in a guerrilla war with the Bengali Mukti Bahini, under C-in-C General Osmany, Bangladesh Forces. The Pakistan Combatant Forces were unprepared and untrained for such warfare. After a preemptive strike on the Indian territories in the western front, a full-scale invasion of East Pakistan by India resulted in isolation for Niazi's and Shariff's forces being ambushed by the Mukti Bahini, and with the absence of external aid, eventual surrender.

Daughter of Democracy Sheikh Hasina

Honorable Prime Minister of Peoples' Republic of Bangladesh Her Excellency Sheikh Hasina Wajed

SHEIKH HASINA, Prime Minister of Bangladesh, was born on 28 September, 1947 at Tungipara under Gopalganj district. She is the eldest of five children of the Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founder of independent Bangladesh. She graduated from the University of Dhaka in 1973. She was elected Vice President of the Students Union of Government Intermediate Girl’s College. She was a member of the students League Unit of Dhaka University and Secretary of the Students League Unit of Rokeya Hall. She actively participated in all the mass movements since her student life.

            Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman along with the members of his family was martyred on the fateful night of 15 August 1975. Sheikh Hasina and her younger sister Sheikh Rehana were the only survivors as they were in West Germany at that time. Later she went to the United Kingdom from where she started her movement against the autocratic rule in 1980. Sheikh Hasina was unanimously elected President of Bangladesh Awami League in 1981 in her absence, while she was forced to live in exile in New Delhi. Ending six years in exile, she returned home finally on 17 May 1981.

         In the parliamentary election held in 1986, she won three seats. She was elected Leader of the Opposition. She led the historic mass movement in 1990 and announced the constitutional formula for peaceful transfer of power through Articles 51 and 56 of the Constitution.

         Following the election of 1991 Sheikh Hasina became Leader of the Opposition in the country’s Fifth Parliament, She steered all the political parties in the parliament towards changing the Presidential system into the Parliamentary one.

         Sheikh Hasina created awareness among the people and waged a struggle for Non-party Caretaker Government to ensure free and fair polls. Her movement reached the peak after a non-cooperation movement in March 1996 and the provision for Non-party Caretaker Government was incorporated in the Constitution.

        At the call of Sheikh Hasina a large number of people of all walks of life expressed solidarity with the movement at the ‘Janatar Mancha’. In the Parliamentary election held on 12 June 1996, Bangladesh Awami League emerged as the majority party and she assumed the office of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh on 23 June 1996.
After becoming the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina adopted a number of pragmatic policies for overall development of the nation including poverty alleviation. During the last four years her government achieved laudable success including signing of the historic 30 year Ganges Water Sharing Treaty with India, signing of historic peace Accord on Chittagong Hill Tracts and inauguration of the Bangabandhu Bridge on the river Jamuna.

Sheikh Hasina was conferred Degree of Doctor of Law by the Boston University of the USA on 6 February 1997 and Honorary Doctor of Law by the Waseda University of Japan on 4 July 1997. She was also conferred the Honorary Doctorate of Philosophy in Liberal Arts by University of Abertay Dundee of the United Kingdom on 25 October, 1997. She was conferred Honorary Degree of Desikottama (Doctor of Literature, honoris causa) by Visva-Bharati University of West Bengal, India on 28 January 1999. She was also conferred the degree of Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, on the ground of her distinguished creative contributions in the service of society by the Australian National University on 20 October 1999. Dhaka University conferred Honorary 'Doctor of Laws' degree to Sheikh Hasina on 18 December, 1999 for her outstanding contribution towards peace and democracy. The World famous Catholic University of Brussels, Belgium conferred Honorary Doctorate degree (Doctor Honoris Causa) on Sheikh Hasina on 04 February, 2000 for her decisive role in establishing democracy, protecting human rights and peace. Sheikh Hasina has been conferred Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters by the Bridgeport University, USA on 5 September, 2000. Sheikh Hasina has been awarded UNESCO's Houphouet-Boigny Peace Prize for 1998 for her remarkable contribution to bringing peace through ending the 25 years of conflict in Chittagong Hill Tracts with political courage and statesmanship.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina received prestigious Pearl S. Buck Award '99 on 9 April 2000 in recognition of her vision, courage, achievements in political, economic and humanitarian fields by Randolph Macon Women's College of USA. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has been awarded the prestigious CERES' medal to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in recognition to her fight against hunger on 02 August, 1999. The All India Peace Council awarded her 'Mother Teresa Award' in 1998. The Mahatma M K Gandhi Foundation of Oslo, Norway awarded Sheikh Hasina ‘M K Gandhi Award’ for 1998 for her contribution towards promotion of communal understanding, non violent religions harmony and growth of democracy at the level of grassroots in Bangladesh. Sheikh Hasina was named Paul Haris Fellow by the Rotary Foundation of Rotary International. She was also given Medal of Distinction in 1996-97 and 1998-99 and Head of State Medal in 1996-97 by the International Association of Lions Clubs.         She has authored several books including "Why Are They Street Children", "The Origin of Autocracy", 'Miles to Go", "Elimination of Poverty and Some Thoughts", "People and Democracy", "My Dream My Struggle" and "Development for the Masses." She performed holy Hajj and Umrah several times.         Sheikh Hasina is the Chairperson of "The Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Memorial Trust". She has been helping a lot of poor boys and girls for their education.         Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, throughout her life has been a strong proponent of peace, freedom and democracy. From an early age, inspired by the lofty ideals and love for the people of her father, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the liberator of Bangladesh, she developed a strong sense of identity for the common people. She always spoke out against oppression and violation of human rights. This commitment has hardened over the years, particularly when her parents, brothers and scores of relatives were brutally assassinated by the misguided members of the military in 1975 soon after the independence of Bangladesh.        Since that time her resolve for democracy and development for the teeming millions of Bangladesh has become firmly entrenched. She struggled for the return of democracy in Bangladesh and fought valiantly for its establishment in the country in every possible manner. She was committed to making Parliament the centre of all national activities.         In 1996, the people of Bangladesh gave her a strong mandate as the Prime Minister of the country. Despite serious resource and constraints and recurrent natural calamity as well as widespread poverty, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, during the first two years of her government, has lived up to her unswerving commitment to the cause of peace, democracy, development and human rights.        Her first act of peace within months of her assumption of office was the initiative for resolution of the long-standing water-sharing dispute with India through a 30-years treaty. This put an end to a very complex regional dispute.        Her visionary idea of a business summit among the political and private sector leaders of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan has added a new chapter in the history of South Asia.

         Her dedicated leadership also made possible a peace agreement in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, thereby solving the 23-year old insurgency in the Hill districts of Bangladesh. This peace accord brought an area inhabited by nearly 5 million people out of violence and into a time of peace and development. Though the international media has not given much prominence to this accord, it is uniquely remarkable because the peace accord benefited such a large number of people and the whole area has been brought under development programs following the complete surrender of arms by the insurgents.

         Her quest for peace has taken her to India and Pakistan to talk to the leaders of these two countries soon after the nuclear test urging reduction of tension in the region.

         Prime Minister Hasina has been a strong advocate for the Culture of Peace at global, regional and national levels. In many major conferences, she espoused the concept of the Culture of Peace, most recently in South Africa at the 12th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) which has a membership of 114 countries. Her initiative has resulted in the first-ever resolution by the Plenary of the United Nations General Assembly on the Culture of Peace. She also provided leadership for the declaration by the UN of the period 2001 to 2010 as the International Decade for Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World.

         Prime Minister Hasina’s determination for the eradication of poverty, in particular through wide-ranging microcredit programmes, has been recognized world-wide. Her co-chairpersonship of the Microcredit Summit in February 1997 which resolved to bring 100 million families of the world out of poverty by 2005 focused world attention to her strong commitment to the eradication of poverty and enlistment of the poorest of the poor. She has been a champion of microcredit by spreading the message in major international forums. Her leadership led to the adoption for the first time by UN General Assembly a far-reaching resolution on the role of microcredit in the eradication of poverty.
         Along with poverty eradication, she has focused on the empowerment of women and has successfully completed legislation to ensure adequate representation of women in the local government bodies, leading to the election of more than 14,000 women to these bodies in 1997. She has taken major initiatives to stop violence against women and children.
        She has also provided leadership in the field of education, particularly for the education of girls in her own country as well as advocating it for global support. Her government has greatly enhanced budgetary allocation for primary education focusing on girls’ education.

         To improve the quality of life of the people of Bangladesh, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has particularly focused on human development, paying special attention to healthcare, family planning, nutrition, women’s rights and survival and development of children. At the UN and other forums, she has been a major voice in support of the cause of children and their rights.

        Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has, all along her life, defended human rights in every possible way. Her active promotion of the rights of women and children has drawn appreciation by both government and NGOs as well as international organizations. She has promoted the right to development as having centrality in the human rights regime. At the NAM Summit in South Africa in 1998, her proposal for a Convention on the Right to Development received welcoming endorsement of the Heads of State and Government. She initiated the establishment of a National Human Rights Commission and the office of Ombudsperson as well as Bangladesh’s recent accession to six major human rights instruments including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

         Her keen interest resulted in the signature by Bangladesh of the Statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and ratification of the Landmines Treaty, being the first country in South Asia to do so.

         Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s initiative resulted in the hosting of the first-ever conference of the Asian parliamentarians devoted to peace and cooperation in Dhaka in September 1999 which elected her as the first President of the Association of Asian Parliaments for peace established at the conference.

         At present, as someone who has lost so much personally and has been a victim of oppression and denial of freedom, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina stands out as a messenger of peace, democracy, development and human rights. Her leadership of the eighth largest country of the world manifests her concern for the people, seen again during the worst-ever floods in Bangladesh in 1998.

 §    Sheikh Hasina is the recipient of the UNESCO Houphouet-Boigny Peace Prize for 1998 for her role in bringing peace in the Chittagong Hill Tracts region of Bangladesh.

§    Sheikh Hasina has been awarded the Mahatma Gandhi Award for 1998 (Oslo, Norway) for her contribution towards promotion of communal understanding, non-violence, religious harmony and growth of grassroots democracy in Bangladesh.

§    She has been awarded 1999 CERES Medal for contribution to the agriculture development by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

§    She is the winner of the 1999 Pearl S. Buck Award for "your vision, your courage and your achievements in political, economic and humanitarian spheres capture the spirit of the award and of the woman who inspired it."

§    She has been awarded honorary Doctor of Liberal Arts by the University of Alberta Dundee in the United Kingdom in October 1997.

§    She has been conferred honorary Doctor of Laws by the Boston University in the United States and the Waseda University of Japan.

§    She has been conferred the degree of Desikottama (Doctor of Literature) by the Visva-Bharati University, India founded by Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore.

§    She has been conferred honorary Doctor of Laws by the Australian National University in October 1999.

§    Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has been conferred honorary Doctor of Laws by Dhaka University in December 1999.

§    She has been conferred honorary Doctor of Laws by the Catholic University of Brussels in February 2000.

§    Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has been conferred by the honorary Doctor of Humane Letters for her contribution to world peace and development by the University of Bridgeport, Connecticut in the United States on 5 September 2000.

         Under her leadership her party Bangladesh Awami League led grand alliance to win a landslide victory in the 9th Parliament Election on December 29, 2008 with 262 seats out of 299 in the National Parliament.

         Sheikh Hasina took oath as Prime Minister of Bangladesh at a ceremony held at Banghabhaban on January 06, 2009.

        Sheikh Hasina is married having one son and one daughter.

The Politics of 1971 By Afsan Choudhury

The politics of 1971

Afsan Choudhury

makes the case that parties opposed to the Liberation War have no place in independent Bangladesh

In Bangladesh, history has become party politics. The source of this attitude may be in the nature of the political leadership that we have had since 1972 who feel anything is justified if it leads to political power.

Of the three main politically contesting histories, each party now has its own version. It means the AL, the BNP, and now the Jamaat version of 1971.

We, in general, also refuse to contest obvious factual oddities and occasional absurdities because we are afraid that our national consciousness may be challenged by what is found. In the last 40 years we have lost our confidence to face history.

Given such weak nerves and even weaker intellectual muscles, how can people expect to cope with the demands of history, both in writing and practice? The failure to write a credible history of 1971 has allowed parties who opposed the birth of Bangladesh to control the political destiny of the country. The case of Jamaat-e-Islami is a typical one of inadequate academic history writing becoming a political problem.

Civil war and other wars?

Whether it is the Indian historian Sarmila Basu or a Jamaat or any other pseudo-Islamic extremist cadre, 1971 is usually a "civil war." The argument is, Pakistan was one country and both were warring sides on a shared soil. Another argument is that the war was between 1ndia and Pakistan, and Bangladesh was a hyphenated part of history, a sub-text. Even Benazir Bhutto while talking to us -- Mohiuddin Ahmed, Muntasir Mamoon and I when we visited Pakistan -- called the Bangladeshis partisans "Indian supporters" or perhaps something more.

The civil war argument doesn't work because Bangladesh's Independence Day was March 26, 1971. Bangladesh came into being as a state on that day and the Pakistani forces became an occupation army. So the question of civil war doesn't arise: it was a war between two states, one occupying another.

Pakistanis may claim that this was a civil war but it is neither logical nor can be proven in law. The "civil war" argument applies only if people refuse to accept March 26, 1971 as the day of Bangladeshi independence. Those in Bangladesh denying this are denying the fact of Bangladesh coming into being. Maybe this argument can be made in Pakistan, logical or not. In that case, one may also argue that those who wish to argue the Pakistan way may go there.

Indo-Pak war or Bangla-Pak war?

Another argument is that it was an Indo-Pak war and so all were part of one mega-war. This argument arises from a lack of knowledge of the events, and not just of this war but any war.

Rarely, if ever, is a singular war fought. In the case of 1971, several wars were being fought, but the primary war was fought between Pakistani and Bangladeshi forces. It is not "patriotism" to say so -- but all wars flowed from this war. This war was followed by other wars, including the Indo-Pak war which was the by-product of the Bangla-Pak war. It couldn't have arisen without the event of March 26, so everything that happened after March 26 was contingent to this principal war.

There were several subsidiary wars going on within all the sides. Bangladesh forces also fought the Maoists, who were also fighting two wars, one against Pakistan and another against the Awami League. There were internal wars happening, like the factional wars within AL leadership and India, which had its roots in Cold War Politics. There was conflict between India and Bangladesh, part of which was manifested by the raising of the Mujib Bahini manned by Bangladeshis, but controlled by Indian military. Many Mujib Bahini members even fought with the general Mukti Bahini members as well.

The US and the USSR were opponents as well and both worried that they would be dragged into a wider South Asian war. In the final days, they even had a show of armed fleets in the Indian Ocean. The ethnic militant groups of North-East India fought the central Indians because of their own nationalism. The ethnic minorities of Bangladesh fought their war with Pakistan, the repressive state, although they were outside the Bengali nationalist movement which spawned the war.

In other words, there were many wars, but the principal war was the Bangladesh-Pakistan war. It was also the first war. Every war and conflict that occurred in that time period was "subsidiary," or a result of that war. This war was between two states, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which became a state on March 26, 1971 and was occupied by Pakistan till December 16 of that year. This, in a nutshell, is the history of 1971.

There is no scope for calling this a civil war, nor for locating the Bangladesh war within the Indo-Pak war, even if the forces of some parties were much bigger. Size has nothing to do with facts.

Social collaboration: Impact, action, and consequence.

Those who were with the forces supporting Pakistan army were enemies of the Bangladesh state. How does one identify them?

Pakistan set up "Peace Committees" all over the country to help fight the Bangladesh forces that they called "miscreants." From the village level to the national level, these committees represented the spirit and will of the Pakistan state. Anyone who was a member swore allegiance to Pakistan and promised to do everything to sustain the state. Similarly, the Razakar Bahini was also set up to counter the Mukti Bahini and help the Pakistan army reach into the deep of Bangladesh.

Although today the term Razakar has become generic term meaning "traitor," in 1971 it was a job analogous to that of the Ansars of today. Most of the people who joined came from the poorest class and looked upon being a razakar as a job which apart from a salary also allowed them to loot and steal with impunity. Several historians have noted that most of these razakars were not ideological at all, and most joined as an economic and not an ideological choice.

Razakars were also the largest band of organised criminals in 1971. In areas where they were active, public hatred towards them was very high. In most cases, in most villages, most razakars were dealt violent justice, from lynching to head shaving to beating, etc after the war was over. In case where rapes were reported, the punishment was expectedly severe.

However, in many cases, the Razakars also supported the Muktis in lieu of money, because they were rarely if ever ideological. They were criminalised by war, but were not supporters of Pakistan, though their actions were in compliance with the objective that Pakistan had adopted.

The rural Peace Committees were manned by people who were village-centric conservatives, often more interested in controlling the village than fighting the war. This control had been upset after the nationalist movement peaked and Sangram Committees were formed, which were mostly led by AL partisans. So while the village Shanti Committees were mostly opposed to the Sangram Committees, they were half supporters of Pakistan at best, and were more part of village politics. Many actively supported the Pak army and Razakar actions. Support to the Bangladesh forces was also there because the village fighters mostly came from the same rural elite.

In all cases, the members of the political parties supporting Pakistan lent a violent hand, and these were people who didn't need to be coaxed into supporting or opposing. They did it by choice and they belonged to the parties who were defeated in the 1970 elections, the traditional cross-Pakistan parties like JI, ML, PDP, etc

Both the Shanti Committees and the Razakars were in the end located within the Pakistani defensive strategy applied to an occupied land. All those who supported Pakistan should have been subjected to a review after 1971. Maybe the state did not do or was unable to do so because of compelling pressures. However, at the grassroots level, social scrutiny by the villagers and leaders was made, and in many cases action taken. Even if the central authorities and the national political leadership were unable or unwilling to act against collaborators, many villages did. In many cases, such reviews led to violent acts which are inevitable in such cases.

The Founder of Bangladesh, father of Bengali nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman 

Political collaboration: Who opposed Bangladesh? However, social collaboration is different from political collaboration. While social acts may be sourced in local conditions and not directly linked with state policies, political collaboration is primarily an act of upholding the state. This involves political constructs like parties applying political policies to strengthen the state. The premier instrument of political construction in occupied Bangladesh was the National Peace Committee comprised of various parties that wanted Pakistan to prevail. The political parties who were members of that body were making a political commitment to Pakistan.

The War Criminal of Bangladesh Liberation War 1971

The other source of their commitment to Pakistan was participation in the by-election of 1971. This by-election threw out the results of the 1970 election which was the legal basis of the independence declaration of Bangladesh and legitimacy of all acts thereafter. Those who became members of the National Peace Committee and participated in the elections acted against Bangladesh state in strengthening the state of Pakistan. On that ground, all the parties and all the people involved should be guilty of acting against the state of Bangladesh.

Such people or parties should not be part of the political structure of a state whose inception they opposed and who even supported the actions of a military force to kill that state. It is argued that Bangladesh was not fully formed and the forces were "rebel" forces. This point is not valid because that state came into existence on March 26, 1971 and the rebel forces were actually the national force.

It was for this reason that all the opposing parties were banned in 1972 as they were enemies of the state, in the clearest sense of the term. This statement is not an emotional one at all, like those who are feeling enraged at what Jamaat leadership and supporters have said about the 1971 war. It is simply not possible to constitutionally tolerate those who had opposed the circumstances of its coming into being and hope to succeed as a state. Where else are such forces tolerated?

We need facts but do we want to look for them? The issue of war crimes is irrelevant here because that depends on personal liability and specific law, backed by evidence. That may or may not exist because nobody has bothered to collect evidence all these years. Before embarking on another example of a misguided legal attempt, like the effort to strip Gholam Azam of his citizenship, Jamaat and other anti-Bangladesh parties should be banned on the grounds of not having wanted Bangladesh in the first place. They have no legal right to participate in Bangladeshi politics.

The reason they were allowed is because our quality of politics is so bad that our leaders consider allowing anti-Bangladesh parties into politics as a simple way to manage state politics. It could only happen in a state that politically fails almost at inception.

The engine of failure roared loudly when one-party rule was established and gained momentum when the constitutional pillars were taken away and increased even further when one religion was made the state religion. They are indicators of failure, because the constitution was tampered with on grounds of personal or a party political benefit. Maybe the entire leadership associated with such decisions deserve to be tried in a constitutional court.

The case against individual leaders is another matter and its best to set up a committee to peruse and explore existing evidence. It is no use screaming, if nothing can be proven in court; no use saying that three million were killed if there is no credible survey to say how many really died and how.

Had the events around Bangladesh's birth and history turned into a rational discourse and not an issue of religion and taboo, we not only would have known more, but we would not have had the leaders who opposed the birth of Bangladesh flourish in that very country.

It is interesting that Jamaat or Muslim League, which never had a chance in East Pakistan politics from 1947 to 1971, have now shared state power in Bangladesh. We don't mind that, apparently, because our rulers and their parties have violated the constitution so many times in letter and spirit. Within that framework, the Awami League, the BNP, and the Jamaat-e-islami are blood brothers.

Afsan Choudhury is a journalist writing for Bangladeshi and South Asian publications.

The continuing rape of our history

The continuing rape of our history


Mashuqur Rahman demolishes Sarmila Bose's revisionist history of 1971


Genocide denial is a phenomenon that crops up to challenge almost every accepted case of genocide. The genocide committed by the Pakistan army during the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 is no exception. Because of the scale of the atrocities in 1971 against a civilian population of 70 million people, it has proved impossible for genocide deniers to claim that the atrocities did not occur. Instead, they have focused on two tactics used to deny most genocides: that the magnitude of the killings was not that great, and that the Pakistan army had no systematic policy of genocide.


The grim numbers of 1971: Genocide versus denial
Most estimates of the 1971 genocide put the death toll between 300,000 and 3 million Bangladeshis, with between 200,000 to 400,000 women raped. R.J. Rummel, in his book Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900, puts the death toll at around 1.5 million. Gendercide Watch terms the 1971 genocide as one of the most concentrated acts of genocide in the twentieth century. Susan Brownmiller, in her book Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, puts the number of women raped by the Pakistan military and their local collaborators, the razakars, between 200,000 and 400,000. According to Brownmiller, the Pakistani army raped Bengali girls as young as eight and grandmothers as old as seventy-five.


After the War, the Pakistan government produced a report -- the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report -- on the actions of the Pakistan army in 1971. While the report acknowledged that the Pakistan army had indeed committed atrocities in Bangladesh, it downplayed the extent of the atrocities and denied that there was any systematic policy of genocide. The report put the death toll from the genocide at 26,000, based on "situation reports submitted from time to time by the Eastern Command to the General Headquarters."


The Pakistani report's estimate of 26,000 dead stands in stark contrast to every other estimate of the death toll of between 300,000 to 3 million. The report was an attempt by the Pakistan government to dictate the narrative before the true extent of the genocide became evident to the world. The Pakistani report has, nonetheless, stood as the document of last resort for most 1971 genocide deniers.






Sarmila Bose's (questionable) claims


Following up on her 2005 paper denying the extent of the 1971 genocide, published in the Economic and Political Weekly, Sarmila Bose has now published a paper denying the extent of the rape of Bangladeshi women by the Pakistan army and the razakars. In her paper titled "Losing the Victims: Problems of Using Women as Weapons in Recounting the Bangladesh War," she states:


"That rape occurred in East Pakistan in 1971 has never been in any doubt. The question is what was the true extent of rape, who were the victims and who the perpetrators, and was there any systematic policy of rape by any party, as opposed to opportunistic sexual crimes in times of war."


At the very beginning of her paper, she lays down the two tactics familiar to all genocide deniers: she questions the extent of the rape and questions whether there was any systematic policy of rape. Ms. Bose argues that claiming "hundreds of thousands" were raped trivialises "the possibly several thousand true rape victims" of the war. She, however, does not offer a good explanation as to how she reached the "several thousand" number, other than saying that so many rapes would not be possible because of the size of the Pakistani army in 1971. She also, unsurprisingly, quotes the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report to support her assertion that so many rapes could not have occurred.


To try to bolster her argument, she claims that the size of the Pakistani army in Bangladesh was only 34,000 men. Then she asserts: "For an army of 34,000 to rape on this scale in eight or nine months (while fighting insurgency, guerrilla war and an invasion by India), each would-be perpetrator would have had to commit rape at an incredible rate."


The actual number of Pakistani forces at the end of the war, and taken POW by the Indians, was 90,368, including over 54,000 army and 22,000 paramilitary forces. It is not unreasonable to conclude that a force of 90,000 could rape between 200,000 to 400,000 women in the space of nine months. To rape 200,000 Bangladeshi women a Pakistani force of 90,000 would have to rape 2 to 3 women each in nine months. Not only is this scale of atrocity possible by an army engaged in a systematic campaign of genocide, it also has parallels in other modern conflicts (for example, the rape of between 250,000 to 500,000 women in Rwanda within 100 days).






The Pakistan army: Gentlemen in uniform at a time of war


Ms. Bose also paints a picture of the Pakistan military as a disciplined force that spared women and children. Citing her field research she writes: "Bangladeshi participants and eyewitnesses described battles, raids, massacres and executions, but told me that women were not harmed by the army in these events except by chance, such as in crossfire. The pattern that emerged from these incidents was that the Pakistan army targeted adult males while sparing women and children."


However, her field research is contradicted by all available evidence. From the early days of the war, women and girls were targeted for rape and killed. On March 30, 1971, the American Consul General in Dhaka, Archer Blood, sent a telegram to the State Department recounting the Pakistani atrocities in Dhaka. In it he wrote about the massacre at Rokeya Hall at Dhaka University where, according to Blood, the building was "set ablaze and girls machine-gunned as they fled the building."


On March 31, 1971, Archer Blood sent another telegram which recounted atrocities against girls. Blood wrote: "Six naked female bodies at Rokeya Hall, Dacca U. Feet tied together. Bits of rope hanging from ceiling fans. Apparently raped, shot and hung by their heels from fans."


The reports from the American Embassy in Dhaka give us a small window into the systematic killing spree that was Operation Searchlight, the code name the Pakistani army gave to the first stage of the genocide operation.


Throughout her paper, Ms. Bose continues to paint the Pakistan military as a disciplined force not capable of systematic rape. She cited a memo written by General Niazi that reminds his officers that they have a "code of honour" and as "gentlemen and officers" they should abide by it. She then writes that Pakistani officers she spoke to were "indignant" at charges of large-scale rape and claimed that these charges were false.


Ms. Bose follows a similar pattern throughout her paper. She gives credence to the stories told to her by the Pakistani military, the perpetrators of the rapes, and dismisses as "alleged" and not credible the accounts of the rape victims. However, contemporaneous news reports from 1971 tell a different story. For example, an October 25, 1971, a Time Magazine article, detailing the Pakistani military atrocities, reports on women and girls held captive and raped at Pakistani military headquarters in Dhaka:


"One of the more horrible revelations concerns 563 young Bengali women, some only 18, who have been held captive inside Dacca's dingy military cantonment since the first days of the fighting. Seized from Dacca University and private homes and forced into military brothels, the girls are all three to five months pregnant. The army is reported to have enlisted Bengali gynecologists to abort girls held at military installations. But for those at the Dacca cantonment it is too late for abortion. The military has begun freeing the girls a few at a time, still carrying the babies of Pakistani soldiers."


A problematic methodology

Having portrayed the Pakistan military as a benevolent force, Ms. Bose then attempts to discredit a handful of accounts of rape victims as a way of casting doubt on the rapes committed during the 1971 genocide.

She begins by trying to cast doubt on an eyewitness, named Rabeya Khatun, whom she dismisses as illiterate, to rape at Rajarbag. Ms. Bose then dismisses accounts of two other corroborating witnesses because their testimony was similar to Ms. Khatun's and they, too, were illiterate. Ms. Bose declares the witness's testimony not credible because, "the language is not what would be used either by illiterate sweepers or by educated Bengalis in everyday conversation."

She then finds refuge in the account of a Pakistani Lt. Col. Taj who, unsurprisingly, "categorically denied that any molestation of women had taken place at Rajarbag by his men." Ms. Bose then informs us Lt. Col. Taj was not actually present at Rajarbag after the first night of military action. Yet, she felt the need to inject him as a fact witness.

night of military action. Yet, she felt the need to inject him as a fact witness. Then, she dismisses Ms. Khatun's account as "highly dubious," declaring "until and unless other, credible witnesses come forward, the hellish account attributed to one illiterate woman simply will not suffice."

Dismissing witnesses simply on the grounds of illiteracy is a serious methodological fallacy. Eyewitnesses do not need to read or write to know what constitutes sexual violence. The Pakistan military did not discriminate between illiterate and literate classes in its campaign of killings and rape against Bangladeshis.

Ms. Bose then tries to cast doubt on the account of rape victim Ferdousi Priyabhashini, an educated woman and well-known sculptor. Ms. Bose's argument here is somewhat muddled, but it appears that she is claiming that Mrs. Priyabhashini was less of a rape victim and more of a willing participant.

Ms. Bose writes: "It is highly unusual for someone of her background to admit to having been a rape victim, especially in the conservative societies like Bangladesh." Ms. Bose goes on, "According to her own account, in 1971, Ferdousi Priyabhashini was a mature woman, a divorced mother of three, working for many years."

After a muddled discussion of Ms. Priyabhashini's account of rape by Pakistani soldiers, Ms. Bose concludes that there is an "inconsistency" in Ms. Priyabha-shini's account because she feared she would be killed by the freedom fighters. Ms. Bose declares: "Only those who were perceived to have willingly fraternised with the Pakistani regime were at risk of the wrath of freedom fighters, not victims of the regime." It appears Ms. Bose is asserting that since Ms. Priyabhashini feared for her life, she must have consented to having sex with Pakistani soldiers.


In the legal sense, rape is an act of sexual intercourse carried out "against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another." The calculated rationale of the act of war-time rape constitutes a political act, and an attack on the collective political identity of the group of females under attack, not necessarily on their individual identities. Rape during genocides is not exclusively an attack on the body -- it is an attack on the "body politic." Its primary goal is not to maim or kill a person (though that does, in fact, happen, in great numbers) but to control an entire socio-political process by crippling it.


Put another way, during genocides, rape has been used as a weapon of social control and cultural destruction, of devaluation and commodification.


Genocidal rape is not rape out of control, it is rape under control. All existing evidence points to the fact that the Pakistani military specifically targeted Bengali women and girls. This targeting was not a by-product of war, but a systematic campaign of genocidal rape. The historic Akayesu trial in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda established that rape constitutes an act of genocide, and an egregious violation of international law, when it is committed to destroy a targeted group. Given the scale and systematic way in which Bangladeshi women and girls were subjected to rape and sexual violence in 1971, even a rudimentary understanding of the effect of rape on the victim casts doubt on Ms. Bose's argument.


Ms. Bose goes on to try to cast doubt on the account of Akhtaruzzaman Mandal -- a freedom fighter who accompanied Indian soldiers as they took control of a Pakistani position. There, Mr. Mandal states, he saw the corpse of a Pakistani captain lying beside a dead Bengali woman who showed signs of rape. Mr. Mandal also states that four naked women were discovered locked in a building, and one of the women was six months pregnant. Another 16 women were also discovered locked in an adjacent high school, some showing signs of torture.


In discounting Mr. Mandal's account, Ms. Bose writes that she interviewed Pakistani officers who told her that the dead captain was "humane" and had only recently arrived at the location. She accuses Mr. Mandal of "character assassination of an officer who had died defending his country, and therefore, cannot speak in his own defence."


Ms. Bose, once again, is ready to accept the word of the Pakistani soldiers, the perpetrators of rape. However, there are many cases of rapists in this world who appear to be "humane" to those who know them.


In critiquing accounts of seven rape victims describes in Neelima Ibrahim's book Ami Birangona Bolchhi, Ms. Bose notes that four of the seven women were abducted by Bengalis and one by a Bihari before being handed over to the Pakistan army. Some of the women were raped by their initial abductors before being handed over to the Pakistan army, to be held in barracks and raped again. Ms. Bose neglects to mention that those who abducted the women were local collaborators, razakars, working with the Pakistani military. Nonetheless, she makes the bizarre observation that since the razakars had already raped the women, "for the majority of these women, therefore, even if the Pakistan army had done nothing, they would still be rape victims."


The point, of course, is that the Pakistani army had done something -- they had raped these women. Whether their initial abductors had also raped the women does not make the Pakistani army any less complicit in their rapes.


An apologia

In this latest paper Sarmila Bose tries mightily to diminish the atrocities committed by the Pakistan military in 1971. She, however, offers very little of substance to back up her assertion that the existing research and documentation of the 1971 genocide overestimates the death toll and the rapes. Her claim that, in her words, the "unsubstantiated and implausible" claims of hundreds of thousands of rape victims distracts attention from the "true rape victims" and "insult the true victims by trivialising their suffering" is itself an insult to the victims of rape in Bangladesh. The number of rape victims does not diminish the suffering of any individual rape victim; the vast number of rapes only demonstrates the heinous magnitude of the Pakistani campaign. If there is any insult, it is that there is no acknowledgement of all the victims of the Pakistan army's rapes; rather, there is an attempt to dismiss the experiences of rape victims by asserting that these rapes did not take place.


In her attempt at denial, Sarmila Bose relies on the Pakistan government's report on the atrocities and the accounts of Pakistani soldiers, the perpetrators of the genocide. She overlooks news reports from the time, eyewitness accounts, academic works, and case studies. Instead of addressing the issue of genocidal rape in 1971, Ms. Bose tries to deconstruct and discredit a handful of accounts of rape. She targets personal narratives, such as that of Ms. Priyabhashini's, to try to prove the victims were not raped. She does not engage the issue of the number of rapes in any substantial way, or address how her assertions of "several thousand rapes" can be reconciled with numbers put forward by international agencies or independent reports, nor does she engage the discussion of genocidal rape as a war strategy.


In the end, her paper is neither scholarly nor neutral. It is an apologia for the Pakistan army and for the genocide it perpetrated against the Bangladeshi people in 1971.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:

1. Sarmila Bose's paper: "Losing the Victims: Problems of Using Women as Weapons in Recounting the Bangladesh War" can be found on the Internet at http://www.Epw. Org. in/uploads/articles/11060.pdf

2. An expanded version of this article can be found on the Internet at http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2007/10/10/the-continuing-rape-of-bangladesh.


Artworks by PABLO


Mashuqur Rahman is a US-based member of the Drishtipat Writers' Collective.

Bangladesh Liberation War 1971: Masterminds of ‘75 killings, Aug 21 attack the sam...

Bangladesh Liberation War 1971: Masterminds of ‘75 killings, Aug 21 attack the sam...: Masterminds of ‘75 killings, Aug 21 attack the same : Advocate Shahara Khatun, Minister for Home Affairs 15-August-1975 Home aff...

Masterminds of ‘75 killings, Aug 21 attack the same : Advocate Shahara Khatun, Minister for Home Affairs

Masterminds of ‘75 killings, Aug 21 attack the same : Advocate Shahara Khatun, Minister for Home Affairs

15-August-1975

Home affairs minister Advocate Sahara Khatun said that the masterminds of the killing of Bangabandhu in 1975, the grenade attack on Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on August 21 and the attempt to smuggle 10 truckloads of arms in 2004 have been masterminded by the same group and followers of the same ideology. ‘The Pakistanis wanted to kill Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman several times during their reign so their associates killed him, along with most of his family, in independent Bangladesh,’ she said while addressing a roundtable on ‘The national mourning day, grenade attack on August 21 and Chittagong arms haul — in quest of the godfathers’ at Dhanmondi. The roundtable, chaired by Justice Golam Rabbani, was organized by the Heritage Foundation of Bangladesh. It was addressed by chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on the law ministry Suranjit Sengupta, state minister for law Qamrul Islam, former state minister Abul Hassan Chowdhury, former ambassador Waliur Rahman, former secretary Syed Rezaul Hayat and Dr Syed Anwar Hossain, along with others. Farhad Hossain, associate professor of the English department of Mohammadpur Kendrio Biswabiddalaya College, and Mamun-ur-Rashid, senior reporter of the daily Janakantha, read out separate keynote papers at the round table. Sahara Khatun said that the national trauma has been partially cured by the execution of the five killers of Bangabandhu on January 27 this year. Notices have already been issued through Interpol to find the six fugitive killers and they must be brought back within the shortest possible time, she said, adding that the godfathers behind the killing of Bangabandhu are still active inside and outside the country. Those godfathers were behind the grenade attack on Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on 21 August, 2004 because they wanted to destroy the leadership of Awami League to complete their earlier mission, said Sahara, adding that the same group tried to smuggled 10 truckloads of arms into the country for launching widespread destructive operations in Bangladesh. She said that the anti-liberation forces defeated in 1971 have been putting up obstructions to stop the trial of war criminals and urged all to be careful and united against these embittered militant forces. Suranjit Sengupta said that counter-revolutionary forces killed Bangabandhu in 1975, and later their leader General Zia tried to turn the country into a mini-Pakistan in the name of multi-party democracy. Terming the present time as very crucial, he called upon all the pro-liberation forces to be united against those godfathers and their associates who are still active in many ways and under many banners. State minister for law Qamrul Islam said that the killers of Bangabandhu had tried to demolish the spirit of the liberation war in order to reunite the country with Pakistan in line with the two-nation theory. Accusing General Zia of being involved in the killing of Bangabandhu, the state minister alleged that his wife Khaleda Zia had also tried to kill Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and most of the senior Awami League leaders by launching the grenade attack on 21 August, 2004. Terming General Zia as an ‘intruder’ in the liberation war, he said that after the killing of Bangabandhu, Zia proved his anti-liberation stance by sheltering Bangabandhu’s killers, rehabilitating Razakars like Shah Aziz into politics and killing hundreds of freedom-fighters in the army like Colonel Abu Taher Bir Uttam. Accusing former state minister Lutfozzaman Babar of masterminding the grenade attack on 21 August, 2004, Qamrul said that the forces that killed Bangabandhu in 1975 and tried to smuggle arms through the CUFL’s jetty in Chittagong were the same.

THE GRENADE ATTACK ON SHEIKH HASINA: THE WHY AND HOW OF A NEUTRAL INVESTIGATION

The Attack and the Immediate Reaction

The grenade attack on Awami League rally at Bangabandhu Avenue on 21 August was undoubtedly aimed at assassination of Sheikh Hasina. Before she could leave the place of occurrence there were at least 9 grenade blasts and many rounds of shooting. A very determined and well-planned attack was launched and it was carried out in about a couple of minutes. Despite heavy, although less than normal, deployment of police personnel and strict security arrangements in the area the criminals fled the spot safely.

By the grace of Allah Sheikh Hasina escaped this dastardly attack as a number of Awami League leaders and workers laid down their lives, some in attempting to save her and others as innocent victims of the barbarous arrack. We bemoan the loss of Ivy Rahman, secretary of women’s affairs of Awami League, and 21 other dead souls. Hundreds of leaders and workers are still fighting for life and many have been permanently maimed. We pray for their recovery and solace.

Sheikh Rehana, youngest sister of Sheikh Hasina, daughter of father of nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib

In its immediate reaction Awami League termed it as a planned assassination attempt and unequivocally accused the government for its complicity in the attack. It was a repeat performance of 15 August 1975 when Bangabandhu and members of his family and other relations and staff were murdered most brutally. It was suspected that the same reactionary forces, the defeated rajakars and fundamentalists and the slaves of Pakistan, were once again back in their nefarious pursuit. Awami League also saw in this attack a culmination of the overall state of lawlessness, the rise of extremist groups and series of murders of AL leaders and bomb or grenade attacks on secular institutions and gatherings all over the country. All other opposition parties concurred with such an assessment. All the opposition forces considered it to be an attack on liberal traditions of the country, an attack on democracy and secularism.

Why did the Awami League accuse the government immediately following the grenade attack? From past experience it was suspected that investigation would be misdirected and it would be eyewash. The incident was so serious that it required a thorough scrutiny and it was felt that the government should be put on notice not to neglect the gravity of the issue.

The BNP, Extremist Jamat e Islam, HUJI, JMB want to kill Sheikh Hasina and Awami Leaders

The Background and the Attack of 21 August

Since the BNP-Jamat alliance came to power nearly three years ago terrorism got a new lease of life in the country. Under the patronage of the ruling parties violence directed against the members of minority communities and against opposition forces flourished and threat to the life of Sheikh Hasina increased exponentially.

Before the end of 2001 they annulled the law on security for Sheikh Hasina and her sister and withdrew the protection provided by the SSF. Because of constant threat on the lives of the only surviving children of the Father of the Nation such a law was enacted in 2001 prior to Sheikh Hasina’s completion of term as the Prime Minister. A General Diary entry made in a police station on 30 November 2001 recorded by Sohail Taj, newly elected MP of Kapasia, stated that in view of the threat on the lives of the members of the family of the Father of the Nation this annulment of the law would prompt conspiracy by evil terrorist forces to assassinate them and attempt murder. How prophetic was the perception of the young MP!

In actual fact since 2002 four assassination attempts have been made on Sheikh Hasina’s life. At first at Naogaon on 4 March 2002, second on 29 August 2003 at Satkhira, third on 26 February 2004 at Barisal Ferryghat and the next on 2 April at Gournadi. On every occasion proper attention of the government was drawn and protection sought. Almost invariably armed cadres of BNP were involved in these attacks. On 5 July 2004 when she was on tour at Istanbul in Turkey she was threatened on telephone both at Istanbul and at Dhaka. As usual the government was requested to investigate and take precautionary measures. But the government followed the policy of benign neglect and Khaleda Zia instead joked about it in parliament.

The most violent grenade attack on 21 August was the culmination of all these incidents and it happened in broad daylight in the presence of hundreds of security personnel and in a crowded public rally. A series of grenades were thrown and several rounds of gunfire followed it and the criminals escaped unharmed and undetected. The police it seemed helped them to flee by clubbing and tear gassing the milling crowd.

It was a widely publicized political protest gathering and numerous agencies and offices of the government monitored it. The various branches of the police, the different intelligence agencies, the civil administration, and the municipal authorities – no one had a clue and no one could identify a criminal not to speak of catching or injuring any. Even almost a month after the incident there is no suspect or no arrest of a possible culprit.

The after-thought of the ruling junta, now reported to have been indirectly legitimized by the farce of a judicial probe, about the unannounced change of venue for the rally is just false. True that permission was sought for Muktangon but used to the usual government tactics of frustrating all plans for protest rallies or gatherings at the last moment alternative arrangements had to be made for Bangabandhu Avenue, only a few steps away. This fascist government never allows any protest demonstration by anybody and tries to frustrate them through various devices such as last minute denial of police permission for location, attack by their cadres, and illegal police barricade and resort to lathi charge, teargas shells and arrests. Bangabandhu Avenue as the venue, however, was widely publicized through microphone announcements and advertisements in newspapers for a number of days. The fact that the venue was Bangabandhu Avenue was so public that electronic media took position in advance of the event at that place to cover the rally.

The legitimate question is what were the security personnel engaged in protecting the Leader of the Opposition and other officials deployed for the rally doing? How did all the intelligence agencies fail to cope with the situation? Is it utter incompetence or criminal negligence? Or is it complicity of the government in the preplanned and well-rehearsed assassination attempt?

Let us look at the allegation of complicity of the government. The spread of violence, the growth of extremist groups and the record of investigation of the last three years may first be examined to find some clues. Then we can look at the developments since the attack.

Spread of Violence

Incidents of violence involving use of explosives began in 1999 and it was thought that the intention was destabilization of the polity as well as the economy of the country. A list of all these incidents is provided below. During AL period there were seven incidents of bomb blast, two in the last month of its term. Investigation on two incidents resulted in submission of charge sheet against accused persons and trials were about to begin. Help from FBI was also sought in one of these cases. In connection with two other incidents investigations led to arrests of a few suspects. On three other incidents, including the two latest ones, investigation was incomplete. Thus there is no truth in the allegation that these cases were not investigated properly. We shall soon find out how all the cases and investigations have been derailed or halted by Khaleda-Nizami junta.

In three months of Caretaker government there were three more cases. The junta has closed two cases failing to find any accused person and only one case is still under investigation. The Caretaker government dealt conclusively with only one incident that took place earlier. They closed investigation on Khulna Ahmadiya incident by submitting a final report on 23 August 2001.

<><><><> <><><><> <><><><>

Rise of fanatic extremism in Bangladesh

During BNP-Jamat rule of three years there has been 8 incidents of bomb blasts and 4 more of grenade throw. There are also several cases of seizure of cachet of arms and explosives. Investigations started by AL government were either halted or started afresh by the BNP-Jamat junta. In the Udichi case 24 persons were charge sheeted. BNP-Jamat government withdrew the charge against one of the main accused Tariqul Islam, alleged to have links with underground terrorist groups of south Bangladesh, and made him a Minister. In the Kotalipara case 15 persons were charge sheeted and one of the main accused Mufti Hannan was let off and reportedly he is abroad now. All action on the case stands stayed. The CPB case also a final report has closed the case. Action on three other cases has been held up on the plea of fresh investigation against new accused persons. Of the three incidents occurring during Caretaker regime two have already been closed by the junta by submitting final reports. It seems that the junta is following a policy of closing all cases submitting final reports that say that the case is true but criminals are not traceable. What can be a better way of shielding the criminals after fishing in troubled waters in wrong directions!

Fanatic extremism in Bangladesh by BNP JAMAT HUJI JMB

As far as the later twelve incidents are concerned in only two cases – Sakhipur and Dinajpur incidents charge sheets have been submitted and all the rest are under investigation. In one of them involving attack on British High Commissioner Scotland Yard came to look into the matter but there is no news on what they did or what advice they tendered.

The junta’s position on all the cases is that the Awami League and its followers were responsible for the incidents and they tried unsuccessfully to get this conclusion certified by a judicial commission headed by a former Judge A Bari Sarkar. Incidentally the report had to be trashed because of the partisan views and extra-judicial inferences of Bari Sarkar. In another case of Gulshan Hotel Sylhet they arrested an expatriate Bengali Nunu Mia because of his AL connections and tortured him in custody but let him off after his MP from UK asked for proper investigation The junta in each case actually shields the culprits by pointing the accusing finger at AL leaders and workers. There are three important points to ponder over. First, all acts of violence were directed at secular and progressive institutions and Awami League or forces supporting Awami League. Second, none of the attacks targeted any BNP or Jamat rallies or their leaders and workers. Third, the frequency of such incidents increased from about the time of transfer of power by AL government, to be precise there have been 15 incidents since June 2001.

A tabular review of the major incidents of violence since 1999 is provided below:

 

Reportedly a large number of localized gangs of terrorists function under the patronage of leaders of the ruling junta. Notable among them are gangs associated with BNP leaders such as Minister Tariqul Islam MP of Jessore, Advisor to PM S Q Chowdhury MP of Chittagong, State Minister Lutfuzzaman Babar MP of Netrokona, State Minister Amanullah Aman MP of Dhaka, State Minister Ehsanul Huq Milan MP of Chandpur, Advisor to PM Barkatullah Bulu of Noakhali, State Minister Alamgir Kabir MP of Naogaon, State Minister Fazlur Rahman Patal MP of Natore, Deputy Minister Ruhul Quddus Dulu MP of Natore, Major (retd) Sayeed Iskandar MP of Noakhali, PM’s son Tareq Rahman of Bogra, Helaluzzaman Lalu MP of Bogra, Selim Reza Habib MP of Pabna, Nasiruddin Pintu MP of Dhaka, M Ilyas Ali MP of Sylhet, Shahidul Alam Talukdar MP of Patuakhali and Shahjahan Chowdhury MP of Chitta¬gong.

Another worrisome point is the stance taken by the junta on the trial of the heinous assassinations of 1975 – the assassination of Bangabandhu, his family and colleagues on 15 August and the murder of the four leaders of our Liberation war in jail on 3 November. The beneficiary of the assassination was undoubtedly General Ziaur Rahman. He richly rewarded the killers with diplomatic assignments. He also ensured indemnity for them by constitutionally protecting the unethical and illegal Indemnity Order of 1975. The Awami League government held the trial of the killers of 15 August 1975 under the normal law of the land. The sentencing in the trial was completed and it awaited Supreme Court ratification. Not only has this process been made impossible by this junta but they have also chosen to bestow favour on sentenced criminals. Major Pasha died as a fugitive from law who was sentenced to death. He has been reinstated after his death and his family given his pension. In the 3 November 1975 jail killing case, which had not concluded, the junta released a number of accused persons on bail and reinstated Major Khairuzzaman and also gave him promotion. Some of the killers when they enjoyed immunity set up an armed cadre called Freedom Party and it went into hiding during the assassination and jail killing trials. This cadre seems to have got a new lease of life as Khaleda-Nizami junta assumed power. It would not be wild to speculate that some of these killers, fugitive in the eyes of the law, may have been involved in the grenade attack. They had publicly threatened to kill Sheikh Hasina when they were active and interestingly live grenades were found within the covered walls of the jail soon after the grenade attack of 21 August. Let it not be forgotten the leader of the Freedom Party Col. Faruq is in the death row in the jail.

Growth of Extremism

The extremists groups started forming with financial patronage from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Iraq since the success of the Counter Revolution in 1975. These sources have now gone dry. The Madrassas and camps for Indian insurgents in border areas of Chittagong, Hill Tracts and Sylhet acted as the early breeding ground for the extremists. Awami League government destroyed most training camps taking advantage of peace accord with the tribes of Hill Tracts. It is suspected that many of them have resurfaced again. Another breeding ground was the Rohingya refugee camp in Cox’s Bazar where Jamat with Saudi NGO Rabita remained active. Madrassa and Maktabs in 1974 were about 1500, today their number is about 21,000. Most of them are archaic institutions preaching superstition and fundamentalism. AL government targeted some extremist groups such as Harkatul Jehad and some Madrassas but these were lukewarm steps.

Under BNP-Jamat government the extremists’ groups have glory days, indeed. Most of them are closely associated with Jamat while some others have links with left turncoats now in BNP. They are identified and occasionally arrested or banned but secretly the ruling junta nurtures them. It is also noteworthy that prominent rightist leaders who are now in power publicly boast of fundamentalist revolution in Bangladesh and burial of secular traditions. Just a few cases are enumerated below:

• On 8 March 1999 in a public meeting in Dhaka Fazlul Huq Amini (now an Alliance MP) thundered, “I am a follower of Osama bin Laden, I am a Taliban. Crores of Taliban are in this country. Hence like Afghanistan here also will be Taliban revolution.” There were others to beat the same drum. They have never recanted or revised their position.
• Sohrab Khan a leader of Hijbut Towhid was arrested on 19 September 2001 in south Bangladesh. He was released and rearrested on 17 June 2002. This group is active in Kushtia, Meherpur, Chuadanga, Jhenidah, Barisal, Madaripur, Gopalganj, Tangail, Narayanganj, Sylhet and Chittagong. They not only preach violence but also attack villages and kills people. But there is no attempt to curb their activities.
• On 20 May 2002 the police nabbed a group of eight extremist of Jamatul Mujahidin in Dinajpur, supposed to be linked to Kashmiri and Taliban extremists. They were enlarged on bail and soon afterwards another group of five was arrested in Bagerhat with a huge cachet of explosives, who admitted that they wanted to kill an Awami League leader. They were also released after a while. The bomb blast in Dinajpur on 13 February 2003 was also traced to this group but no arrests were made. Then followed the big haul in Chapai Nawabganj on 11 March 2003 of both arms and activists. But this Jamat is active in many districts such as Dinajpur, Panchagarh, Thakurgaon, Gaibandha, Joypurhat, Bogra, Naogaon, Chapai Nawabganj, Jamalpur, Kishoreganj & Bagerhat.
• On 6 December 2002 Khatib of Baitul Mokarram Obaidul Huq, recalled from retirement by the junta, sermonized that celebration of the Bengali New Year’s Day is not for Muslims. He also makes outlandish remarks about destroying other countries and ostracizing Qadiyanis. He is a favourite of Khaleda Zia.
• On 8 February 2003 one Kawsar Siddiqi held a press conference in Rajshahi announcing the emergence of Shahadat al Hikma organized in military formations with the avowed purpose of defying the core values of Bangladesh. This group claiming 36,000 trained volunteers preached straightforward sedition and the patronizing government had difficulty in holding them in check.
• The month of May 2004 was full of stories on exploits of one Azizur Rahman alias Siddiqur Rahman better known as Bangla Bhai. With the support of police he created havoc in north Bangladesh in the name of punishing the so-called communist Sarbaharas. The Prime Minister ordered his arrest but the Jamat Minister Nizami announced that he was a mythical figure and the scoundrel is still functioning executing his extreme laws of brutal killing, arson and destruction.
• All political murders in Khulna or Jessore are attributed to Janajuddaha, a clandestine extremist cadre. It is reported that a terrorist arrested by AL government by making a deal with some powerful leaders of the BNP-Jamat Alliance escaped captivity. Very soon his reincarnation meant the emergence of Janajuddha.

Progress in investigation of incidents of violence

What transpires is that terrorism is flourishing in the country and extremists groups are having a field day. There is no genuine attempt at arresting the present trend of exponential growth in violence and extremism. Investigations are not made seriously, cases are hushed up after trying unsuccessfully to blame the AL and the government really nurse and encourage the breakdown of law and order. Partly it is because of their past links and habits and partly it is because they have politicized and ruined the efficiency of the police and perhaps partly because of the utter incompetence of the junta.

Mrs. Ivy Rahman, wife of  Honorable President of PR of Bangladesh, Language Movement Soldeir, Freedom Fighter Adv. Zillur Rahman, Senior Member of Presidium Bangladesh Awami League has killed by extremist jamat bnp huji

There have been a number of interceptions of smuggled arms such as at Kahalu in Bogra, at Uttara and Kuril in the outskirts of Dhaka and at CUFL jetty in Chittagong. In each case the investigation has been directed against AL workers or innocent low level labourers although BNP-Jamat activists are clearly involved. The moment an investigation points at ruling junta goons or leaders it comes to a grinding halt. In the Chittagong case the trial court has been asking searching questions about investiga¬tion details, preservation of evidence and charging the real culprits. Reportedly SQ Chowdhury MP’s vessels were carrying the explosives and they were being unloaded at a jetty under the control of the Jamat Minister Nizami. Incidentally SQ Chowdhury only a few days back threatened to take on Sheikh Hasina as he accused her of preventing his election as Secretary General of OIC.

There is no progress similarly in any investigation or any information on what is happening. They further allege that the ruling junta and terrorist groups under its patronage perpetrate all these acts. Terrorism comes naturally to BNP; its founder engaged the DGFI and NSI (units of law enforcing agencies) to organize terrorists among students and youth and this process was strengthened under Khaleda Zia’s earlier term as the Prime Minister. Jamat maintains arms cadre because their objective is assumption of state power by hook or by crook and they stand committed to jehad or religious war.

Government Performance after the Attack

Now let us direct our attention specifically to the grenade attack on Sheikh Hasina on 21 August at Bangabandhu Avenue. What is the perception of the government about this national tragedy? How have they reacted to it? What steps have the government taken since then? Have they been sincere in dealing with a national tragedy? Does their attitude or action inspire any trust and confidence in their ability to cope with the crisis?

• Far from experiencing shock and grief on this tragic and somber occasion the government tried to throttle natural expression of condolence and grief. They beat up condolence processions and meetings all over the country. They even disgraced the last religious rites (i.e. JANAZA) of the dead people by deliberately delaying the delivery of dead bodies and possibly secreted some dead bodies as well. Janaza of respected national leader Ivy Rahman could not be held at her hometown because of violent resistance by BNP goons backed up by the police.
• Khaleda Zia and others of the government issued statements condoling the death of the victims of the attack and sympathizing with their relations, friends and colleagues. But strangely although the entire nation thought so the ruling junta never acknowledged that it was an attempt on Sheikh Hasina’s life. They emphasized only the destabilizing impact of the attack. Khaleda Zia as per news reports even chided her coalition partners for condemning the attack on Sheikh Hasina. Then Khaleda Zia, apparently on second thought, staged a public relations gimmick of calling on Sheikh Hasina. The wish was expressed with great fanfare to the press before it was made to the victim. Is not it a little weird that the statement on the so-called desire for a meeting should be so drafted as to annoy Sheikh Hasina and then the fiasco about visiting her should be carefully orchestrated? Interestingly the press was given the statement well before it was faxed to Sheikh Hasina. Could not one surmise under the circumstances that the government thinks that if Hitler, Mussolini or Salazar could achieve so much without the existence of so powerful media and so destructive weapons of suppression, for them equipped with modern tools the sky is the limit for goebelian lies and high handed operations?
• The government has taken some steps against petty employees for dereliction of duty in connection with the grenade attack. But just look at the people against whom action has been taken. 10 prison guards have been suspended because they could not explain how a grenade was found within the walled jail compound. For failure to give due importance to the news the Director General of BTV has been made an OSD and the Producer has been suspended. An intelligence failure of such magnitude and a security mess in the presence of hundreds of policemen on duty do not seem to have registered with the government. No action has been taken against the State Minister for Home, the Home Secretary, the Inspector General of Police, the Dhaka Police Commissioner or the Heads of Intelligence Agencies or Police Officers in charge of the event. Nor has anyone of them offered to resign. Not even anyone in charge of various services at the place of occurrence has been closed or transferred to facilitate unbiased investigation.
• Then to hoodwink the people they set up a commission of enquiry with one Judge of questionable neutrality, who was even rejected by the Supreme Court lawyers association. Rejected by the political opposition and by the lawyers of the Supreme Court this Judge without any sense of honour went ahead with his enquiry. His publicity campaign before and after submitting his report only confirms his partisan nature and his habit of making unsubstantiated political statement. On the other hand the Supreme Court Bar association set up a commission of its own but the government is not giving them any quarters yet.
• In order to further deceive the people they sought assistance from Interpol. Interpol is a federation of all police forces of the world and they can provide technical assistance to any member country by drawing on the pooled resources of the world. But they work as directed and supervised by the host government. Surely they make their own judgment but it is obviously based on what they get to know from their hosts. They also report to their hosts. This could be a good investigation but since the government draws the terms of reference, the government provides the facts and information and the government decides what to do with their views and reports this cannot by any stretch of imagination be a neutral investigation.
• If a proper and neutral enquiry was really wanted or if a competent investigation was really desired there were ways to do it. In the first instance in this climate of mistrust and questionable credentials of the government the enquiry should have been finalized in consultation with the Opposition. The investigation should have been started forthwith with superintendence vested in some bipartisan authority. Many other ways could be thought of to give due importance to the catastrophe and ensure a national response.
• Instead a normal investigation was launched and it could not be more incompetent or more inefficient. As per newspaper reports for five days the investigating team did not visit the place of occurrence nor did they inspect the bullet struck vehicle till much later. Then they collected exhibits from the place of occurrence from AL workers and volunteers who preserved them and it is now well known that they have not only contaminated them but also destroyed some of them. They removed the truck that was converted into the podium and handed it back to the owner, possibly to wipe off all useful evidence. They seized all videotapes on the incident and what is the guarantee that they have not doctored them? It is not known if they instantaneously interrogated any eye-witnesses or suspects except one of their own who was on security duty with Sheikh Hasina. It is reported that the Interpol teams were shocked by the appalling incompetence of the investigation.

A Proper and Neutral Enquiry & Investigation

Awami League from the very beginning has been asking for a thorough enquiry and unbiased and competent investigation. As stated above they have no trust in the government – neither on its capacity nor on its willingness. They believe that the government is a party to the conspiracy that was bold enough to stage the attack and vanish into thin air after making the partially failed attempt. They suggested that either the Commonwealth secretariat could handle the job or the UN could be invited to do it.

The Commonwealth secretariat does not have a police force or investigative arm at all. But it has the capacity to mount any operation when requested by a member country. They could get police forces of many members to form a team to undertake the assignment. In this case the investigation team would report to the C’wealth secretariat. They would define the terms of reference certainly in consultation with the parties in Bangladesh. They would ask for making available all information to the investigation team. The team would be responsible to them. It would not involve any surrender of sovereignty to a foreign country.

The other alternative is the United Nations. Interpol already has an agreement with the UN to assist the Office of Internal Oversight, which is its audit office. So there is the possibility of UN using the services of Interpol. But more germane than this is the mechanism set up on 28 September 2001 by resolution 1373 to deal with international terrorism. It has set up a Counter-Terrorism Committee of the Security Council to implement the resolution. The Secretary General in his turn under the direction of the Committee has set up an Executive Directorate for the Counter-Terrorism Committee. This Directorate has a staff at its disposal mainly to collect information on efforts of member states to counter terrorism, to provide technical assistance to them to enhance their capacities and to ensure follow-up of the Committee’s decisions. This has in-house capacity and it can call on Interpol or national police agencies for support.

All governments are required to report on the counter terrorism measures and activities in their countries. In such reports legislation on counter-terrorism, machinery for executing the laws, and the actual actions and omissions are covered. In fact, a report on the state of counter-terrorism is provided. Bangladesh submitted its report for 2002 and the report for 2003 is due. The incident of 21 August is serious enough for the Counter-Terrorism Committee to get involved in its reporting and assessment. Bangladesh government should ask UN Counter-Terrorism Committee to undertake this investigation. This is the only way to avoid interventions by individual countries willing to help and seek multilateral intervention. No investigation of which the tainted government of Khaleda Zia is in charge has any credibility or acceptance.

Newsletter। Vol. 3, No. 17, October07, 2004

Bangladesh Awami League Publication