Jamaat leaders Nizami, Mujahid, Kamruzzaman and Abdul Kader Molla are now in police custody and being tried for so called war crimes. It is alleged that they were involved in many crimes against humanity during the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war, which ultimately resulted in Bangladesh emerging as an independent country. However, all this fiasco almost four decades after the war has lead to many questions.
1. According to media reports, Nizami is around 70 while the other three leaders are in their early 60's. That means during the war, they were youths in their early 20's with the exception of Nizami, who was 30 or so.
If we take a look at the political leadership today, we will hardly find any national leaders who are even in their forties, let alone be of their age then. There is not even a single national leader or political personality who is in his mid or even late 20's. Even the leaders of student organizations like BCL, BCD or Shibir are in their mid 30's.
So, isn't it funny when we hear that these handful of youths were the leaders of the entire anti-liberation movement and perpetrators of large scale crime against humanity?
2. It is reported that these jamaat leaders were members of a student organization in 1971 when carrying out the crimes. Were they the only members of this organization? Was it that only this four persons were the perpetrators of those horrendous crimes? Where did they get their training? Where did they get the arms? Who showed them directions? Who assisted them in various capacities?
Probably these four are supermen with extra-human capabilities!
3. All these four people are from different parts of Bangladesh. Nizami is from Pabna, Mujahid from Faridpur, Kamruzzaman from Sherpur and Abdul Kader from Mirpur. Most of them were students at their local colleges, and hence there is no chance of them knowing each other then.
Years later, they all joined Jamaat. Call it a miracle or whatever you may, exactly these four turned out to become its top leaders four decades later.
3. I pity the other members of their student organization then. Had they been involved in crimes against humanity, they too could have become top leaders and national politicians, including ministers.
Or is it that allegations of crimes against humanity is brought against these people only because of their political position???
4. During the war in 1971, many political parties and personalities opposed the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan, including Muslim League and the communist parties (which are now part of the government). There is no mention of their names or even of the fact that these parties opposed the separation.
It seems all others, apart from the few scattered and independent alleged war criminals (who were not even jamaat members then), were and are 'doa tulshi pata' (as innocent as an angel).
5. Some months ago, the government handed out a list of 40 suspected war criminals. Does that mean that the BAL government wants us to believe that out of the entire 75 Million people, only these forty (remember they are only suspected criminals) were involved in crimes against humanity.
Some quarters have spends all their time, energy and money in highlighting the reign of terror lashed out by the anti-separation forces. Was all that terror and devastation and sufferings and killings committed by only this (at most) forty people.
It is said that three millions were killed and 200,000 women raped in the nine months of war.
All that carried out by this forty disconnected young men???
6. In late December 1971, American channel CBS broadcasted images of Mukti bahini killing tens of innocent biharis and rajakars in broad day light in front of thousands of people in the then racecourse maidan. The incident took place on the 18th of December, and was lead Kader Siddiki, a prominent freedom fighter.
This is not an isolated incident. During the nine month war, millions of Biharis and anti-separation Bangladeshis were tortured, raped, made homeless, maimed, robbed and thousand of them killed. Most of these were carried out by the mujib bahini, which was a guerilla unit trained by the forces of and in a neighboring country. It is alleged that this force was formed during the concluding part of Liberation War according to the policy of Awami League and the ally, India, aimed against the actual freedom fighters to bar them from taking the lead in the War; and they did not actually take part in the fighting against Pakistani forces.
Was these not crimes against humanity? Will these crimes never be tried just because it was perpetrated by elements of BAL?? Is justice the privilege of only a selected few???
8.8.10
Fair media in a free land
The hottest media sensation in Bangladesh last week was the joint interrogation of Maulana Saidur Rahman, Amir of the terrorist organization, JMB and the top three leaders of Bangladesh Jamaate Islami. Every day the newspapers carried sensational and detailed reports of what went in the interrogation cell.
One report mentioned that the three top Jamaat leaders (Maulana Nizami, Maulana Sayedee and Mr. Mujahid) were lying down on a green blanket when Saidur was produced before them in the DB office. Surprised and startled at meeting an old acquaintance and ex Jamaat leader, all three of them jumped out of the blanket. In another report, it was said when Saidur was brought face to face with Nizami and Mujahid, Saidur greeted them with Assalamu alaikum. Only Nizami responded to Saidur’s salam whereas Mujahid put on a stone face and kept silent. Yet another report portrayed the scene of Mr. Mujahid meeting Maulana Saidur. According to the report, at first Mr. Mujahid claimed that he didn’t know Maulana Saidur. But upon reminding him of their meeting in 1990 at jamaat office where Mr. Mujahid was boasting about his participation in the Intellectual killing in 1971 while peeling an orange, Mr. Mujahid kept numb and faced the floor in shame.
All these reports are so vivid and detailed that it seems all these interrogations take place in the presence of reporters.
However, a little scrutiny and reading of other related reports make it clear how false and fabricated these reports are. Here are just a few examples.
It was reported both in print and electronic media that due to lack of facilities and space at the DB office in Mintu road, Maulana Nizami, Maulana Sayedee and Mr Mujahid could not be accommodated in DB office at the same time. First only Maulana Sayedee and Mr Mujahid were held there. Later when Maulana Nizami was transferred from central jail to DB office, Maulana Sayedee had to be shifted to Ramna thana. This was confirmed by the OC of Ramna thana in the electronic media. How could it then happen that all three of them were lying down on a green blanket when Maulana Saidur was brought in their presence??
Most importantly, the Deputy Commissioner of DB police said in a TV interview, that Maulana Saidur and the three top leaders of Jamaat are arrested under different cases, with their investigating officers being different and also in most cases even the thana being different. Thus there is no question of bringing them face to face.
Yet these are the media outlets which claim they are “angshik noi, puro shott” (the complete truth), ”niteer proshne aposh-heen” (firm on principle) or "committed to the people's right to know".
One report mentioned that the three top Jamaat leaders (Maulana Nizami, Maulana Sayedee and Mr. Mujahid) were lying down on a green blanket when Saidur was produced before them in the DB office. Surprised and startled at meeting an old acquaintance and ex Jamaat leader, all three of them jumped out of the blanket. In another report, it was said when Saidur was brought face to face with Nizami and Mujahid, Saidur greeted them with Assalamu alaikum. Only Nizami responded to Saidur’s salam whereas Mujahid put on a stone face and kept silent. Yet another report portrayed the scene of Mr. Mujahid meeting Maulana Saidur. According to the report, at first Mr. Mujahid claimed that he didn’t know Maulana Saidur. But upon reminding him of their meeting in 1990 at jamaat office where Mr. Mujahid was boasting about his participation in the Intellectual killing in 1971 while peeling an orange, Mr. Mujahid kept numb and faced the floor in shame.
All these reports are so vivid and detailed that it seems all these interrogations take place in the presence of reporters.
However, a little scrutiny and reading of other related reports make it clear how false and fabricated these reports are. Here are just a few examples.
It was reported both in print and electronic media that due to lack of facilities and space at the DB office in Mintu road, Maulana Nizami, Maulana Sayedee and Mr Mujahid could not be accommodated in DB office at the same time. First only Maulana Sayedee and Mr Mujahid were held there. Later when Maulana Nizami was transferred from central jail to DB office, Maulana Sayedee had to be shifted to Ramna thana. This was confirmed by the OC of Ramna thana in the electronic media. How could it then happen that all three of them were lying down on a green blanket when Maulana Saidur was brought in their presence??
Most importantly, the Deputy Commissioner of DB police said in a TV interview, that Maulana Saidur and the three top leaders of Jamaat are arrested under different cases, with their investigating officers being different and also in most cases even the thana being different. Thus there is no question of bringing them face to face.
Yet these are the media outlets which claim they are “angshik noi, puro shott” (the complete truth), ”niteer proshne aposh-heen” (firm on principle) or "committed to the people's right to know".
25.2.10
unhealed wounds
25th February marks the first anniversary of one of the saddest events in the history of modern day Bangladesh. Here is a detailed analysis of what happened then. Much of it make sense, and worth the read.
20.10.09
why i threw the show
i usually dont like to copy paste posts on this blog, but i couldnt get my hands off this one.
-----------------------
Why I threw the shoe
I am no hero. I just acted as an Iraqi who witnessed the pain and bloodshed of too many innocents
by Muntazer al-Zaidi
I am free. But my country is still a prisoner of war. There has been a lot of talk about the action and about the person who took it, and about the hero and the heroic act, and the symbol and the symbolic act. But, simply, I answer: what compelled me to act is the injustice that befell my people, and how the occupation wanted to humiliate my homeland by putting it under its boot.
Over recent years, more than a million martyrs have fallen by the bullets of the occupation and Iraq is now filled with more than five million orphans, a million widows and hundreds of thousands of maimed. Many millions are homeless inside and outside the country.
We used to be a nation in which the Arab would share with the Turkman and the Kurd and the Assyrian and the Sabean and the Yazid his daily bread. And the Shia would pray with the Sunni in one line. And the Muslim would celebrate with the Christian the birthday of Christ. This despite the fact that we shared hunger under sanctions for more than a decade.
Our patience and our solidarity did not make us forget the oppression. But the invasion divided brother from brother, neighbour from neighbour. It turned our homes into funeral tents.
I am not a hero. But I have a point of view. I have a stance. It humiliated me to see my country humiliated; and to see my Baghdad burned, my people killed. Thousands of tragic pictures remained in my head, pushing me towards the path of confrontation. The scandal of Abu Ghraib. The massacre of Falluja, Najaf, Haditha, Sadr City, Basra, Diyala, Mosul, Tal Afar, and every inch of our wounded land. I travelled through my burning land and saw with my own eyes the pain of the victims, and heard with my own ears the screams of the orphans and the bereaved. And a feeling of shame haunted me like an ugly name because I was powerless.
As soon as I finished my professional duties in reporting the daily tragedies, while I washed away the remains of the debris of the ruined Iraqi houses, or the blood that stained my clothes, I would clench my teeth and make a pledge to our victims, a pledge of vengeance.
The opportunity came, and I took it.
I took it out of loyalty to every drop of innocent blood that has been shed through the occupation or because of it, every scream of a bereaved mother, every moan of an orphan, the sorrow of a rape victim, the teardrop of an orphan.
I say to those who reproach me: do you know how many broken homes that shoe which I threw had entered? How many times it had trodden over the blood of innocent victims? Maybe that shoe was the appropriate response when all values were violated.
When I threw the shoe in the face of the criminal, George Bush, I wanted to express my rejection of his lies, his occupation of my country, my rejection of his killing my people. My rejection of his plundering the wealth of my country, and destroying its infrastructure. And casting out its sons into a diaspora.
If I have wronged journalism without intention, because of the professional embarrassment I caused the establishment, I apologise. All that I meant to do was express with a living conscience the feelings of a citizen who sees his homeland desecrated every day. The professionalism mourned by some under the auspices of the occupation should not have a voice louder than the voice of patriotism. And if patriotism needs to speak out, then professionalism should be allied with it.
I didn't do this so my name would enter history or for material gains. All I wanted was to defend my country.
Muntazer al-Zaidi is an Iraqi reporter who was freed this week after serving nine months in prison for throwing his shoe at former US president George Bush at a press conference. (note: freedom of speech comes at a price)
-----------------------
Why I threw the shoe
I am no hero. I just acted as an Iraqi who witnessed the pain and bloodshed of too many innocents
by Muntazer al-Zaidi
I am free. But my country is still a prisoner of war. There has been a lot of talk about the action and about the person who took it, and about the hero and the heroic act, and the symbol and the symbolic act. But, simply, I answer: what compelled me to act is the injustice that befell my people, and how the occupation wanted to humiliate my homeland by putting it under its boot.Over recent years, more than a million martyrs have fallen by the bullets of the occupation and Iraq is now filled with more than five million orphans, a million widows and hundreds of thousands of maimed. Many millions are homeless inside and outside the country.
We used to be a nation in which the Arab would share with the Turkman and the Kurd and the Assyrian and the Sabean and the Yazid his daily bread. And the Shia would pray with the Sunni in one line. And the Muslim would celebrate with the Christian the birthday of Christ. This despite the fact that we shared hunger under sanctions for more than a decade.
Our patience and our solidarity did not make us forget the oppression. But the invasion divided brother from brother, neighbour from neighbour. It turned our homes into funeral tents.
I am not a hero. But I have a point of view. I have a stance. It humiliated me to see my country humiliated; and to see my Baghdad burned, my people killed. Thousands of tragic pictures remained in my head, pushing me towards the path of confrontation. The scandal of Abu Ghraib. The massacre of Falluja, Najaf, Haditha, Sadr City, Basra, Diyala, Mosul, Tal Afar, and every inch of our wounded land. I travelled through my burning land and saw with my own eyes the pain of the victims, and heard with my own ears the screams of the orphans and the bereaved. And a feeling of shame haunted me like an ugly name because I was powerless.
As soon as I finished my professional duties in reporting the daily tragedies, while I washed away the remains of the debris of the ruined Iraqi houses, or the blood that stained my clothes, I would clench my teeth and make a pledge to our victims, a pledge of vengeance.
The opportunity came, and I took it.
I took it out of loyalty to every drop of innocent blood that has been shed through the occupation or because of it, every scream of a bereaved mother, every moan of an orphan, the sorrow of a rape victim, the teardrop of an orphan.
I say to those who reproach me: do you know how many broken homes that shoe which I threw had entered? How many times it had trodden over the blood of innocent victims? Maybe that shoe was the appropriate response when all values were violated.
When I threw the shoe in the face of the criminal, George Bush, I wanted to express my rejection of his lies, his occupation of my country, my rejection of his killing my people. My rejection of his plundering the wealth of my country, and destroying its infrastructure. And casting out its sons into a diaspora.
If I have wronged journalism without intention, because of the professional embarrassment I caused the establishment, I apologise. All that I meant to do was express with a living conscience the feelings of a citizen who sees his homeland desecrated every day. The professionalism mourned by some under the auspices of the occupation should not have a voice louder than the voice of patriotism. And if patriotism needs to speak out, then professionalism should be allied with it.
I didn't do this so my name would enter history or for material gains. All I wanted was to defend my country.
Muntazer al-Zaidi is an Iraqi reporter who was freed this week after serving nine months in prison for throwing his shoe at former US president George Bush at a press conference. (note: freedom of speech comes at a price)
23.9.09
EID MUBARAK, عيد مبرك ، ঈদ মোবারক
Eid is a day of thankfulness - thanking Allah for enabling us to complete the fast of Ramadan
Eid is a day of joy and happiness - an peek into the happiness of receiving the ultimate reward, in Hereafter
Eid is a day of gratitude - gratitude for all the goodness and blessings Allah has bestowed upon us. in deen and in life
Eid is a day of remembrance - remembering the dear and near ones who have left us. remembering that we too will have to follow suit one day
Eid is a day of joy, and laughter. day of celebration - celebration of life and Love.
Love for family, Love for friends, Love for those around us, Love for humanity. and above all, love for God Almighty - the lover of all lovers, the source of all love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
