Jamaat on Pakistan's side (in 1971)

Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh Chittagong leader:

"Jamaat was in the Pakistan's side during the liberation war as then the country was Pakistan." (April 2010, Daily Star) What additional proof do voters need?

Or is it that really isn't a Bangladesh or a Bangladeshi. There is only Muslim Bengalis who really do wish to be united under a pan-Muslim state with Pakistan?

Because that worked out so well for over a million Bengalis who wanted to speak Bangla.

The U.S., others, MUST back War Crimes Trials

The U.S. must back proposed trials for war crimes in Bangladesh. The U.S. government should be expending political capital gained from the recent elections to push other countries to either support the trials or to at least stop blocking and agitating against them. Close to four decades is too long to atone for genocide. The movement of Bangladesh toward secular democracy is in the interest of the US, UK, and India.

Apparently, some in the diplomatic community in Dhaka believe that the trials would "sharpen the political division in the country" (New Nation). Probably so, but only briefly. Clearly something would be wrong in a society if War Crimes Trials passed without a whisper. At any rate, the only parties truly opposed to the trials are the Islamists and that is only because some of their leaders will be brought to trial; moreover, the instability brought by the political divisions will be quickly overcome and pale against national reconciliation.

Most importantly, the trials will end the legitimacy of the Islamist message. How can a party purport to be patriotic and for the reformation of the society/government (barring the fact that this reformation is actually a fundamental change), when its very leaders are partly responsible for the deaths of millions, the essentializing of the nation and state, and were actively engaged in preventing the emergence of Bangladesh - all in the name of religion? Religion had nothing to do with it. It was a quest for political power on a platform that appealed to the electorate and in the pursuit of that power, Islamist forces killed.

The U.S. has clear interest here. If the US supported these apolitical trials, it would be supporting one of the most firm steps toward established secular democratization in Bangladesh's history. The trials will de-legitimize the Islamist political message, making the only viable alternative - secular, multi-party democracy. The trials will expose current politicians (not just in the Islamist political parties) support for militant Islamism during the 1971 Liberation struggle. The trials, if conducted apolitically, will finally put this issue to rest (though of course there will continue to be murmurs) then the country will be able to put some of the past behind it and address the more recent past (1975, 1983) and the future.

The Dhaka Awami League General Secretary's comments on holding the trials concurrently with the murder of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (in 1975) and the attacks on the Awami League rally 21 August 2004 (Daily Star). Bangla Nation that it is wise to keep these issues separate. First, address the 1971 Liberation War in full. If necessary address, the 1975 coup in the same context, national reconciliation. However, the attacks on the Awami League rally must be held in a criminal court as these were criminal attacks. If the perpetrators are the same in each case, then so be it, let the most harsh sentence carry.

New Nation noted that some countries, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and some 'quarters' in the country were attempting to prevent the trials. The only 'quarters' in these countries that would try to prevent a clearly internal issue probably have something to lose if they go forward, namely, their anonymity in supporting the genocide. They should take solace that they are not on trial and stop their interference.

If Saudi Arabia takes an official position and cuts aid to Bangladesh, other donor countries, Japan, South Korea, the US, the UK must be prepared to step in and assist.

The US must not stand idly by and watch these trials occur. By standing still and quiet the trials could become purely political with no reconciliation and no justice. By actively supporting and speaking in favor of these trials the US will be in a position to offer suggestions on the conduct of these trials, offering observers, financial aid, and expert assistance to ensure that these trials remain apolitical. The purpose of these trials is not only democratization but national reconciliation; the US must support these causes.

Sidenote, Bangladesh must still define secular: Is it the absence of religion from the government? Or the lack of government support for any one religion (that is patronization)? Bangla Nation believes it should be the latter, as a multi-religion country Bangladesh should not patronize any one religion, but nor should it deny the fact that it is a Buddhist-Christian-Hindu-Muslim-Secular country.

Blast from the past

Occasionally, the past reflects the state of the impending future (now, the present). With the gift of 20/20 hindsight we are able to judge that at certain critical junctures a bad decision was made. A statement may have been, or not have been, uttered, a phone was not picked up, or thoughts not conveyed. While this sort of analysis rarely impacts current problems, it does shed important light on how we arrived at this situation.

Recently declassified reports from the U.S. Office of the Historian related a number of anecdotal encounters between the senior U.S. and Indian leaders following the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (called Bangabandhu, Friend of Bengal), the father of Bangladesh on 15 August 1975. The transcripts involve none other than the recently deceased Henry Kissinger.

A few remarks are noteworthy and shed some light on why we are currently dealing with the situation we are now in (meaning Islamist militancy in Bangladesh), Kissinger reportedly said at one point 'the real worry would be if countries with resources like Saudi Arabia get radical leaders. Then there would be trouble.'

It helps to understand the context of this statement first its temporal place, 1975. The big enemy for the U.S. is the Soviet Union hence the U.S. was probably comfortable in the fact that the military coupsters were 'pro-US, anti-Soviet' though 'less pro-Indian.' Bangla Nation's view on this matter are clear. The only way for Bangladesh, and to a lesser extent India, to progress is together.

The earlier Kissinger remark could be taken as yet another piece of evidence in the framework of realpolitik, for the sake of completeness, it was only for a lack of crude (though Bangladesh apparently has good reserves of natural gas) that Bangladesh missed making the cut.

Though the days of realpolitik have not quite passed, there is at least a general understanding among U.S. leadership that static resources are no longer such a prominent factor in driving policy.

On a side note, the information came from the Daily Star. Sad, that Bangla Nation learns of news about the U.S. from a Bangladeshi newspaper.

Allowing the ghosts of 1971 peace?

A Daily Star article today reported Law Minister Shafique Ahmed’s reaction to the Pakistani Government’s rumblings over a planned trial of suspected 1971 war criminals.

As the minister points out, the Bangladeshi government is only going to be trying “Bangladeshi citizens who had committed offences against humanity in collaboration with Pakistani occupation forces.” Pakistan, it would seem, has no chicken on the chopping block.

Or do they?

Everyone should know the story of how the al-Badr, al-Shams, and Razakar brigades actively supported the (then) West Pakistani army in killing millions of Bengalis during the 1971 Liberation War. Furthermore, it’s no secret that many of the leaders of these brigades went on to found a host of Islamist political parties and movements. The leaders of these collaborator organizations deserve to be put on trial for their crimes, no matter what their contribution to society or politics has been since then.

These trials will probably expose the Pakistani government (President Yahya Khan)’s approval and support for these atrocities. However as the minister pointed out, Pakistan is not on trial.

Three decades is far too long to have waited for reconciliation and justice, but putting off these trials for the sake of political expediency is easy when there are so many more pressing problems. Moreover, the very concept of these trials has been a vicious political and social debate within the Bangladeshi polity.

These reasons notwithstanding, Bangladesh should try these suspected war criminals. Can you imagine what the world would be like if Augustin Bizimungu or Hermann Goring were allowed to roam free and found a political party?

The International Community has a role to play here. The Community must support these trials through noninterference; however, they must also encourage the process to be as reconciliatory and transparent as possible. More importantly, the Bangladeshi government must ensure that guilt is assigned independent of political considerations and after suitable evidence and personal accounts disprove the suspects’ innocence. Finally, the Community should put pressure on Pakistan to not only respect Bangladesh’s right to hold these trials but to also supply evidence to the prosecution or defense as necessary.

The International Community needs to realize that these trials are much more than seeking justice and safeguarding human rights.which is reason enough to have them. These trials will also represent Bangladesh’s commitment to its identity as a secular state and a repudiation of militant and political Islamism in both the past, present, and future.