Is US encouraging rise of Bangladesh’s Islamist party to counter Sheikh Hasina?

SALEEM SAMAD

The next parliament elections are around the corner, expected in January 2024. The hardline Islamist political party Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) after 10 years of hiatus held its first rally in Dhaka, on June 10.

The three-hour-long event was held amid a huge deployment of riot police in armed gear and hundreds of armed officers in plain clothes, at the auditorium in the heart of the capital. Thousands of its members, who were unable to find space in the hall, spilt over in the compound and also occupied half of the streets. There was no law and order situation.

In a sudden move, the capital Dhaka’s police chief permitted on certain conditions, which raised eyebrows of the journalists, political observers, civil society and left-leaning parties.

Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan on Sunday said that Awami League’s policy regarding Jamaat-e-Islami has not “changed our position.”

Several political observers argue that the threat of the United States visa policy has given extra mileage in obtaining permission. The US visa policy for Bangladesh says it would clamp down restrictions on officials, governing party leaders and the opposition in defence of democracy. This includes those responsible for voter intimidation, vote rigging, denial of free speech or freedom of assembly, and violence that seeks to undermine free and fair elections.

Moving away from tough repressive measures against the opposition, the district civil officials and police administration in holding elections of the local government or by-elections to the parliament are extra cautious in violating compliance stated by the US State Department on May 3.

Thus, the Islamist party got the desired “verbal permission” on the eve of their rally, after the police cancelled an event of a youth wing of another political party at the same venue.

The JeI rally has brought together the party leaders and members on a three-point demand which includes: elections under a caretaker government; release of their leaders and members in prison; control of the prices of essential grocery items.

JeI leaders claimed that in 14 years of Awami League era, nearly 1.5 lakh legal harassment cases are on their heads, and nearly 14,000 leaders and members are languishing in prisons, including their national ameer (chief) Dr Shafiqur Rahman, nayeb-e-ameer (vice-president) ANM Shamsul Islam and secretary general Mia Golam Porwar.

In their list of demands are to open the JeI’s party offices across the country, and permission for political assembly, which they pointed out that has been guaranteed by the Constitution – the Constitution which they do not recognise.

The JeI leaders have offered dialogue with the government on developing a framework for an interim government to hold free, fair, inclusive and credible elections and also ensure a level-playing field for all political parties.

The Islamist calls JeI a political party, but a majority of the people in Bangladesh are aware of the organisation’s antecedent – their demonic role during the brutal war of independence.

Fearing streets violence, the police headquarters ceased permission for JeI from February 2013 after the arrests of the party’s key leaders including their national ameer Matiur Rahman Nizami, secretary general Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid, assistant secretary general Abdul Quader Molla and assistant secretary general ATM Azharul Islam indicted for war crimes in 1971.

In the 2008 election, Sheikh Hasina led Awami League had returned to power after a landslide victory. Her electoral promise to the nation was the trial of those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in 1971 must face the music of justice.

Bangladesh’s International (War) Crimes Tribunal awarded capital punishments to scores of JeI, other Muslim parties and Islamist leaders. The tribunal considering an elderly person gave sentences for imprisonment until death to Ghulam Azam, former JeI chief in 1971, for recruitment, aiding and abetting with the marauding Pakistan military.

The Islamic evangelist leader Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, a key figure with JeI and his Muslim militia were held responsible for the deaths and rape of hundreds of Hindu community and pro-independence compatriots in southern Bangladesh in 1971, says Barrister Tapash Kanti Baul, a prosecutor in the tribunal.

In the first year of Bangladesh’s independence, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the liberation war hero passed the world’s second secular Constitution after the Muslim majoritarian Turkey.

The Constitution had a blanket ban on religious political parties. The dreaded Jamaat-e-Islami party by default was struck off.

The newly born country has gone through the pains and agony of the bloody liberation war when Pakistan forces committed wanton war crimes and rape as a weapon of war. Their henchmen of the radicalised Muslim party, JeI in the name of Islam had committed genocide and extra-judicial killings of hundreds of intellectuals by a secret death squad Al Badr.

In a landmark judgement the Bangladesh High Court on August 1, 2013, deregistered the Islamist party, Jamaat-e-Islami, thereby banning it from participating in future elections.

The court found several contradictions between the principles of the JeI party’s manifesto (available on their website and printed documents) with the Bangladesh Constitution.

The JeI wishes to establish an Islamic Republic [of Bangladesh] instead of a secular country for which it sacrificed in blood in 1971. The Quran & Sunnah will override the state Constitution; implement the strictest Islamic Sharia laws and protect the Hindus and other religious minorities in an Islamic country.

The petitioner of the public interest litigation for the deletion of JeI’s registration with the Bangladesh Election Commission (EC) in the High Court, Maulana Ziaul Hasan, fails to understand how the EC will act JeI’s plans to participate in the elections after being deregistered.

Hasan, who is also the president of Bangladesh Sommilito Islami Jote (United Islamic Alliance), a like-minded platform against political Islam and an outspoken secularist is obviously worried about the rise of Islamism.

JeI documents claim their founder was controversial Islamic leader Syed Abul A’la Maududi, founder of Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan. He is responsible to instigate the worst racial riots in 1953 after the partition, which killed 200 Ahmadiyya Muslims after Maududi’s disciples heard his ‘Fatwa’ which mandates the Sunni Muslims in Pakistan to kill the heretics and infidels.

Barrister Tania Amir, a leading human rights lawyer argued in the court on behalf of the PIL against JeI registration that, “The Jamaat in principle does not recognise the powers of the Republic which belongs to the people, nor does it accept the undisputed power of the people’s representatives to make laws. The party discriminates against people based on religion and, therefore, should have its registration cancelled long ago.”

In December 2018, as the general election was approaching, the Bangladesh Election Commission scrapped its registration in accordance with the higher court’s verdict. Thus, JeI was rocking in troubled waters, as they were not eligible to participate in the elections and the party was in jeopardy.

The JeI members hurriedly negotiated with their all-weather ally, the rightist Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) to be able to contest more than 20 seats, and they drowned.

For the last 12 years, the rhetoric of several top echelons of Awami League and senior Ministers reiterated their party’s position to make a law to ban Jamaat-e-Islami which ruthlessly opposed the independence of Bangladesh in being complicit to war crimes committed by Pakistan’s occupation military forces.

The policymakers did not hesitate to say that banning JeI is a matter of time. Now it seems those were empty promises.

The change of heart is understood by political analyst Sohrab Hasan. JeI has recently broken away from the BNP alliance. JeI is deemed an alternative to the government if BNP boycotts the upcoming elections, he wrote in the largest circulated newspaper Prothom Alo.

It seems that the same senior Ministers made a U-Turn on their rhetoric against JeI. As Dr Hasan Mahmud, Minister for Information and Broadcasting and also Joint General Secretary of Awami League said on Sunday that Jamaat-e-Islami was not banned. “Any political party can hold rallies. As long as it is not prohibited, they have the right to hold rallies,” he explained.

While Law Minister Anisul Huq said on Sunday that Jamaat-e-Islami should “not be termed guilty until the party is convicted.”

The judges have given their opinion that JeI should be banned based on sufficient evidence that came in the verdicts delivered by the war crimes tribunal.

The Saturday event has given a message that JeI is not weak and was able to brainwash thousands more youths in radical Islamic ideology.

After the war crimes tribunal indicted the key leadership of JeI, the party was demoralised but survived in a turbulent political climate.

After the tragic assassination of Sheikh Mujib in a military putsch in mid-August 1975, the regime of General Ziaur Rahman (later president) in May 1976 abrogated Clause 38 of the Constitution which bars the formation of a religious party.

Overnight the dreaded JeI resurfaced from the dead and began politicking, but of the tainted history of their engagement against the people of the country, they strategically changed its name to Islamic Democratic League.

The JeI bagged six seats in the 1979 parliament under a military dictator General Rahman. Surprisingly, the six JeI’s elected in the constituencies were all bordering the India-Bangladesh.

Fortunately, the people understood and rejected the Islamist party, which could be understood from the subsequent elections. JeI on average received nearly 4 per cent vote, said political scientist Dr Imtiaz Ahmed.

In the 1991 election after the departure of another military junta of General HM Ershad, JeI was elected in 18 seats, which was crucial for Khaleda Zia to form a coalition government. Despite a clear win, Awami League had to be seated on the opposition bench in the parliament as the party failed to muster a majority to form a government.

Awami League’s influential general secretary Obaidul Quader, hours after the event said the opposition BNP is behind Jamaat-e-Islami’s rally to conspire against the democratic process and jeopardise the forthcoming elections.

Indeed it’s rare in the world’s political history that a party which opposed the independence of a country had remained resilient and defiantly returned to politics, despite key leaders of the JeI leaders being handed down maximum punishment by the war crimes by the war crimes tribunal.

First published in the India Narrative, New Delhi, India on 14 June 2023

(Saleem Samad is an award-winning independent journalist based in Bangladesh. Views expressed are personal. Twitter: @saleemsamad)

US Congress To Recognise Bangladesh Genocide In 1971

SALEEM SAMAD

Recently United States Congressman Steve Chabot along with co-sponsor Congressman Ro Khanna and Congresswoman Katie Porter introduced a bipartisan resolution 1430 “Recognising the Bangladesh Genocide of 1971” in Capitol Hill, Washington DC.

The resolution demands that the United States government should recognise the genocide committed by the Pakistan armed forces during the brutal birth of the country in 1971, which disproportionately targeted members of the Hindu community, secularists, and nationalist groups in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).

Congressman Steve Chabot is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, and Co-Chair of the Bangladesh Caucus, introducing the resolution said, “There was a genocide. Millions of people were killed [in 1971] in what is now Bangladesh, and what was then East Pakistan.

About 80 per cent of those millions that were killed were Hindus. And it was, in my opinion, a genocide just like other genocides – like the Holocaust – happened. “

The historic resolution observes that the Pakistani ruling elite and officials harboured well-documented anti-Bangalee sentiment, considering Bangalees to be a lesser people group that had been corrupted by un-Islamic practices.

The infamous brutal crackdown “Operation Searchlight” involved widespread massacres of civilians. The operation targeted the Bangalee nationalists and especially the Hindus, who are dubbed with the demeaning word “Malaun” (cursed).

“The genocide against Bengalees and Hindus is one of the forgotten genocides of the 20th century and its lack of recognition remains an open wound for millions of people who were directly affected by the atrocities, remarked Senator Tabo”

Pakistan’s President, General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan, is recorded as saying to his top military brass “[k]ill 3 million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands”.

Unfortunately, the genocide against ethnic Bangalees and Hindus is one of the forgotten genocides of the 20th century and its lack of recognition remains an open wound for millions of people who were directly affected by the atrocities.

Earlier, the United States based non-governmental organisations Genocide Watch and the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention sought international recognition of the atrocities committed by the Armed Forces of Pakistan as ‘genocide’.

An estimated number killed in the atrocities was 3 million (an official figure of the Bangladesh government). Nearly several hundred thousand were victims of rape as a weapon of war.

The bloody war caused nearly 10 million war refugees and took shelter in camps along the borders of India for their safety and up to 50 per cent of the population was internally displaced.

On March 28, 1971, United States Consul General in Dhaka, Archer Blood, sent a telegram to Washington titled “Selective Genocide” in which he wrote “Moreover, with support of Pak[istan] military, non-Bengali Muslims are systematically attacking poor people’s quarters and murdering Bengalis and Hindus. Streets of Dacca are aflood with Hindus and others seeking to get out of Dacca…”

Senator Edward Kennedy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in a report to the Committee on November 1, 1971, states “Nothing is more clear, or more easily documented, than the systematic campaign of terror—and its genocidal consequences—launched by the Pakistan army on the night of March 25th. Field reports to the U.S. Government, countless eye-witness journalistic accounts, reports of international agencies such as the World Bank, and additional information available to the Subcommittee document the continuing reign of terror which grips East Bengal. 

Hardest hit have been members of the Hindu community who have been robbed of their lands and shops, systematically slaughtered, and, in some places, painted with yellow patches marked ‘H’. All of this has been officially sanctioned, ordered and implemented under martial law from Islamabad.”

In a study published in 1972 titled “The Events in East Pakistan”, the Secretariat of the International Commission of Jurists states “There is overwhelming evidence that Hindus were slaughtered, and their houses and villages destroyed simply because they were Hindus.”

During the nine months of the war, the Pakistani military forces persecuted, tortured, and murdered representatives of Bangla culture and identity, including poets, musicians, professors, journalists, physicians, scientists, writers, and filmmakers.

Often debates are alive on the definition of genocide, persecution, atrocities and massacre rage among scholars and historians. The attempt to eliminate Hindus and the rape of women constitute crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide.

There is no confusion after the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, signed on December 9, 1948, declares that genocide “means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” and “The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.”

The resolution calls on the Pakistan authority, in the face of overwhelming evidence, to offer acknowledgement of its role in such genocide, offer formal apologies to the Government and people of Bangladesh, and prosecute, in accordance with international law, any perpetrators who are still living, the resolution said.

Meanwhile, the Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities (HRCBM) held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC which was attended by journalists, human rights defenders, academics, social entrepreneurs, members of the Bangladeshi diaspora and also exiled rights defenders of Sindh and Balochistan.

Priya Saha, Executive Director of HRCBM said, “The Pakistani military and its militia forces, namely the death squad Al-Badr carried out the targeted assassination of more than 1,100 Bangla-speaking intellectuals and other professionals, to create an intellectual vacuum in the country. In Bangladesh, 1,942 mass graves were discovered.”

Speakers at the press conference discussed and answered questions about the impact of this historic resolution on the geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific and radical groups originating from Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Among the speakers were Dr Sachi Dastidar, distinguished professor emeritus at SUNY, recalled his family’s personal experience as victims of genocide.

Prof Dwijen Bhattacharjya of Columbia University and General Secretary of the Bangladeshi Hindu Buddhist Christian Unity Council in the United States believes that resolution 1430 will be departing from the 1971 United States policy on the genocide in Bangladesh.

Saleem Samad, General Sectary of the Forum for Freedom of Expression, Bangladesh said the Pakistan military committed genocide with an “intent to eliminate” a race, language, culture, heritage, traditional practices and of course religion

The ‘rape as a weapon of war’ was executed for several reasons. Firstly, to give birth to “war babies” to establish a so-called ‘superior’ race. Secondly, to change the identity of race and ethnicity. Thirdly to break the morale of a defiant nation.

Munawar “Sufi” Laghari, the Executive Director of Sindhi Foundation said the resolution to recognise the Bangladesh genocide would enable Pakistan’s ‘military establishment’ to halt ongoing ethnic persecution of Sindhi and Baloch, enforced disappearances and forced conversion of Hindus girls in the restive province of Sindh and Balochistan.

The press conference moderated by Adelle Nazrarian, Media Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy (GIIS) and Communication and Legislative Director at HinduPACT urged the Bangladeshi diaspora in the United States, in particular, to work with their local representatives and requested that they support the resolution.

First published in The News Times, October 30, 2022

Saleem Samad, is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at <saleemsamad@hotmail.com>; Twitter @saleemsamad

Balochistan Atrocities From Worse, Worst To Worsen

Photo (collected from open source): Nawab Akbar Shahbaz Bugti

SALEEM SAMAD

Nawab Akbar Shahbaz Bugti, a legendary hero of Balochistan independence was martyred on 26 August 2006. His martyrdom will be observed in silence by Baloch nationalists announced all over the world.

Thousands of recruits of the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) and other revolutionaries are fighting to liberate Balochistan from the occupation of Pakistan.

Nawab Bugti, a defiant Baloch nationalist leader was brutally murdered by the Pakistan Army on the orders of Pakistan’s President General Pervez Musharraf.

In a fierce battle with the fighters, Bugti’s fortified cave in Bhamboor hills fell after the military helicopter gunship fired air-to-surface missiles into the cave killing him and his brother, grandson, and others in the August raid.

After the downfall of General Musharraf, an arrest warrant was issued when he was accused by an anti-terrorism court. Later he was acquitted by a Pakistan court in Bugti’s assassination conspiracy for insufficient evidence.

His death sparked a countrywide anti-Pakistan protest by Baloch students and youths. Police had to quell the violent ethnic riots in different cities and towns.

Nawab Bugti, born in 1927, chieftain of the rebellious Bugti tribe was the tallest Baloch leader who was the Federal Minister, Governor, and Chief Minister of Balochistan.

The nationalists from Marri and Bugti tribes – the ferocious tribes are engaged in armed insurrection. The ongoing Baloch insurgency politically challenged the forcible inclusion of the resource-rich province into Pakistan in March 1948.

Before the 1947 partition of India and Pakistan, Balochistan consisted of four princely states under the British Raj – Kalat, Lasbela, Kharan and Makran, which is known as Balochistan. Two of these provinces, Lasbela and Kharan, were fiduciary states placed under Khan of Kalat’s rule by the British, as was Makran which was a district of Kalat.

The rulers of Kalat State first were subjected to Mughal emperor Akbar in Delhi and after 1839 to the British.

Only three months before the creation of Pakistan (in August 1947), Muhammed Ali Jinnah, the first Governor-General of Pakistan had negotiated the freedom of Balochistan under Kalat State from the British colonialist.

A series of meetings were held between the Viceroy, the British Crown’s representative based in New Delhi, Jinnah and the Khan of Kalat regarding the future relationship with Kalat State and Pakistan.

The parleys ensued in a communiqué, popularly a Standstill Agreement on August 11, 1947, which stated that: The Government of Pakistan recognises Kalat as an independent sovereign state in treaty relations with the British Government with a status different from that of Indian States.

The ruling Muslim League elites of Pakistan led by Jinnah had a change of heart and unilaterally decided to merge Balochistan with Pakistan Union on March 26, 1948.

In a violent raid, the Pakistan army occupied Balochistan’s capital Quetta and forcibly entered the Amar Palace of Mir Sir Ahmad Yar Khan Ahmedzai, Khan of Kalat, who was also the President of the Council of Rulers for the Balochistan States Union and intimidated him to sign a document of accession to Pakistan.

Balochistan is populated by ethnic Baloch, as well as Pakhtuns or Pashtuns. This largest province is the least populated region and possesses abundant natural resources in Pakistan.

For decades, disgruntled Balochi nationalists are protesting forcibly converting the Baloch population into a minority in their homeland.

In the post-Bugti era, the restive Balochistan has experienced appalling human rights abuse and untold atrocities.

Anyone who speaks up, protests or writes about the persecution by security forces in Balochistan, the next day a dead body would be dumped in a village or township to warn of the dire consequences to challenge the state.

The journalists who have published critical pieces on Balochistan faced harsh backlash from the state security apparatus.

Scores of tweets are posted every day by family members of the victims of enforced disappearances. Families, relatives and well-wishers often appear in street protests demanding the return of their loved ones. Thousands of suspects supporting or sympathisers of armed insurrection were victims of enforced disappearances.

Most of the victims of enforced disappearances never returned to their families. The dead bodies which were either returned or dumped by security forces bear the brutality, the victims have endured.

In 1970 when Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was on a whirlwind tour for the election campaign in Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar, and Quetta – he was given tumultuous welcome, said Zahirul Islam Khan Panna.

When the crisis in Bangladesh was brewing at the end of 1970, the fieriest Baloch leader Nawab Bugti expressed solidarity with Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s Six-Point programme.

Z I Khan Panna, a leading human rights lawyer was a law student at Karachi University. He was hand-picked by Bangabandhu to be his fixer for the election campaign in Pakistan.

Panna met Nawab Bugti in Karachi in June 1970 and handed over an English copy of the Six-Point program, as desired by Shiekh Mujib.

Bugti was indeed a great admirer of Mujib and told his Baloch nationalist leaders that the Six-Point was a Bible to resolve the longstanding deprivation and political neglect of Balochistan.

Sher Mohammad Bugti, spokesperson of Baloch Republican Party – BRP spoke on WhatsApp from Geneva where he and BRP’s key leaders are living in exile lamented that the “Balochistan atrocity is worst than Bangladesh” in 1971 perpetrated by marauding Pakistan military.

Baloch nationalists are fighting on two fronts, he said. One is Pakistan and the second is China. The Chinese Communist Party is singing the tune of Pakistan on the Baloch crisis of their existence on the mega Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and Gwadar Port, which is located in Balochistan.

Brahamdagh Bugti, leader of the Baloch Republican Party living in exile in Switzerland, and grandson of slain nationalist leader Nawab Akbar Bugti, says that Chinese economic projects in Balochistan were aimed at “colonising” the province, and must be resisted.

Brahamdagh Bugti, who is wanted by Pakistan rejected the possibility of holding any political negotiations with the government in Islamabad and suggested an internationally supervised referendum on the Balochistan crisis to bury the crisis once and for all.

First published in The News Times, 25 August 2022

Saleem Samad, is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of the Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at <saleemsamad@hotmail.com>; Twitter @saleemsamad

Why Did Pakistan Crackdown In Bangladesh, Balochistan In March?

SALEEM SAMAD

It may be coincidental that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has a weakness for the month of March!

The Islamic nation-state possibly felt the month of March was a ‘holy’ month or lucky month for the ruthless crackdown in Balochistan and after 23 years sadistically repeated it in Bangladesh.

Maybe the fortune-tellers to the military hawks in Rawalpindi decide their evil actions on the particular month of March. Whatever the motive, the evil axis occurred in March.

The regime in Rawalpindi launched fierce genocidal ‘Operation Searchlight’ in Bangladesh on the night of 25 March 1971.

In the nine months to freedom, 3 million martyrs were victims of genocide, and more than 400,000 women were raped as a weapon of war. Possibly the world’s largest war refugee was created in living history. More than 10 million war refugees took shelter in neighbouring India.

The Pakistan junta did not realise they will experience a humiliating defeat in December 1971. After the Second World War, another formal surrender occurred when 93,000 Pakistan troops signed the instrument of surrender at Dhaka on 16 December 1971.

Before the crackdown in Bangladesh in March 1971, Pakistan’s invasion of the largest princely states Balochistan on 27 March 1948 killed several thousand innocent Baloch. Their struggle for independence still rages in the rugged terrain of Balochistan.

However, the Pakistan official narratives claim that the State of Kalat acceded to Pakistan on 27 March after Mohammad Ali Jinnah sent a confidential letter to ‘Khan of Kalat’.

Jinnah was legal adviser to ‘Khan of Kalat’ and with his full knowledge, the Pakistan military attacked and invaded Quetta, the capital of Balochistan.

Well, history says differently. Balochistan became an independent country on 4 August 1947, much ahead of the independence of Pakistan on 14 August 1947.

The declaration of independence of Balochistan was announced on 11 August 1947, three days before Pakistan was created. Unfortunately, the independence of Balochistan was short-lived and lasted for 252 days.

Before the partition of India and Pakistan, Balochistan consisted of four princely states of Kalat, Lasbela, Kharan and Makran under the British Raj. Two of these provinces, Lasbela and Kharan, were ‘fiduciary states’ placed under Khan of Kalat’s rule by the British, as was Makran which was a district of Kalat.

In the notorious month of March, many political events occurred. On 23 March 1956, the road to military rule was paved when General Iskander Mirza was sworn in as the first President of Pakistan.

On 25 March 1969, in a bloodless coup d’état Pakistan Army chief General Yahya Khan took over power from General Ayub Khan, a dictator of a decade and proclaim Martial Law and dissolved the assemblies.

Pakistan first tried to trick the leaders of Balochistan into joining the renegade part of India in the name of ‘Muslim’, but when both Houses of Balochistan unanimously refused to annexe with Pakistan angered the hierarchy, then based in Karachi.

After the bloody independence of Bangladesh, the Pakistan troops were still Prisoners of War (POWs) in India, the Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to rejuvenate the demoralised Pakistan troops, gave responsibilities to “Butcher of Bengal” General Tikka Khan, then army chief to crack down on Baloch separatists and dissidents.

Subsequently, the military operation against separatists commenced in Balochistan in 1973 and the armed nationalist movement was brutally suppressed. The fiercest Baloch people have been struggling against Pakistan’s occupation and fought in 1948, 1958, 1962 and 1974.

What is more frustrating for Pakistan is that it failed to defeat the Baloch liberation struggle despite killing thousands of Baloch nationalists. More than 20,000 were victims of enforced disappearances and “dumping”. Those captured were brutally tortured and bullet-ridden bodies of thousands of Baloch political prisoners are found on the roadside.

The brutal torture of state forces includes gouging the eyes of the victims, cutting their tongues, noses, amputating their limbs, drilling holes in their bodies and many other inhuman and brutal mediums of torture. Pakistan junta is still paying an enormous price for the crackdown in Balochistan.

First published in The News Times, 9 March 2022

Saleem Samad, is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at <saleemsamad@hotmail.com>; Twitter @saleemsamad

Taliban abuses cause widespread fear

SALEEM SAMAD

World leaders and international organizations are hesitant to recognize the Taliban’s government but are keeping abreast in the implementation of the Doha Agreement.

The landmark peace agreement was signed by Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar and the United States on 29 February 2020. Baradar is currently the acting first deputy prime minister of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

The four-page Doha Agreement is also known as the Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan and to end the protracted war.

According to the compliance for peace, a comprehensive and sustainable peace agreement will include four parts, including guarantees to prevent the use of Afghan soil by any international terrorist group or individuals against the security of the United States and its allies; a timeline for the withdrawal of all American and coalition forces from Afghanistan; a political settlement resulting from intra-Afghan dialogue and negotiations between the Taliban and an inclusive negotiating team of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; and a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire.

Unfortunately, the compliance for peacebuilding was flouted. One of the reasons was that the two major factions within the Taliban hierarchy did not agree to the peace deal with their arch enemy – the United States.

Despite the peculiar situation prevalent in cities, towns, and villages, the Taliban are ignoring the decrees of Kabul.

Taliban spokesperson Zabiullah Mujahid said in an interview in Kabul in the first week of September that accompaniment of a ‘mahram’ (male family member) would only be required for travels longer than three days, not for daily chores such as attending work, school, shopping, medical appointments, and other needs. Nothing is found in reality.

Taliban officials in Herat have not been consistent in carrying out the ground rules. The majority of the women lamented that Taliban fighters had stopped them on the streets, at universities, and other public places, and barred them from going about their business if they were not accompanied by a male.

The Taliban in the western city of Herat is committing widespread and serious human rights violations against women and girls, Human Rights Watch and the San Jose State University (SJSU) Human Rights Institute said.

Since taking over the city on 12 August 2021, the Taliban has instilled fear among women and girls by searching out high-profile women; denying women freedom of movement outside their homes; imposing compulsory so-called Islamic dress codes; severely curtailing access to employment and education, and restricting the right to peaceful assembly.

Several victims told the two rights organizations that their lives had been completely upended the day the Taliban took control of the city.

Immediately after the Taliban’s arrival, the women found themselves trapped indoors, afraid to leave their house without a male family accompaniment or because of dress restrictions (burqa, niqab or hijab), with their access to education and employment fundamentally changed or ended entirely.

Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is likely to swing into a fresh probe into Taliban and Islamic State-Khorasan (known as IS-K or Daesh-K) ‘war crimes’ and ‘crimes against humanity’ since 2003.

The move shows the ICC’s determination to investigate contemporary as well as past crimes against humanity.

The Hague-based ICC’s new prosecutor Karim Khan, a British QC is determined to use international law to investigate and has notified the Taliban via Afghanistan’s embassy in the Netherlands that it intends to resume an investigation.

Well, there is no reaction from the interim regime in Kabul regarding the prosecutor’s probe into crimes against humanity. This gives a message that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan will not cooperate and refuse to allow the probe delegation to visit the country.

Earlier, in April 2o2o, the ICC inquiry was deferred following a request by former Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani to enable time to collect and collate evidence in cooperation with ICC lawyers.

The probe will investigate ongoing effective domestic crimes within Afghanistan. The implications of de facto Talibanism for law enforcement and judicial activity in Afghanistan will be taken on board.

The prosecutor is likely to face the music for plans to deprioritize any alleged war crimes committed by the US and the Afghan army since they are not ongoing.

Khan argued that with the Taliban in charge of the country, there was “no longer the prospect of genuine and effective domestic investigations” and asked for permission to resume his offices’ inquiry.

One of the crimes likely to be investigated is the suicide bombing on 26 August at Kabul airport, which was claimed by IS-K.

Khan said his office would prioritize investigating alleged crimes committed by the Taliban and the IS-K, including attacks on civilians, extrajudicial executions, and the persecution of women and girls.

Well, in 2015 the ICC was unable to investigate Islamic States’ crimes against humanity in Syria since a referral would have had to come via the UN Security Council. Some Security Council’s members would have demanded ICC to investigate the crime against humanity against forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, something the Russians would have blocked using their veto on the Security Council.

First published in Pressenza IPA, 1 October 2021

SALEEM Samad is a freelance journalist and columnist, a correspondent of Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and recipient of Ashoka Fellow & Hellman-Hammett Award

Understanding Arab world’s response to Bangladesh Liberation War

Liberation war guerrillas with Bangladesh flag - Photo: Anwar Hossain Foundation

SALEEM SAMAD

The conspicuous silence of the Arab world in 1971 shouldn’t be interpreted as mysterious, as the Muslim countries blatantly supported Pakistan’s occupation of Bangladesh.

The heavily censored media of the Arabs failed to speak out on the crimes against humanity, war refugees, and the persecution of people who dreamed of an independent homeland.

Overtly, China, the United States, and the rest of the Arab countries joined Pakistan without understanding what conspired after the crackdown of “Operation Searchlight,” a genocidal campaign to neutralize the self-determination of its Eastern province (now Bangladesh).

The Arabs were carried away by the conspiracy theory that a Hindu nation, India, had hatched plans to bifurcate the world’s largest Muslim nation -- Pakistan, and eventually colonize East Pakistan.

Well, the culture, language, tradition, heritage, physical features, and even the weather of the four provinces of Pakistan were starkly different from East Bengal.

The only bond between the five provinces (including East Bengal) of Pakistan was laid on the thin rope of Islam. Fresh jargons of “Islam is in danger” were repeatedly heard since the weak “Unity Government” was overthrown in a bloodless military coup d’état in 1958.

Mohammad Redowanul Karim, a researcher on Islamic history and culture writes: “Consequently, an independent Bangladesh was inevitable. After starting the Liberation War of Bangladesh in 1971, the myth that Islam was a stronger binding force than cultural heritage [was] refuted.”

The Liberation War and independence of Bangladesh shattered the much talked about “Two-Nation Theory” articulated by the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

The doctrine rationalized the division of India politically into two independent nations -- India and Pakistan -- in the 1940s on the eve of the winding up of the British rule in India.

The Arab leaders were convinced that Pakistan’s military operations, besides flushing out “miscreants” and anti-Islamic terrorists, are also exterminating “kafirs” (or kufrs) from the “Muslim holy land.”

Therefore, it’s obvious that Pakistan, under the state obligation, had to exercise excessive force to restore law and order -- blaming the political crisis on Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, his Awami League, and millions of his sympathizers in the eastern province.

The Arabs were also convinced that to restore a political crisis, the military had to come down heavily. Most importantly, India had to be given a “befitting reply” for “interfering into internal affairs of Pakistan,” as repeated by Radio Pakistan.

The Arab leaders unwittingly provided moral, spiritual, political, and diplomatic support to Pakistan, despite knowing the marauding army was committing genocide and ethnic cleansing of religious minorities. 

In absence of elective democracy and free press in the 1970s, the Arab governments under kingdoms or autocratic regimes swallowed the narrative of their all-weather friend Pakistan.

The two alliances, the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), instead of cautioning Pakistan, had extended moral and political support to strengthen “Islamic nationalism,” which provided the base for united Pakistan which was in the spirit of “Muslim Ummah,” while the Pakistan military committed war crimes in Bangladesh.

The discourse of the liberation war which transformed East Pakistan into Bangladesh was not understood by the Middle East leaders and Arab organizations.

Obviously, during the Cold War, the Arabs were left out by the superpowers. From Algeria to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan embraced the Western hegemony of America as their trusted ally.

Bangladesh, while licking the scars of the Liberation War, did not hesitate to connect with the Arab nations and establish diplomatic relations with them, thus, opening a strategic inroad to the Arabs.

Sheikh Mujib’s statesmanship dented the wall created by Pakistan and penetrated deep into the heartland of the Middle East. In July 1972, Iraq was the first Arab country to recognize Bangladesh as an independent state, and gradually all countries accepted the existence of the newly independent country.

First published in the Dhaka Tribune, 6 April 2021

Saleem Samad, is an independent journalist, media rights defender, and recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He can be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter @saleemsamad

Born for the flag

Photo: MAHMUD HOSSAION OPU

The story of Salam Sikder and his loyalty to the Bangladesh flag

SALEEM SAMAD

Liberation War veteran Salam Sikder, born in a poor peasant family, left home in early 1971. He told his wife that henceforth, she must take care of their two children.

When filmmaker Kawsar Chowdhury met him in 1997 at Gollamari in Khulna, his eyes were glowing with pride, instilled with the glory of the Liberation War. He was in his early thirties when he joined the Mukti Bahini guerrillas. He and his combatants operated stealthily for months in Khulna and Bagerhat region under Sector 9, commanded by Major Jalil.

The ragtag foot soldiers survived on bare food ration but were defiant against marauding forces. Their objective was one -- to liberate the motherland from the brutal occupation of Pakistan. Salam did not remember how many hit and run operations they conducted in Dacope, Batiaghata, Gollamari, Rampal, and adjoining areas.

On December 16, 1971, heads held high, Salam along with a small unit of foot soldiers, marched into war-ravaged Khulna city. Several dead bodies were strewn all over the city. The flow of the Gollamari canal, a tributary of river Moyur, was blocked by countless corpses in the waterway.

On December 16, in a simple ceremony, the flag of independent Bangladesh was hoisted at a small field on the back of the Gollamari canal. Quickly a flag-stand made of a bamboo pole was erected. A flag was tied to a rope. Who would take the privilege to hoist the flag?

Commander Kamruzzaman Tuku asked Salam Sikder to hoist the flag. He began to cry and said that he was not the right choice when there were other valiant guerrilla fighters.

Finally, all hands joined to raise the flag. It was also decided to build a martyr’s memorial at the same site. The Mukti Bahini commander and others decided that the caretaker would be Salam Sikder and he would hoist the flag at dawn and lower at dusk.

The story does not end here. Till the last day of his life, he raised the flag and lowered it, as demanded by the commander.

He took the honorary job seriously. He lived in a dilapidated thatched house adjacent to the martyr’s memorial. Not a single day, till 1997, had Salam taken a day off. When he did visit neighbours and relatives, he quickly returned before evening to lower the flag.

He never requested his family members to wash the flag. The flag was washed with care as if he was bathing an infant. He lamented that his son often asked why he had spent his entire life for a flag and never took care of the family. He explained that when he left their mother with two sons, he could have been killed in the battlefront.

He appealed to them to seek blessings from the Almighty that their father was alive and said: “I have been born for the flag and I will die for the flag.”

The award-winning Liberation War documentary filmmaker Kawsar Chowdhury in 2004 visited the martyr’s memorial and also met the warrior in fragile health. A brain stroke left him physically challenged and with memory loss.

The following year, the loyal flag caretaker Salam Sikder died -- unfortunately unrecognized for his contribution. 

First published in the Dhaka Tribune, 9 March 2021

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He can be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter @saleemsamad

Should China apologise to Bangladesh?

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman greeted by Mao Tse Tung, chairman of the Peoples Republic of China, during his goodwill visit to Beijing in 1957

SALEEM SAMAD

The Chinese were desperate for a kind of “wolf-warrior” diplomacy to take diplomatic and economic ties with Bangladesh to a new height during the post-Mujib era. In subsequent years, China emerged as the major economic partner in mega-infrastructure development projects in Bangladesh.

In the meantime, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina told her officials that Bangladesh should give a second thought regarding any multi-billion dollar development projects offered by China. 

Not very long ago, she reassured the Indian journalists that India is an “organic” friend of Bangladesh; they jointly shed blood during the brutal birth of Bangladesh, and China is a development partner -- there is no conflict of interest with the two countries.

Recently, the PM reiterated that marauding Pakistani troops must make an apology for committing war crimes during Bangladesh independence. Pakistan had received unlimited military supply and political support from China to suppress the people in Bangladesh. The brass-coated “Made in China” bullets were responsible for several million martyrs -- for a crime to dream of an independent Bangladesh.

The architect of Bangladesh’s independence, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman took charge of a war-ravaged nation with a promise to feed the hungry people and the task to rehabilitate the millions of refugees that slowly trickled back home from India. However, even after the return of Bangabandhu from Pakistan’s prison, China continued to politically and diplomatically harass the newly independent nation.

The trouble started when Bangladesh sought membership in the United Nations in 1972. China vetoed Bangladesh’s membership at the UN when the country desperately needed international aid for rehabilitation of the returnees from India. 

To withstand China, Sheikh Mujib, to add diplomatic clout, joined the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the Commonwealth, and the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), which helped strengthen Bangladesh’s image.

Even after diplomatic recognition by Pakistan under the duress of Islamic nations’ leaders in 1974, China continued to intimidate the government of Sheikh Mujib.

Overtly, the pro-Beijing communist parties in the country received political blessings from CCP. Why? Because the left parties opposed the Liberation War and expressed dissent on the government of Sheikh Mujib, blaming him to be a “stooge of Indian expansionist ideas.”

Mujib, as he stated in his book Amar Dekha Naya Chin (New China As I Saw) had visited China twice. First, in 1952 and the second visit in 1957. During his visit, he met the founder of New China, Mao Zedong, along with Zhou Enlai and other key figures of CCP. 

He was confident that the Chinese leaders would listen to his request to recognize Bangladesh.

Sheikh Mujib opened diplomatic channels to win the hearts of CCP. Pakistan’s veteran envoy to Beijing (1969-1972), Ambassador Khwaja Mohammad Kaiser was Mujib’s special emissary to Chinese leaders. Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai confided to Ambassador Kaiser that he should understand his difficulties. Kaiser, however, returned to Beijing, as Bangladesh Ambassador in 1984 for two years.

Mujib also dispatched journalist and poet Faiz Ahmed to Beijing. Faiz had friends in high places among CCP leadership when he was working in Radio Peking (now Beijing) Bangla Service in the 1960s. Faiz, despite being a radical left, was Mujib’s play-card partner in prison during 1966-1969. Unfortunately, he too returned home with an empty hand and the mission reached a dead end.

China was among the last few countries to recognize Bangladesh on August 31, 1975. Well, not to an elected government of Sheikh Mujib, but after his brutal assassination in mid-August 1975. China, unfortunately, recognized an illegal regime headed by the assassins of Bangabandhu.

China should admit certain responsibility for the genocide perpetrated by Pakistan’s military hawks in Bangladesh due to CCP’s policy for providing military aid to Pakistan during the Liberation War. CCP should also regret intimidating Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s government.

First published in the Dhaka Tribune, 19 January 2021

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, and recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He can be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter@saleemsamad

Jammu & Kashmir continues to face violations of human rights and free speech

Kashmiri journalists protest against alleged harassment by Jammu and Kashmir police - Outlook/Umer Asif

SALEEM SAMAD

On the morning of August 5, 2019, the few that had access to dish TV watched in shock the proceedings of the Indian Parliament, which abrogated the special status of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) and stripped it of its limited autonomy.

The restive Kashmir Valley is already one of the most militarized zones in the world, where suspicion, distrust, and rumour galore brew among the 13 million residents.

“Working has been hell for journalists in Kashmir for the past year,” said Daniel Bastard, the head of the Asia-Pacific desk of Paris-based media rights watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

For J&K’s residents, the state became the centre of the world’s biggest news and information blackout, with all forms of communication -- internet, mobile data, TV, and fixed-line telephone -- suddenly suspended. This unprecedented internet shutdown began on the night of August 4, 2019, on the eve of the abrogation of Article 370 of the constitution of India, which granted special status to the state of J&K.

The South Asia Media Solidarity Network (SAMSN) and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) deplored Kashmir Valley’s one year under shutdown.

On August 11, a special committee set up by India’s Supreme Court recommended the restoration of 4G internet services in J&K, and access to high-speed internet on a “trial basis in a calibrated manner in specified limited areas to assess the impact on the security situation” after August 15.

However, the government in New Delhi and the J&K Union Territory administration (Delhi-appointed governor in Srinagar) told the court that while security concerns and threats from the region continued to remain high, 4G internet services would not be made available.

Further fuel to the fire is the J&K government’s new media policy for journalists. The policy announced in June has come under strong criticism, with political parties stating that it will give the government an upper hand to militate against journalists and muzzle free speech. “It’s an assault on press freedom,” writes Naseer Ganai in Outlook magazine.

The policy says that background checks of newspaper editors, publishers, and reporters will be carried out before the empanelment of newspapers, media organizations, and outlets. The policy gives power to the Department of Information and Public Relations (DIPR) to examine the content of print, electronic, and other media for “fake news, plagiarism, and unethical or anti-national activities.”

On the other hand, Tapan Kumar Bose, an independent filmmaker and a human rights activist based in Delhi, expressed his deep concern over those detained during the crackdowns and search operations, and those picked up from highways, with promises to relatives of their safe return -- the releases rarely happen.

Since 1990, thousands of habeas corpus petitions have been filed before the J&K High Court. “There is a total breakdown of the law and order machinery. I shall not feel shy to say that this court has been made helpless by so-called law enforcement agencies. Nobody bothers to obey the order of the court,” grieves Tapan Bose.

Besides Kashmir valley, Punjab, Nagaland, Manipur, and Assam are the worst places in India where enforced disappearances are rampant and appalling. Usually, security forces are in denial about those in custody and do not even register complaints about missing persons.

The relatives of the detainees move from pillar to post in J&K after being refused help for year after year. The relatives are frustrated and tired, but angry; they eventually abandon the search for their loved ones, and one day their cries go silent.

Tapan Bose, who made a documentary with Zahir Raihan during the 1971 Liberation War, stated that India’s domestic law allows impunity for enforced disappearances in states such as Manipur, J&K, and Punjab.

He says there is denial of justice and the right to know the truth, but de jure immunity minimizes victims’ access to the right to justice. The perpetrators are rarely held accountable for their acts.

First published in the Dhaka Tribune on 14 September 2020

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, and recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He can be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter @saleemsamad

Happy encounters with Prof Anisuzzaman

SALEEM SAMAD

It would be an aspersion to write an obituary of a stalwart like Professor Anisuzzaman, who is embedded in the history of Bangladesh. He may not be a tall person, but the gigantic litterateur had a loud voice indeed, which had been heard in all the regimes which governed the country.

He never compromised to speak up to establish a secular nation and also demanded justice for those marauding Pakistan army henchmen for committing crimes against humanity during the brutal birth of Bangladesh. Prof Anisuzzaman, popularly known as 'Anis Sir', was a bitter critic of giving political space to Islamist parties advocating 'political Islam' regime in a secular, tolerant and pluralist society. Well, it was summer in Kolkata. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute of Asian Studies, India (MAKAIAS), a state-run think-tank, organised a seminar on Bangladesh and India in 1996 at the colonial era majestic Great Eastern Hotel.

Dr. Ranabir Samaddar, a leading Indian scholar and Director of MAKAIAS selected me to present a paper. He cautioned that the paper should be taken seriously as it was an academic exercise, not journalism. My presentation was scheduled for the second day. I was excited to learn that the session would be chaired by the revered personality Prof Anisuzzaman. He flew from New Delhi, where he was on a stint as Visiting Scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).

On the podium, he was quickly introduced to the paper presenters from Jadavpur University, Kolkata University and from Punjab University. He was visibly confused when he heard that I was a journalist and the paper was my first.

He told the gathering of eminent academics that as the last speaker I would speak for five minutes only. I was embarrassed and to express my anger I abruptly stopped my presentation on the fifth minute, seeking an apology from the audience due to time constraints. Within moments there was pandemonium in the seminar room. The chairperson hesitantly extended another five minutes for me.

This time I retorted, "I request the chair for another 15 minutes, please." Hearing the murmuring in the room, which included several senior journalists from Kolkata, he said: "Okay, another 10 minutes only, but please finish up!" Moments after my speech, the floor was opened for questions and comments. Unfortunately, not a single question was directed towards the three academics.

My paper was on rural women in Bangladesh who violently protested the donor dictated development projects. At that time the exiled writer Taslima Nasreen's book Lajja (Shame) by Penguin India had been published. The Indian media were vocal about her ordeal in Bangladesh. My thematic paper drew a barrage of comments. Finally, Anis Sir patted me on the back and softly said in Bangla to take notes.

Like a reporter, I wrote down the issues raised in the hall. Despite being nervous, I confidently responded that there were thousands of Taslima Nasreens in Bangladesh's villages. Then why were we only talking about the feminist writer? This comment caused another round of uproar in the hall, but it was time for a lunch break.

While leaving the podium Anis Sir asked, 'Have we met in Dhaka?" I  smiled. "Sir, we met several times, but me as a reporter."  I quickly added that two of his favourite students, who were senior teachers in universities in Chittagong and Dhaka, were my childhood friends. He asked me, "Who?" I replied again, "Sir, your best students you love the most."

Months later one of his favourite students related to me what Anis Sir had told him: "I have never heard of a journalist who would impress a room full of academics."

One morning in 1997, he called me and requested me to visit his quarters at the Dhaka University campus. On my arrival, he said he had returned from Kolkata. He gave me the book, "State, Development and Political Culture: Bangladesh and India", edited by Barun De and Ranabir Samaddar and published by Har-Anand Publications, New Delhi, 1997. He said, "I have read your article with deep interest in the book, which you presented at Kolkata.

It's indeed a brilliant piece. I never thought the agitations of village women against foreign projects could be a unique research theme." I smiled in appreciation. While living in self-exile in Canada I had an opportunity for an unlimited "jompesh adda" with him in Toronto for a couple of days in the summer of 2008. I quietly said, "Sir, do you remember you wanted to elbow me out at the Kolkata seminar?" He heartily laughed and told others that was when he accidentally met me! Laughter again!

Well, twice I met Prof Anisuzzaman early this year. On 19 February at a reception in honour of his 83rd birth anniversary at Dhaka Club hosted by Khondoker Rashidul Huq (Naba Bhai). Final exchange of pleasantries was on 11 March at the launching of singer Anamika Tripura's musical album on Rabindranath Tagore at the National Museum.
Thus I will never hear Anis Sir say: "Saleem, sob khobor bhalo toh!"

First published in the Asian Age, 21 May 2020

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. Twitter @saleemsamad; Email:saleemsamad@hotmail.com

Bangladesh: Resisting Justice

S. BINODKUMAR SINGH

On July 17, 2013, the International Crimes Tribunal-2 (ICT-2) awarded the death sentence to Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) ‘secretary general’ Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed. The prosecution had stacked seven charges against him, including the killing of eminent journalist Serajuddin Hossain in Dhaka; mass killings at village Baidyadangi in Faridpur District; confinement of Ranjit Kumar Nath after taking him out of a Pakistan Army camp in Faridpur District; confining and causing torture to Abu Yusuf Pakhi; killing of Badi, Rumi, Jewel, Azad and Altaf Mahmud at Nakhalpara Army Camp in Dhaka; killing of intellectuals in Dhaka; and killing of Hindu civilians and persecution in Faridpur District. The Court found him guilty on five of these charges, but the prosecution failed to prove the charges of confining Ranjit Kumar Nath and confining and causing torture to Abu Yusuf Pakhi. Mojaheed was arrested on June 29, 2010, and was indicted on June 21, 2012.

Earlier, on July 15, 2013, former JeI Ameer (chief) Ghulam Azam was sentenced to 90 years in prison after the ICT-1 found him guilty on all five charges brought against him by the prosecution. These included instigating his followers to commit crimes against humanity and genocide all over Bangladesh in 1971; complicity in commission of the crimes specified in section 3(2) of the Act, 1973; the murder of Siru Miah and three other civilians; holding of group meetings with the Chief Martial Law Administrator of Pakistan in support of the Pakistan Army’s genocidal campaign; and organizing press briefings on several occasions in connection with these activities. Azam had been arrested on January 11, 2012, and was indicted on May 13, 2012.

Meanwhile, prosecutors A.K.M. Saiful Islam and Nurjahan Begum Mukta, at a press briefing on July 18, 2013, disclosed that charges against JeI Assistant Secretary General A.T.M. Azharul Islam (arrested on Aug 22, 2012) had been submitted to the registrar of ICT-1. The prosecution team added that the charges included genocide of 1,225 people; the murder of four; abduction of 17; one rape; abduction and torture of 12; and setting on fire and looting hundreds of houses.

In addition, ICT-1, formed on March 25, 2010, and ICT-2, created on March 22, 2012, to speed up the War Crimes (WC) Trials, have delivered judgement in cases of four other JeI leaders. The ICT-1 awarded the death sentence to JeI nayeb-e-ameer ('deputy chief') Delwar Hossain Sayedee on February 28, 2013; ICT-2 sentenced JeI leader Maulana Abul Kalam Azad alias Bachchu Razakar and JeI ‘assistant secretary general’ Muhammad Kamaruzzaman to death on January 21, 2013 and May 9, 2013, respectively, and awarded life imprisonment to JeI ‘assistant secretary general’ Abdul Quader Mollah on February 5, 2013.

The two tribunals have, thus far, indicted 11 high-profile political figures, including nine JeI leaders and two Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) leaders. While nine persons had been indicted earlier, JeI leaders Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan were indicted in absentia by the ICT-2 on June 24, 2013, for their alleged involvement in killing a total of 18 intellectuals, including nine university teachers, six journalists and three physicians, between December 10 and 16, 1971.

Meanwhile, violent protests resumed across the country soon after the July 15 and July 17 verdicts, resulting in the death of at least nine persons and injuries to another 77. Indeed, according to partial data collected by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), since January 21, 2013, when the first verdict in the War Crime Trials (WCT) was delivered, the country has recorded 162 fatalities, including 68 JeI-Islami Chhatra Shibir (ICS) cadres, 85 other civilians, and nine SF personnel (all data till July 21, 2013) in street violence. As many as 4,316 persons, including JeI-ICS cadres and other civilians, and SF personnel have also been injured and 2,317 JeI-ICS cadres have been arrested for their involvement in 155 incidents of violence. The country has witnessed several hartals (general strikes).

The JeI-ICS combine, backed by the BNP as well as other fundamentalist groups such as Hefazat-e-Islam (HeI, 'Protectorate of Islam'), are opposing the WC Trial, and have brought turmoil to Bangladesh through their violent and disruptive protests. JeI Member of Parliament (MP) A.N.M. Shamsul Islam, condemned the formation of the ICTs as ‘politically motivated’, and on June 16, 2013, told Parliament, “The Government in the name of so-called trial of crimes against humanity is plotting to kill the top leaders of JeI, including Delwar Hossain Saydee and Motiur Rahman Nizami, using the judiciary.” He also alleged that the Government has revived a 42-year-old settled issue like War Crimes to weaken the opposition alliance and divest the country of its Islamic leadership.

Unsurprisingly, it is this combine that has solely been responsible for the bloodshed over the past months, and these various political and extremist formations have worked in tandem. In the aftermath of violence that began on May 5, 2013, HeI enforced a 'Dhaka Siege' programme. On May 8, 2013, State Minister for Law, Advocate Quamrul Islam claimed, “The BNP-JeI men carried out vandalism, arson and looting during Sunday’s violence”. Information Minister Hasanul Haq Inu, had noted, on May 2, 2013, “The movement of HeI is not to protect the faith of Muslims. They are working as the shadow of JeI-ICS, to foil the trials of war criminals.”

Indeed, ICT-1, while delivering the July 15, 2013, judgment against Ghulam Azam observed that the JeI, as a political party under the leadership of Ghulam Azam, had deliberately functioned as a ‘criminal organisation’, especially during the Liberation War in 1971. The ICT also noted:

In the interest of establishing a democratic as well as non-communal Bangladesh, no such anti-liberation people should be allowed to sit at the helm of Executives of the Government, social or political parties including Government and Non-Government Organisations. We are of the opinion that the Government may take necessary steps to that end for debarring those anti-liberation persons from holding the said superior posts in order to establish a democratic and non-communal country for which millions of people sacrificed their lives during the War of Liberation.

Significantly, the prosecution in ICT-2 disclosed on July 19, 2013, that it was preparing to file a case against JeI, for trial as an organisation engaged in War Crimes in 1971. Prosecutor Tureen Afroz stated, “We are working on the issue after the verdict in the Abdul Quader Mollah case. We all know about the role of this political party during the Liberation War. So they have no right to work as political party in Bangladesh.” Hannan Khan, Chief Coordinator of the Tribunal’s Investigation Agency also disclosed, “Our officers are working with the prosecution team. We have got many documents as proof of anti-liberation activities of Jamaat. They have no right to conduct political activity in an independent Bangladesh.”

Expectedly, the offices of JeI remain virtually closed across the country. Even the JeI central office at Maghbazar in Dhaka wears a deserted look as JeI men hardly visit it. JeI leader Barrister Abdur Razzak on July 18, 2013, said, "I look after mainly legal aspects of the party. Most of the front ranking as well as second tier leaders of JeI are in hiding." At present, the party has been demonstrating its existence mainly through its website and through statements issued to the email addresses of various media houses. However, JeI-ICS cadres have remained quite active on the streets whenever ahartal or any agitation programme is announced by the party, employing new tactics to escalate violence. On July 17, 2013, for instance, posing as mourners at a funeral, some 30 JeI-ICS cadres vandalised two buses and torched another in Dhaka city’s Kalshi area, and then disappeared.

Strong resistance is, however, now building up against the consecutive hartals called by Islamist combine. On July 18, 2013, for instance, people defied the JeI-ICS-sponsored countrywide hartal and came out on streets to do their routine work. More significantly, the sustained ‘Shahbagh protests’, which begun on February 5, 2013, demanding capital punishment for all war criminals, have continued for well over five months now. Similarly, on July 16, 2013, Sammilita Sangskritik Jote, a cultural organisation, rejected the verdict against Ghulam Azam and sought capital punishment for him at a rally at the Teacher-Student Centre (TSC) on the Dhaka University campus. Another citizens’ platform against militancy and communalism, Samprodayikota-Jangibad Birodhi Mancha (SJBM), on July 17, 2013, urged all political, social and cultural organisations imbued with the spirit of the Liberation War to urgently demand an immediate ban on JeI and all its associate bodies.

As the radical combine comes under increasing pressure, now virtually fighting for survival, it is likely to unleash even more violence. With a General Election due in early 2014, and a slew of WCT judgments hitting powerful extremist political formations in the country, political turbulence in Bangladesh can only escalate over the coming months, creating a grave challenge for the regime at Dhaka.

First published in SOUTH ASIA INTELLIGENCE REVIEW, Weekly Assessments and Briefings, Volume 12, No. 3, July 22, 2013

S. Binodkumar Singh, Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management