So, Sayedee has (predictably) been sentenced to death by hanging. I've been having a cursory look through the verdict, available here. It's a fairly big document but one can get a rough idea of what the tribunal is all about by just skimming through the introductory bits - it's peppered with lofty legal lingo (probably sketched by Ahmed Ziauddin and his minion(s) a while ago) but one should not be deterred by that; its purpose is to make sure the casual person is convinced that the people involved are sophisticated lawyers who know what they're doing (didn't Ziauddin say something along these lines in one of the leaked Skype conversations?). So, starting with the introduction, the first thing that captures one's attention is the simplistic vision of the events of 1971 that is presented. The judgment portrays Mujib as essentially declaring independence at his Ramna Race Course speech, something he carefully avoided doing; we learn from Sisson & Rose (the definitive study on the political aspects of the war) that as late as July 1971, the Awami League government in exile was prepared to consider a political agreement with Yahya Khan that did not involve independence of East Pakistan. It was however Khan who was refusing any kind of negotiation with the Awami League. According to Sisson & Rose, it was only in September 1971 that 'Khondikar Mushtaq, reputed to be the leader of the Awami League most inclined to pursue a political settlement, declared that the aim was now "total independence"'. The "independence" of March 1971 was declared by General Zia over clandestine radio - hardly a formal declaration supported by a vast contingent of people.
Now of course, the court chooses not go into this messy part of the history - how could it, given that the ICT act enables prosecutions for "crimes against peace" (Ghulam Azam is charged for these if I recall correctly), which could only have taken place if Bangla Desh was indeed an independent country on the 25th March 1971. Sisson & Rose, and before them, the important 1972 report by the International Commission of Jurists, refer to the 1971 war as a civil war - an insult to most nationalist Bangladeshis (see e.g. this rant against the ICJ hosted at the ICSF, run by the likes of Ahmad Ziauddin - the man who may well have written large chunks of the verdict we're reading today). The ICJ report states:
"Thus the scene was set for a brutal civil war, in which each side was
convinced that the cause they were fighting for was right. The Pakistan
army, the Biharis, the Muslim League and the members of the Jamaat-e-Islam
were fighting for the unity of an Islamic Pakistan. The Bengalis were
fighting for the right to run their own country without interference and
exploitation from outside."
Moreover, in the elections of 1970, only about 42% of the population of East Pakistan voted for the Awami League - which was not running on a platform of independence. These subtleties are entirely erased from the memory of the Bengali nationalist narrative. The ICT judgment with ease turns this 42% into 'all people':
War of Liberation that ensued, all people of East Pakistan wholeheartedly supported and participated in the call to free Bangladesh but a small number of Bangalees, Biharis, other pro-Pakistanis, as well as members of a number of different religion-based political parties joined and/or collaborated with the Pakistan military to actively oppose the creation of independent Bangladesh.
The crimes committed against Biharis by nationalist Bengalis are of course entirely ignored by the ICT. Here is the ICJ '72 report again:
There can be no doubt that in many of these towns where there was a
substantial Bihari population, the Bengalis turned against the Biharis
during the short period they were in control and some terrible massacres
resulted. Among the places where this happened were Chittagong, Khulna,
Jessore, Comilla, Rangpur, Phulbari, Dinajpur and Mymensingh. In areas
where the non-Bengalis were in a majority, as in some of the railway
towns, the Biharis turned and attacked the Bengalis. For example, in
Paksey nearly all the Bengalis who had not fled were murdered.
The most glaring problem with the general aspect of the tribunal, however, is this. A good number of pages in the judgment are devoted to arguing that the 1973 International Crimes Act still applies and that individuals (such as Sayedee) can still be legitimately prosecuted under it. There is a problem here, however: the 1973 act explicitly says that
The tribunal shall have the power to try and punish any individual or group of individuals, or any member of any armed, defence or auxiliary forces, irrespective of his nationality, who commits or has committed in the territory of Bangladesh (...)
The obvious question arises: why are no Pakistani citizens on trial? Even the staunchest hater of collaborators and Jamaat-e-Islaami would recognise that the vast majority of war crimes in 1971 were perpetrated by the Pakistani army. One could say that it is perhaps unrealistic to expect Pakistan to surrender one of its citizens to Bangladesh? However, recall that Abul Kalam Azad was tried and sentenced to death in absentia, and he is moreover reported to have escaped to Pakistan. Almost comically, Ahmad Shafique said the goverment will issue an Interpol warrant on Azad - indicating that the government will not stop at any length to get their hands on the criminals of 1971. That same Shafique is on the record as having stated the following (according to Suzanne Linton, in her important article on war crimes trials in Bangladesh; Criminal Law Forum 2010:21):
On 30 July 2009, at the Second International Conference on Genocide, Truth and Justice in Dhaka, the Hon. Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs categorically stated that there
would be no Pakistanis tried under this law.
This most of all hints at the sad and disappointing reality of the ICT: it is not about ending impunity (no Pakistani will ever be tried for war crimes - not to mention documented and self-confessed war criminals like Kader Siddique) and it is not about justice (the Biharis are seen by the nationalist Bengali as barely human for their speaking the language of the Other, and their "irrational" desire for a united Pakistan). What could have been a genuine endeavour to shed light on the truth of what happened in 1971 has turned into another exercise in petty political vendettas and perpetuating an infantile one-dimensional narrative of a complex and tragic period in history.
Thursday, 28 February 2013
Wednesday, 27 February 2013
Ghulam Azam's trial
The prosecution have been placing arguments for the last seven days and would continue with placing the closing argument today. Earlier
in the morning, the three-member tribunal rejected two prayers of Azam
-- bail petition and taking written statement of Prof William Schabas
and Gen Jack Deverell as defence testimony.
All quite predictable - the court doesn't need to hear from some random bideshis on their Liberation War. Sheikh Mujib told us that 3 million people have been killed, and everyone knows that JI leaders are all war ciminals. What else is there to it?
I for one would have been quite interested to see Schabas' statement - he seems like an interesting guy.
A bit more detail is available in this older article:
The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT)-1 today rejected an application of counsels of former Jamaat ameer Ghulam Azam, seeking tribunal summonses upon two of their foreign witnesses. "The defence can produce whoever they want as defence witnesses, but the total number should be 12. But we are not inspired to issue any summonses upon any defence witnesses," the tribunal said in the order rejecting the petition.
"As such the petition is rejected," the tribunal added.
Yesterday, during the hearing, chief prosecutor Golam Arif Tipu also strongly opposed the application and said the tribunal can seek expert opinion whenever it needs one, but no one can come in front by himself and ask the tribunal to take his opinion for the trial.
He also questioned about the legitimacy of their expert status and said "can a witness be called as an expert?"
"It has not been established so far that they are experts," Tipu said.
Yes, I mean, what would Schabas know about genocide? He's just the former president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars.
All quite predictable - the court doesn't need to hear from some random bideshis on their Liberation War. Sheikh Mujib told us that 3 million people have been killed, and everyone knows that JI leaders are all war ciminals. What else is there to it?
I for one would have been quite interested to see Schabas' statement - he seems like an interesting guy.
A bit more detail is available in this older article:
The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT)-1 today rejected an application of counsels of former Jamaat ameer Ghulam Azam, seeking tribunal summonses upon two of their foreign witnesses. "The defence can produce whoever they want as defence witnesses, but the total number should be 12. But we are not inspired to issue any summonses upon any defence witnesses," the tribunal said in the order rejecting the petition.
"As such the petition is rejected," the tribunal added.
Yesterday, during the hearing, chief prosecutor Golam Arif Tipu also strongly opposed the application and said the tribunal can seek expert opinion whenever it needs one, but no one can come in front by himself and ask the tribunal to take his opinion for the trial.
He also questioned about the legitimacy of their expert status and said "can a witness be called as an expert?"
"It has not been established so far that they are experts," Tipu said.
Yes, I mean, what would Schabas know about genocide? He's just the former president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars.
Sayedee verdict expected
Meanwhile, youths of the unprecedented movement, demanding capital
punishment to all war criminals, gathered at the Gonojagoron Mancha at
Shahbagh yesterday evening to resist Jamaat and student body Islami
Chhatra Shibir's possible violence and covert attacks. Shahbagh protesters said they would continue their demonstration all night until the verdict is delivered.
They said they would celebrate and return home in elation after Sayedee had been awarded the death penalty. They would continue with their agitation if the verdict fell short of their expectations, they added.
Yesterday, Tribunal-1 Chairman Justice ATM Fazle Kabir said, “The judgement has already been prepared. Let the matter be fixed for tomorrow [today] for the judgement."
The funny part is that when Jamaat was holding hartals following the ICT Skype scandal in December, the "progressive" types now at Shahbag were outraged by what they saw as attempts to influence the decisions of court.
They said they would celebrate and return home in elation after Sayedee had been awarded the death penalty. They would continue with their agitation if the verdict fell short of their expectations, they added.
Yesterday, Tribunal-1 Chairman Justice ATM Fazle Kabir said, “The judgement has already been prepared. Let the matter be fixed for tomorrow [today] for the judgement."
The funny part is that when Jamaat was holding hartals following the ICT Skype scandal in December, the "progressive" types now at Shahbag were outraged by what they saw as attempts to influence the decisions of court.
The Ministry of Truth
Information Minister Hasanul Huq Inu yesterday accused national daily
Amar Desh, Naya Diganta and Sangram of spreading propaganda against the
youths' ongoing movement at Shahbagh.
"Ideologically, these newspapers are against the Liberation War and many of the owners and journalists of these dailies were instigators of genocide committed during the Liberation War in 1971," he said at a press briefing at the ministry.
These newspapers have been confusing people with false and fabricated information and instigating religious sentiment of the Muslims, said Inu.
Inu added that in order to avoid further confusion among the people, all opposition papers will be banned, their owners and journalists charged with war crimes, and only the government-sanctioned false and fabricated information from rabidly pro-Shahbag papers such as the Daily Star allowed.
"Ideologically, these newspapers are against the Liberation War and many of the owners and journalists of these dailies were instigators of genocide committed during the Liberation War in 1971," he said at a press briefing at the ministry.
These newspapers have been confusing people with false and fabricated information and instigating religious sentiment of the Muslims, said Inu.
Inu added that in order to avoid further confusion among the people, all opposition papers will be banned, their owners and journalists charged with war crimes, and only the government-sanctioned false and fabricated information from rabidly pro-Shahbag papers such as the Daily Star allowed.
Monday, 25 February 2013
The Great Leader has spoken
In a public outburst of piety, "Sheikh" Hasina demonstrates why she's truly worthy of her honorific title:
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on Saturday warned that disparaging remarks against Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (pbuh) and publishing those will not be tolerated.
“Many make disparaging remarks against Hazrat (Prophet Muhammad). I won’t tolerate that."
This is of course a veiled attack on Amar Desh, the BNP-leaning daily, which accused the Shahbag protesters of insulting religion. Lawsuits have been filed against the editor of Amar Desh, Mahmudur Rahman, and the Shahbag crowd issued an ultimatum demanding his arrest.
Now, warm feelings between Amar Desh/Mahmudur Rahman and the ruling Awami League go way back. The paper was closed down by the authorities back in 2010, prompting HRW to publish a report stating that
...the government should immediately ensure that an impartial investigation is conducted into allegations by the editor, Mahmudur Rahman, that he was beaten and abused in custody, Human Rights Watch said.
More than 100 police in riot gear stormed the offices of Amar Desh in the middle of the night of June 2, 2010, and arrested Rahman. At least 34 charges have been lodged against him, including 28 involving defamation. The police shut down the printing press, said the paper's license to print had been revoked, and took away all copies of the newspaper that had been printed for that morning's distribution. Police officers attacked and wounded several journalists working the late night shift.
The authorities should also fully examine the credibility and legitimacy of any evidence they have gathered. The publisher of Amar Desh, Mohammad Hasmat Ali, told Rahman that members of National Security Intelligence took him to their headquarters and forced him to sign two blank sheets of paper. The authorities subsequently claimed that Ali had signed two statements, and that they had decided to take legal action against Rahman on the basis of those statements.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Shahbag is being co-opted by the AL government for its political purposes, and, perhaps unwittingly, the Shahbag crowd is going along with this. It's interesting to note that Imran H Sarker, one of the organisers of the protest who appears to have become a sort of self-styled spokesman for Shahbag's demands is an AL member. He's quoted in the article I linked to above:
“The Jamaat-leaning Amar Desh has instigated (Friday’s) attacks. It’s (Acting) Editor Mahmudur Rahman must be detained within 24 hours,” said Imran H Sarker, one of the organisers of the movement demanding death sentences for all convicted war criminals and a ban on the Jamaat on Friday.
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on Saturday warned that disparaging remarks against Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (pbuh) and publishing those will not be tolerated.
“Many make disparaging remarks against Hazrat (Prophet Muhammad). I won’t tolerate that."
This is of course a veiled attack on Amar Desh, the BNP-leaning daily, which accused the Shahbag protesters of insulting religion. Lawsuits have been filed against the editor of Amar Desh, Mahmudur Rahman, and the Shahbag crowd issued an ultimatum demanding his arrest.
Now, warm feelings between Amar Desh/Mahmudur Rahman and the ruling Awami League go way back. The paper was closed down by the authorities back in 2010, prompting HRW to publish a report stating that
...the government should immediately ensure that an impartial investigation is conducted into allegations by the editor, Mahmudur Rahman, that he was beaten and abused in custody, Human Rights Watch said.
More than 100 police in riot gear stormed the offices of Amar Desh in the middle of the night of June 2, 2010, and arrested Rahman. At least 34 charges have been lodged against him, including 28 involving defamation. The police shut down the printing press, said the paper's license to print had been revoked, and took away all copies of the newspaper that had been printed for that morning's distribution. Police officers attacked and wounded several journalists working the late night shift.
The authorities should also fully examine the credibility and legitimacy of any evidence they have gathered. The publisher of Amar Desh, Mohammad Hasmat Ali, told Rahman that members of National Security Intelligence took him to their headquarters and forced him to sign two blank sheets of paper. The authorities subsequently claimed that Ali had signed two statements, and that they had decided to take legal action against Rahman on the basis of those statements.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Shahbag is being co-opted by the AL government for its political purposes, and, perhaps unwittingly, the Shahbag crowd is going along with this. It's interesting to note that Imran H Sarker, one of the organisers of the protest who appears to have become a sort of self-styled spokesman for Shahbag's demands is an AL member. He's quoted in the article I linked to above:
“The Jamaat-leaning Amar Desh has instigated (Friday’s) attacks. It’s (Acting) Editor Mahmudur Rahman must be detained within 24 hours,” said Imran H Sarker, one of the organisers of the movement demanding death sentences for all convicted war criminals and a ban on the Jamaat on Friday.
Sunday, 24 February 2013
Subversive activities and anti-government leaflets
This is from roughly two months ago but fits well in the general context of the last few posts:
Law enforcers detained Tasneem Alam, central publicity secretary of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, at his Uttara residence in the capital yesterday for possession of anti-government leaflets and booklets.
Police also rounded up 21 female members of Jamaat and its women students' wing Islami Chhatri Sangstha from the latter's office in Moghbazar for their suspected link to “subversive activities.”
And then a few weeks later, this:
Police detained 13 suspected members of Islami Chhatri Sangstha, women student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami, in front of National Press Club in the capital on Saturday.
Shahbagh police picked them up around 3:30pm while they were coming out of the press club after taking part in a roundtable meeting on women's rights issue there.
(...)
Syed Nurul Islam, deputy police commissioner (Ramna division), said the detainees are suspected to be members of the Islami Chhatri Sangstha and are the aides of the 21 women arrested earlier.
"We are trying to know about their political background and their motives," he said.
As far as I know, being a member of the ICS was not a crime at that point - perhaps this article is actually from the coming April of this year and somehow travelled back in time?
Law enforcers detained Tasneem Alam, central publicity secretary of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, at his Uttara residence in the capital yesterday for possession of anti-government leaflets and booklets.
Police also rounded up 21 female members of Jamaat and its women students' wing Islami Chhatri Sangstha from the latter's office in Moghbazar for their suspected link to “subversive activities.”
And then a few weeks later, this:
Police detained 13 suspected members of Islami Chhatri Sangstha, women student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami, in front of National Press Club in the capital on Saturday.
Shahbagh police picked them up around 3:30pm while they were coming out of the press club after taking part in a roundtable meeting on women's rights issue there.
(...)
Syed Nurul Islam, deputy police commissioner (Ramna division), said the detainees are suspected to be members of the Islami Chhatri Sangstha and are the aides of the 21 women arrested earlier.
"We are trying to know about their political background and their motives," he said.
As far as I know, being a member of the ICS was not a crime at that point - perhaps this article is actually from the coming April of this year and somehow travelled back in time?
Saturday, 23 February 2013
A Legal Record
"Over 48,350 activists of Jamaat-e-Islami and its allies have been sued
in Dhaka and 10 other districts in connection with Friday's violence."
How can the government sue 50k people in one day, I hear you say. Welcome to Bangladesh! If you look further down in the article, it takes a distinctively Orwellian twist:
Police sued 5,000 persons, naming 70, activists of Jamaat, Shibir and their allies for Friday’s vandalism at Sylhet central Shaheed Minar and other parts of the district.
So what about the remaining 4930 activists? Here's a guess: the forms have been filled in, only the "name" fields remained empty. When a suitable candidate who the police doesn't particularly like pops up, his name is scribbled down in the right box, and lo! he participated in riots and is in for some serious jail time.
How can the government sue 50k people in one day, I hear you say. Welcome to Bangladesh! If you look further down in the article, it takes a distinctively Orwellian twist:
Police sued 5,000 persons, naming 70, activists of Jamaat, Shibir and their allies for Friday’s vandalism at Sylhet central Shaheed Minar and other parts of the district.
So what about the remaining 4930 activists? Here's a guess: the forms have been filled in, only the "name" fields remained empty. When a suitable candidate who the police doesn't particularly like pops up, his name is scribbled down in the right box, and lo! he participated in riots and is in for some serious jail time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)