PRATYUSH
“Abdul
Bari had run out of luck. Like thousands of other people in East
Bengal , he had made the mistake – the fatal mistake – of running
within sight of a Pakistani patrol. He was 24 years old, a slight man
surrounded by soldiers. He was trembling because he was about to be shot.”
So began
an article published in June 1971 that chronicled for the first time
the atrocities committed by the Pakistani army and its cohorts to prevent the
secession of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh .
Long before the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) began to evolve
in the 1990s, the article by Pakistani journalist Anthony Mascarenhas in the UK ’s Sunday Times turned international public opinion against Islamabad and prompted India to intervene and end the war.
On Monday, a Bangladesh
tribunal delivered its first verdict, sentencing Abul Kalam Azad, a Bangladeshi Islamic
cleric and former student leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, to death for
crimes against humanity. Eleven other suspects are awaiting trial. Azad was found guilty in absentia on numerous charges, including genocide, murder
and rape. A former TV presenter, he has been on the run since last April and is believed to be in
Pakistan. As a member of the Razakar Bahini, an auxiliary force that
supported the Pakistani army, Azad helped to crush local resistance in East Pakistan .
The scale of the killings would
normally have shaken the conscience of the international community. However,
unlike the UN-backed International Criminal Tribunals instituted to try war
crimes in the former Yugoslavia
and Rwanda , the Bangladesh
genocide has received scant international attention. This lack of awareness has
persisted, even as victims’ families and human rights groups have spent decades
fighting for justice.
International politics are partly to blame. Pakistani troops were let off the hook
as part of a broader post-war peace deal between India
and Pakistan .
Moreover, the Bangladesh Liberation War occurred at the height of the Cold War
when the United States, allied with Islamabad, overlooked Pakistan’s atrocities
as it sought the nation’s help as a conduit to establish diplomatic ties with
China.
But this is now changing thanks to
the tribunals. However, these tribunals— referred to as the International Crimes
Tribunal— have
been controversial since their inception. The U.S.-based Human
Rights Watch has repeatedly expressed concerns over the efficacy of the trial,
saying that the law under which the accused are being tried does not meet
international standards of due process. Critics, including the opposition
Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) headed by former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia,
have called the trials a “farce” and see them as a witch-hunt.
The accusation is not unfounded.
Zia and current Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina are bitter political rivals
and have often used state institutions to undermine one another. The
Jamaat-e-Islami is an ally of the BNP, which sees the trial as an attempt by
Hasina’s Awami League to undermine the BNP-Jamaat alliance.
The court’s standing received a
further blow in December when Mohammed Nizamul Huq resigned as chairman of the
tribunal. Nizamul left the post after
being questioned by The Economist and having private emails published in Bangladesh that
cast doubt on the tribunal.
Given the
fractured and vindictive political climate in Bangladesh ,
the risks of new injustices occurring are very real. However, the conviction of
a high-profile war criminal is the first tentative step towards closing a
deeply haunting chapter in Bangladesh ’s
turbulent history. The opportunity must not be allowed to wither away.
First appeared in The Diplomat, January 25, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment