Rakib Khan’s Blog

The geographical figure (map) of Bangladesh territory is exactly what a populist great leader once in late 1940s termed it exactly as the ‘Moth-Eaten and Truncated’ one. Neither the map of the one third of pre-1947 province of Bengal adjacently west of the Bangladesh territory anything pleasing to look at but somewhat still more odd looking like a continually skeleton of top of the body and a swelled belly under having no leg below to support the weight of the big belly. That is how the DADAS (older brothers) then based at Calcutta (now Kolkata) forced the vivisection ( See Dr. Joya Chatterjee, Bengal Divided 1997 and Bangla Bhag Holo, 2002) of the age old province of Bengal in 1947, albeit, in full connivance of the British Raz leaders during the closing years here, particularly the notorious Radcliff. Had they been little more tolerant and accommodative in late 1940s neither of us would have the ignominy of inheriting the odd-looking geographical maps nor Bangladesh would have the ‘moth-eaten and truncated’ one as of now in post 1947 period. The unfortunate but real psyche of vendetta did hardly care for minimum rationality in shaping the current odd geography of both and historical pains of the two peoples speaking the same language but staying quite apart despite being the next adjacent neighbors, fighting since then with arms to keep the border free from ‘intrusion’ or ‘infiltration’ of both from either sides, nothing changed in 24 years during 1947-71 as then onwards after Bangladesh had independence from Pakistan. Neither the design they had for grabbing both East Pakistan and then, as well, independent Bangladesh in case it had failed for welcome merger by them in the main body of the AKHANDA BHARAT or ‘Undivided India’ as yet remains somewhat a mystery despite the vulnerabilities in almost every matters of concern for the ‘moth-eaten and truncated’ Bangladesh. Where does lie the strength and power of resilience?
Despite geographical vulnerabilities and economic difficulties, the 150 million people of Bangladesh proudly inherit sustained inner strength for survival drawn from the past historical struggle in its remaining simultaneously absorbed in spiritual heritage in hearts, minds and overall psyche. The very power gave them determined courage to stand boldly to face any adversary and fight them all. No doubt that the loss of Muslim political power in this region ditched them in difficulties one after another, but nothing could keep them down for all time. In fact, they rose and continued to put up resistance. One such significant resistance came to take shape in 1906 in the founding of the All India Muslim League in Dhaka, then capital of the newly formed province of East Bengal and Assam. Although the founding of the Muslim League came in 1906, the background had quite long preparation and spade work by Nawab Abdul Latif of Faridpur, Syed Ameer Ali Calcutta and also through the Aligargh school and college movement pioneered by Syed Ahmad Khan for promoting awareness through modern education among the Muslims so long fell backward after the British took over this country in 1757 A.D. The founding of the Muslim League however, had another crucial point and issue to take on that was the preservation and maintenance of the new province of East Bengal and Assam formally created in October 1905. During the whole British period previous to 1905 this geographical area and its people remained backward in education, economy etc that the new province had some possibility and promise to redress. The British Professor of Indian History based at SOAS in late mid twentieth century Rushbrook Williams had viewed the new province in the following way:
‘Between 1905 and 1911, there came the promise of a change. In the former year the then Viceroy, Lord Curzon, decided that the enormous province of Bengal was administratively unwieldy, and that the neglect which had for centuries over-shadowed its eastern regions could no longer be tolerated. He established the new province of East Bengal and Assam, with its capital at Dacca. For the next few years, steady progress was made in education, communications and other concomitants of growth… For the first time in centuries, the land that is now East Pakistan became a separate entity…. Lord Curzon’s move was hotly denounced by the educated classes, mainly Hindu, of Calcutta and of what is now West Bengal. He was accused of striking a blow at the entire nationalist movement- of which Bengal had been for some time the spearhead – by splitting the Presidency and setting up a Muslim majority province. Agitation both violent and non-violent continued unabated. It achieved its objective in 1911….I (when visited in 1918) could understand their (Muslims) dismay. Progress had been halted; Dacca was forlorn, with its brave new buildings crumbling into obsolescence and its Muslim population relapsing into their former apathy’ (R.Williams, The East Pakistan Tragedy, Tom Stacey, London, 1972, pp.14-15).
The new province created in 1905 though made by the British Government for administrative expediency not only opened many avenues for advancement of the people in the big geographical area that was in no way intended to halt advancement of the West Bengal Presidency including then Bihar and Orissa with it. The argument that the Calcutta based elite wished to pursue was for harming the ‘nationalist movement’. What nationalist? Bangali or the big Indian nationalist? The renowned Bangali poet Tagore who had been one of the leaders in the movement for annulment of the partition of 1905 did hardly believe in Bangali nationalism but in greater Indian nationalism having his preferred hero for Indian national leadership in the person of Shivaji, not a Bangali but a Marathan Hindu, the toughest anti-Muslim fighter of the early eighteenth century. There is no authentic document available that they planned to have independent Bangali nationalist identity out of the framework of BHARAT MATA or Mother India and continued to have dream for the epical Ram Raz or Kingdom of God Ram in the whole subcontinent. Had their next generation been serious about independent Bangali nationalist they would in 1947 stood for the Independent Greater Bengal issue then formulated by Abul Hashem- Sohrawardy-Sarat Bose not only to remain outside the framework of Pakistan but also independent of the big Indian union. The well known fact is that the Calcutta based elite like Dr. Shyma Prasad Mukerjee, the leader of the Hindu Mahasava and Patel, Nehru etc of the Congress exploded this plan (See, Dr. Shila Sen, Muslim Politics n Bengal: 1937-47, 1973 and Dr. Joya Chatterjee, Op.cit.) that had earlier been nodded by the Muslim League President Jinnah (See, H.V. Hodson, The Great Divide, 1968). That is how the moth-eaten and truncated East Pakistan born in 1947 became independent Bangladesh in 1971 having the same stigma of being moth-eaten and truncated. Had there been no annulment of the partition in 1911, it can safely be presumed that this country would not have been vulnerable but be much bigger and stronger one as our forefathers had in the new province of East Bengal and Assam in 1905 that had not been anyway moth-eaten and truncated one we inherit now since 1947.

M.T. Hussain
Dhaka-1206
14 October 2008

Annihilation and, at times, massacre of religious and other minorities at a single go are nothing new in the euphemistically called ‘Largest Democracy’, Bangladesh’s big neighbor, and ‘Big Brother’. Of late when the minority Christians in Orissa and the minority Muslims in Assam are being attacked, their houses and even churches and similar places of worship are being burnt down, many done to death with both crude and modern arms and not sparing even pregnant women and children day in and day out, one renowned journalist M J Akbar in a recent column published in a Dhaka daily has gone on to rediscover there ‘Secularism is a way of life’, and amazingly in contrast, another big shot Kuldip Nayar in separate column published here exploded the opposite ugly face and myth of secularism in his own country. Who should the commoners would believe and trust? On the Godhra massacre of Muslims in 2002, the earlier Justice Bannerjee Commission Report and the recently published Justice Nanintri Report giving opposite views of the matter but astonishingly in full tune with the well known Muslim killer Narendra Modi’s (BJP’s Guzrat Chief Minister) stance being debated not only outside but also inside among their own sane people. The recent banning of the SIMI ( STUDENTS’ ISLAMIC MOVEMENT OF INDIA) and that the involvement of the invisible Indian Mujaheedin in the recent bomb blasts in Jamia Nagar in Delhi was nothing but a hoax is also being talked about there. Also quite amazing is that while the SIMI was banned by the Delhi Government long ago, the Bajrang Dal or the extremist Hindu fanatics out to finish all non Hindus from their exclusive motherland or RAM RAZ remains there not only untouched by the administration but emboldened much more than as ever so mush so that they had motor cycle processions wielding saffron colored flags in front of the nose of the law enforcing agencies as was seen n the NDTV news. Less said about the freedom movement and huge blood letting of the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir in perpetual suppression, oppression and killings in thousands for six decades the better. In the scenario that we see now around but nothing unusual for decades, should not sane people look back a bit seriously in historical lessons of the last century for useful guidance of the present generation for deciding on their imperatives?
The Indian subcontinent or the lower Himalayan region is a vast geographical area having huge people living in since unknown pre-historic past ages of several millenniums not in anyway homogeneous but diverse in living modes, beliefs and attitudes to life and occupations. Foreign rules in the early centuries attempted time and again to unite the region and the people but such efforts had failed every time having at best short preludes. The latest one of the foreign rule at a stage in the beginning of the last century being uncomfortable in running their RAZ here in 1905, after a well thought out planning for years, divided the Bengal Presidency, the largest in the empire having Calcutta (now Kolkata) consisting of Bengal, Bihar, Orissa and Assam in to two parts, one having Calcutta as the centre of the old Presidency and East Bengal and Assam out of the Presidency as another new province making Dacca ( Dhaka) as its capital city for running the administration from this old Muslim city but desolated over the centuries after the fall of Muslim power in the region. The new province thus established was considered for expediency of the British rulers but it incidentally provided some possible opportunity for marginal advancement for the people who fell backward since the coming of the British compared to the new elites based mainly at Calcutta in the new framework of the province having capital at Dhaka. Naturally but not in fairness, the Calcutta based new Bangali elite took the likely advancement of the people of the new province as a threat to their already established vested interests in education, employment, business interests etc. So they rose in revolt to reverse the history and annul the partition of 16th October 1905. Being already advanced in English Education and schooled professions, they had their political and social organizations like the Congress (INC), the Hindu Mahasava, etc. that offered all possible sustenance to the anti-partition movement. The pro-partitioners had then been not only backward but also unorganized, despite the Muslim League formed in 1906 with a commitment to preserve the new set up through people’s movement. The new British administration did not survive unfortunately for long but merely six years, and the backward people though expected some opportunities for advancement but that soon ended in December 1911 by annulment of the partition by the RAZ due to pressure tactics of the advanced community, on the one hand, and weaknesses to put effective counter pressure by the backward community, on the other. Had the partition of 1905 would not be annulled in 1911 and that would survive afterwards, the minority and majority syndrome of 1940s and as of today would not be here in the region, because, in that case the partition of 1947 would not come about that solved then, no doubt, some minority and majority issues but not all inside the post 1947 independent India. Not only this, the whole lower Himalayan region would further thrive after the British had left in federal or at least confederation structure possibly with minimum distrust between people of different communities.
There is nothing now one could do about to reverse those undesirable events of the past except to recapitulate follies, no matter bigger or smaller, but what particularly Delhi had to do was to ensure full rights as provided in the Constitution of India and state safety and security to all minorities there including the Dalits, as well. Unfortunately, as the world knows their failures are beyond any proportion in civilized norm.
The experience of the last six decades of free India after 1947, however, in contrast with Pakistan and Bangladesh having no serious communal problem the Big Brother has been continually and dangerously infested with communalism and repression of the distinct minorities by various sections aligned with the ruling sections made it crystal clear that she is unable to contain effectively and satisfactorily any violence against the minorities of all shades irrespective of religions, caste divides etc. Her secular Constitution is being continually violated in one form or the other in this particular matter. A conclusion could thus be made safely that the freedom movement of the distinct national minorities in the north-west and in the north-east be given due appreciation and granted independence just as the SOVIETS gracefully did in early 1990s.
The partition of the British Indian subcontinent first in 1905 and then in 1947 should show Delhi the right way for peaceful solution not only of the majority-minority issue that has taken once again over the years dangerous turn in various parts of India but also for yielding to the inalienable right of self-determination of the people are concerned.

M.T. Hussain
Dhaka-1206
12 October 2008

The welcome talk proposed between the two former lady Prime Ministers of Bangladesh, shied away for decades from each other, sitting across a table, if at all held, is not that easy to go by smoothly as some are talking about that could be.
The first boggling issue is that the sharp difference between the two celebrities is nothing personal. The gap is contrarily not only very much critical but also irreconcilable. One’s birth and survival is another’s fear for liquidation. One was born when the other died in the aftermath of the mid 1975 revolutionary changes of political power of the State of Bangladesh, and all those mattered for the changes, particularly of the 15th August 1975 revolution born in the successful army coup d’etat. The BNP would not have been born had there been no 15th August occurrence for the 7th November army-people popular uprising that ultimately gave birth to the BNP only as a run of events following the 15th August. Possibly as the obvious alternative, the freedom loving people of Bangladesh would have still today enjoy the unpalatable bitter taste of another Fidel Castro here at best likely to be replaced by a junior Castro!
The second point derives from the first issue in that though both were drawn into politics to lead the two big parties from being housewives primarily as accidents of history, one inherited the multi-party democratic legacy out of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the Republic fully legalizing not only the 15th August change but also replacing the Secularism of the earlier BAKSAL to Islamic goal, and further bringing to a happy end of the other who happened to be attitudinally fascists that the people very painfully bore for five years in the recent past during 1996-2001, that further fortunately was brought to the other happy end in the 2001 October poll. The alternative would have likely been pre-1975 BAKSAL syndrome once again for reprisal killings like of Seraj Sikder, ‘ten for one’, etc.!
None in right sense must expect these basic differences wither away by a soft touch of the Aladin’s magic lamp sitting face to face right across the table. It is thus only reasonable to expect that there is no point to go wild in exuberance of high pitch emotion but may first fix up pre-agreed agenda for the proposed talk. The only agenda should be to ensure full participation for restoration of democratic government through the 18th December poll in full accompaniment of democratic norms free from muscle power and misuse of black money with open public pledge from both for full adherence to democratic norms and culture in their each and every day post election postures.

M.T. Hussain
Dhaka-1206
23 September 2006

At last the election date for the 9th Bangladesh Parliament was announced by the Chief Adviser of the Caretaker Government Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmad in a TV (Radio as well) address on the 20th September 2008 to be held on the 18th December this year followed by the Upazila or local government ones in two phases on the 24th and the 28th. The announcement of the date for the parliament election, in particular, has brought some positive and few negative reactions from quarters interested in the political matter of crucial national importance. I have specific reading on the issue.
Despite the harsh realities and suspense that ran for nearly two years since the end of 2006 that led now to the announcement of the date for the next parliament election, and despite some hope for reconciliation of scores between two major contending parties, the Jote and the Mahajote have been busy shaping naturally for their individual strategies with issue-based rhetoric likely to be popular in the perception of the people in distinctly divided groups, one or the other. To me the core dividing issues may fall into what our forefathers had in 1940s.
The anti-British movement for independence from the foreign shackle of the Raj though started soon after the British East India Company got hold of the independent Bengal, Bihar and Orissa in 1757 from Nawab Seraj Ud Daowla based at capital Murshidabad, it took nearly two centuries of long drawn struggle to rid the British off from the colonial control in 1947. The initial struggles for independence of the people in this country had neither been organizationally integrated nor been constitutionally lawful until the British Government based in London provided for the Indian Administrative Act of 1935. The first provincial election held under the Act in 1936 based on the separate electorate shaped perceptional difference and identity of the people of Bengal, in particular, for personalities like A.K. Fazlul Haq, Huseyn Shaheed Sohrawardy and Khawja Nazimuddin leading for long one decade the administration of Bengal as Premiers in turn, one after another, nothing acting in communal way but marginally promoting the Muslims who fell backward for nearly two centuries to come up gradually at per with the already advanced elite Hindu community who took all advantages of the English education, landed properties, learned vocations, professions, business etc. Such marginal promotional help for the disadvantaged Muslims, however, was unpalatable to the elite Hindus for they took such marginal favor as undue ones that they thought challenged their vested interests. As a result the Bengal Muslims had to think in terms of their own that brought the Muslim League in forefront and soon rose to the height of popularity. At one stage the KSP (KRISAK SRAMIK PROJA PARTY) stalwart AK Fazlul Haq had to leave KSP and took full allegiance and membership of the All India Muslim League. Thus Bengal got divided into two major communities, Hindus and Muslims. The 1946 election was fought by the Muslim League as a referendum for separate entity and an independent country comprising the Muslim majority areas of the British Indian provinces. The Muslims responded overwhelmingly for the idea set in the 1940 Lahore Resolution. Bengal was thus to become along with Assam an independent country in 1947. But the British and the Hindu vested interests represented by the Congress bombarded the issue just as they did in 1911 by forcing the British to agree to annul the new Muslim majority province of East Bengal and Assam created not to favor the Muslims but merely for administrative ease and expediency by the then British government, and that was ill perceived by the Calcutta (now Kolkata) based Hindu elite as a threat to their vested interests in economic and political matters. The unfortunate annulment had its reaction in permanent division leading to the partition of India in 1947 between the two major communities, Hindus and Muslims (See, Dr. Matiur Rahman, From Consultation to Confrontation: A Study of the Muslim League in British Indian Politics, 1906 -1912).
Following the 1946 election, the Congress stood to divide Bengal on the basis of regional Hindu- Muslim majority smaller units, West Bengal being Hindu majority districts from East Bengal being Muslim majority region. Sohrawardy and Abul Hashem along with a lone broad minded Hindu leader Sarat Bose opposed the division of Bengal. Not only this. They stood to keep Bengal united and independent of both Pakistan and India that were to realize soon. Though Muslim League President M A. Jinnah nodded Sohrawardi to go ahead for Independent Bengal (See H.V. Hodson, The Great Divide) but the Congress and the Hindu Mahasava opposed tooth and nail the proposed independent Greater Bengal. They mobilized Hindu public opinion for the division (Shila Sen, Muslim Politics in Bengal 1937-47 and Joya Chatterjee, Bengal Divided) that the British in their harakiri to leave their Raj here through announcing the 1947 3rd June Plan for division of British India into two units and grant independence to both as India and Pakistan. The vulnerable East Bengal thus had no option but to join the Federation of Pakistan in August 1947. The Congress and the Hindu Mahasava leaders Nehru, Patel, Shyma Prasad etc let the truncated and moth eaten East Bengal to join Pakistan that in their estimation would soon fail to continue like that and then be forced in no time to join the mother West Bengal and the Indian union sooner than latter (See, Nehru’s letter dated 23 May 1947 addressed to Ashrafuddin Chowdhury of Tipperah/Comilla Congress). The 1971 episode was mainly directed from their side to that end. But the heroic and freedom loving people of Bangladesh did successfully resist the pressure for the last four decades, despite enormous pressure and all round hegemony ( See, M.T. Hussain, Bangladesh: Victim of Black Propaganda, Intrigue and Indian Hegemony ) in terms of cultural intrusion from across the geographical border, economic dominance, flexing of muscles all along the border nearly 2,500 kms., throttling 53 river water flows in the upstream during lean season flouting all international norms and conventions ( See, M Rafiqul Islam, The Ganges Water Dispute) and releasing larger volumes down the rivers during rainy season causing recurring damages each year of billons of dollars (See, B.M Abbas, The Ganges Water Dispute, Leif Ohlsson, ed., Hydropolitics, and M.T. Hussain, India’s Farakka Barrage: Cold Blooded Murder of Bangladesh), keeping maritime boundary unsettled for four decades and keeping forcibly occupied the Talpatti (India’s New Moore) island of Bangladesh along the Hariabhanga river in the Bay of Bengal, etc.
The most unfortunate matter is that the issues mentioned above that remained unsettled and of life and death question for Bangladesh are only contested by the nationalist parties born or revived after the 1975 August/ November revolutions and hardly by others. It is thus reminiscent of the past failed history of 1905-11 of our forefathers, the 1946-47 evil machination of others against Bengal’s unity and independence, Delhi’s realization of hegemonic interests in the 1971 war, and now the clearly seen vicious scenario for appeasing the Indian hunger for absolute hegemony for what they dream for the utopia of AKHANDA BHARAT or re-establishing epical Ramrajya in the re-united India, if not in total reality but in essence, by the same group or the Mohajote in the upcoming 18th December general election of 2008. The patriotic nationalists Jote has thus to set clear positive strategies for the next poll to contain not only the hegemonic Indians but also effectively face up to their all time continuing lackeys and faithful of the Indian Central Intelligence Agency, the RAW, based in Bangladesh in various colors and shades.

M.T. Hussain
Dhaka-1206
22 September 2008

Now that Begum Khaleda Zia, a former Prime Minister of Bangladesh, is known to be nodded to sit down across a table with Sheikh Hasina, another former Prime Minister of the country, the latter has not as yet indicated anything positive in the matter, people have been making guesses somewhat wildly. Is it at all needed? Is it for any worth of ‘qualitative’ change of political culture in Bangladesh? Or is it only for waste of time and effort? Should the Caretaker Government (CG) venture at all for the task considered by many beyond their arena and scope?
It is appreciable that the CG Adviser Dr Hossain Z. Rahman had his or his CG colleagues’ pious wish in the issue for minimizing perceptional distance between the two most powerful leaders and women in the country. But pious wish hardly work always, particularly, in politics in developing countries having less developed democratic political culture. Zimbabwe looks like an exception but after it had hard toil of the African leaders, South African President Embeke in particular, for months for mutually agreeing to a power sharing deal known to have been signed today, the 15th September. Bangladesh is not certainly Zimbabwe having peculiar stumbling blocks not insignificant in calculus.
The first and foremost, to me, is the way the two came up to the position of leadership of their parties concerned. Sheikh Hasina was saddled to the leadership of the Awami League not only by her other party stalwarts in midst of grave internal crisis but also by initiative of Khaleda’s husband President Ziaur Rahman in early 1981. President Ziaur Rahman himself having had huge sympathy for Hasina being the daughter of Sheikh Mujib went all his way out to bring Hasina to Bangladesh from her self-exile in India then running for about six years. Reasons for General Zia’s seriousness in the matter could be seen both for reconciliation in internal politics as he did in many other issues, for example, repealing of the so-called Collaborators Act that remained controversial since its very inception in early 1972 for compulsive reasons in internal politics and for improving relation with India that went very sour and bitter since the historic toppling of Hasina’s father from the State power in Dhaka in August 1975. The junior Sheikh was brought to Dhaka from India by the government with both high security and honor, quite appreciably having had some sort of understanding that she would head the Awami League reformed for multi-party constitutional mode after the despised BAKSAL, her father had been heading in the latest format just before his fall. Unfortunately, in two weeks time of Hasina’s homecoming, President Zia was assassinated on the 30th May 1981 by some disgruntled army men, alleged to be well connected with the RAW or Indian central intelligence agency, Hasina was believed to be deeply connected for her being under the care and security of the same organization in the South Block of Delhi Secretariat for six years between mid August 1975 to early May 1981. Many people in the know here in Bangladesh tended to believe that she might have covert connection in the matter of assassination of Zia. Her attempt to flee the country on the day of assassination of the General and President Zia but for Security persons intervention she could not flee to India through Bangladesh’s Akhaura border, made people suspect more that she had been involved in the matter. One may recall her statement about Zia’s body exhumed from the Chittagong area (first grave) in most reprehensible term, ‘SHIAL KUTTER DEHO SILO KINA KE JANE’- who knows if the exhumed body was of jackal or dog. Such discourteousness remark might further lay some burden on her for Zia’s killing. The counter coups well known to be engineered by the RAW supported ones that followed the August 1975 coups leading to the victorious revolution that put Zia into power on the 7th November 1975 further provided some proofs that the RAW might have had some active role. These issues can not be unknown to them both that certainly affected their past relations in over two decades, and so their perceptions of each other in mutual dealings as of now.
The other issue that distances them from one another is the crucial question of ideological goal of the country. Hasina’s father Mujib in 1972 set the country on to attain secularism not of liberal one but of the Indian variety aimed to impose on people of all faiths and culture the belief in, what the Indian top intellectual and theoretician Balraj Modhak termed as ‘Indianization’, essentially of the epical and Vedic Indian variety. The post 1975 revolution that General Zia had to lead, though afterwards for only about six years, ditched the Indian brand of secularism not arbitrarily but through constitutional process and instead took to the path of Muslim nationalism for Bangladesh under the nomenclature of Bangladeshi nationalism thus abandoning the Bengali nationalism not only based on lone language but also divorced from value system of the overwhelming majority of the people of the country. There is hardly any meeting point between the two on this score. Neither Hasina has reconciled to the 1975 changes nor can Khaleda afford to abandon the 1975 basic changes in the Constitution of the country. Those who take these distinctly opposite divergences into something personal rivalry between two persons are rather naive.
Still another issue is that both inherit charisma of their dear ones, father and husband. But as distinct from Hasina, Khaleda had fought uncompromisingly to restore democracy all along just as she has been doing despite being in the latest tirade against herself and the family, but Hasina remained as an opportunist and an arrogant for power game in self aggrandizement not only in the past but also in the latest one as possibly many people can clearly see now that as if it is Hasina and Hasina alone and none else has any right to run the country having had misused the cult of the Senior Sheikh, no matter if that is still now acceptable to the overwhelming majority people of the country. Khaleda pursues contrarily, despite some lacuna and human frailties, a lofty ideal for open and free democracy for all people to benefit from that albeit her husband had set the country on to the right path in late 1970s.
One can as such be little optimistic from the past experience about the proposed dialogue that might turn very much into wasteful exercise in terms of time spent for and energy lost to bring the two to sit across the same table for any productive result. What is essentially needed of the CG as the first priority is to hold the parliament election immediately that is long overdue for nearly two years now. Let the people hope and pray that the fairly elected 9th parliament would better strengthen participatory democracy in the country through their benevolence. Let them compete for love of democratic culture of gentlemen and ladies in the next parliament.

Dr. M.T. Hussain
15 September, 2008

Bangladesh on kept its national flag half mast across the country to mourn the loss of lives in neighbouring natural calamities-struck Myanmar and China, an official statement said.

“The Bangladeshi government has taken the decision to pay respect to the people who died in the recent cyclone and earthquake in Myanmar and China respectively,” an official press release said on Tuesday.

The official death toll in Mynamar struck by Cyclone Nargis on May 3 stands at 78,000, while 40,000 have been reported dead so far in the May 12 earthquake in China.

Bangladesh had earlier sent relief material and life saving drugs to Myanmar and proposed to send army medical teams to China.

Source: Yahoo! News Service

How come that the alleged war crimes trial kept pending for 36 years can’t be delayed for another year? I mean why can’t we wait for until the year beginning 2009 for the next elected government to take on the administration of Bangladesh? Why should one pressurize the present Caretaker Government (CG) to do the task what the governments of varied persuasions in the last 35 years could not do anything about?

The year 1971 of Bangladesh happened undoubtedly not only to be a period of war but also a political turmoil inside caused by two distinct opposing stance backed up by their own ideologies. On top of the situation, the 70 million people of the country faced external threats against sovereignty owing to the internal division who since 1947 waited for such a situation of internal division and strife to take advantage of for reprisal of 1947 division of India and of Bengal.

If we forget for the moment the complicacies of 1971 and presume that all the people of Bangladesh wished to have ‘independent Bangladesh’ prior to 16th December 1971 for argument’s sake, and that is why any crime against movement for independence of Bangladesh should be recognized and opponents be put to trial without any further question, it is very likely that such stance is likely to fall into ditch.

The first, to me, is the leader Sheikh Mujib who ditched himself in post 1972 period; had he been alive today, he would fall again into the same ditch, because, he left the people not only in dark about his real intention about freedom without giving Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) but also surrendered to the enemy, no matter will fully or not, thus also raising serious doubts in the minds of many intelligent people, including the then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the external prime mentor in the ‘independence’ movement who was known to have blasted the leaders Tajuddin etc meeting her soon after the 25th March 1971 in Delhi in the absence of the number one leader!.

The second is also the Sheikh who without making the UDI on hearing the news in Mianwali prison about the December War proper offered to the President of Pakistan Yahya Khan to address the people of East Pakistan on the Pakistan TV to oppose Indian aggression against East Pakistan (see, London English fortnightly Impact International Sept 28- Oct 08 1987, p.19).

The third is again the Sheikh who according to American historian and academic Stanley Wolpert confided with the then Pakistan President Zuklfiquer Ali Bhutto to have ‘Confederation’ with Pakistan (See, Wolpert’s Zulfiquer Ali Bhutto of Pakistan, 1993, OUP, page 151) that clearly implied that the Sheikh did not take firm stand before for independence of Bangladesh from Pakistan. The matter he confided with Bhutto may as well be traced in his maiden speech he made on return from Pakistan as a ‘free’ man on the 10th January 1972 at the then Ramna Race Course in Dhaka, wherein he said at a point, BHUTTO SAHEB BALLEN AMADER EKTA SAMPORKO THAKTE HOBE; that in English version is, Mr. Bhutto proposed to me that we have to have a relation, then he gave a pause, the audience shouted ‘no’ ‘no’; the Sheikh then said, NE BHUTTO SAHEB NE, no Bhutto Sahib no. The reference to Bhutto should have clearly meant that the Sheikh had a deal that he wished to have a nod, but did not get, obviously due to high passions of the Bangladeshis against anything Pakistan at that point of time. Hasan Zaheer (The Separation of East Pakistan, UPL, 2001, preface, p. xxii) too has mentioned that Mujib had admitted to Anthony Mascarenhas on the 8th January in London 1972 on his way from Pakistan to Dhaka saying that he was ‘going to keep some linkage with Pakistan’ (quoted from Anthony Mascarenhas’ The Legacy of Blood).

The fourth is also the Sheikh himself who being the best beneficiary of the MUIBNAGAR declaration of independence on the 10th April 1971, hardly afterwards gave big credit to Tajuddin Ahmad for the otherwise historic job; instead he rebuked Tajuddin for dismemberment of Pakistan, ‘Tomra Shesh Parjantya Pakistan Bhenge Dile’- how come you people dismembered Pakistan- (see now late falling to assassins bullet, Prof. Dr. Aftab Ahmad’s confession published in several print media including weekly Ekaler Katha, late 2007 Issue) on the 10th January 1972 in the Tejgaon Airport Tarmac; never in three and a half years of his ruling the country, he spared a single moment to speak in praise of the Mujibnagar, much less visit the spot at all. One may recall the Sheikh’s encaging indefinitely of the first Prime Minister of Bangladesh Tajuddin in the Dhaka Central prison in about two years of independence of Bangladesh in late 1973!

The fifth is the Sheikh, because he had on many occasions dramatized the war crimes trial and collaborators’ issues, and yet he himself ate his own pies not only letting the real war criminals 195/118 set free, vainly boasting, ‘we know how to forgive’, but also freeing from prison dropping all charges and then sending the ‘number one collaborator’ Khawja Khairuddin as the ‘Special Emissary’ of the Sheikh to Pakistan’s President Bhutto for mending future formal relations with Pakistan, not merely for establishing diplomatic relation that had already been established soon after Pakistan’s formal recognition in February 1974, primarily obtained in exchange for returning to Pakistan from India the real war criminals (195/118) in exchange for recognition by Pakistan of Bangladesh as the independent country!

The alleged war crime trial has further lacuna. The 1971 period of Bangladesh is recorded in all international documents due mainly for the lack of UDI as ‘Civil War’ (See Brockhampton’s Dictionary of World History, London 1994, p.56), possibly, except the period of real war between India and Pakistan, 3rd December to 16th December (though three days war between 3-6 December was clearly India’s aggression for India had not recognized Bangladesh before 6th December). Whether war crime under the Geneva Convention would apply to the ‘civil war’ period is an additional lacuna. Along with these lacunas another crucial issue cannot escape the question of due process of law and justice for any and all non-combatant people killed, tortured, maimed etc. during the period of not only March 1971 to 16th December but also afterwards for shear reprisal or even personal enmity not only on both sides of the political divides, pro-Bangladeshis and pro-Pakistanis but also of the so-called ‘ethnic’ genre.

Although the Bangladesh Government in the last 36 years could not produce any authentic figure of the people killed in 1971, curiously though the government paid compensations to only about 9,000 victims killed in 1971 in fulfillment of their compensation commitment to be paid to each and everyone killed against the God sent figure of ‘3 million’, the Harvard group (USA) in their survey in late 1970s had figures of about 100,000 of Bengalis killed and about 200,000 non-Bengalis killed n 1971 (See, Robert Sisson and Leo Rose, 1980). The Harvard study figures has signaled the need for exact identification of the dead in 1971 in respect of ‘ethnic’ divide (Bengalis, Biharis, Pathans, Panjabis, Tribals etc.) for right forensic and DNA tests of whatever remains available whenever in future the cases would be taken for due process of law.

The brief presented above is in no way exhaustive, but an outline of hints on complicacies involved in the matter that the CG could hardly pay any attention to without sacrificing their main Herculean task to conduct in the time frame by December 2008 the general election in all possible fairness, neutrality and ensuring credibility. It is thus only reasonable and rational to expect that the complicated task of alleged war crime be taken up by the next elected government. Whether they would not fail just like the previous governments in the last 36 years is another matter that only the future can tell.

Author: M.T. Hussain

16 December 2007

The remains of Birshreshtha Hamidur Rahman were brought home yesterday, 36 years after he embraced martyrdom in a battle with Pakistani occupation forces.

Thousands of school students and villagers stood in line on both sides of the 15-kilometre road stretching from Bibir Bazar check post to Comilla town as the remains of the war hero were brought from Tripura, India. They showered Hamidur’s coffin with flowers.

The coffin draped in national flag was brought through the check-post at about 2:50pm.

Hamidur was killed while fighting with Pakistani army on October 28, 1971. His fellow freedom fighters buried him at Hatimarachara village of Tripura.

Later, he was awarded with “Birshreshtha”, the country’s highest gallantry award.

The remains of the 17-year-old freedom fighter were exhumed from the grave on Sunday and handed over to a Bangladesh delegation, reports AP.

His remains will be brought to Dhaka today.

Later, the remains will be taken to National Parade Square where 21 gun salutes will be heralded to pay tribute to the war hero, said a press release of Inter Services Public Relations.

Hamidur’s remains will be buried in state honour at Mirpur Intellectuals’ Graveyard today.

President Iajuddin Ahmed will receive the remains and place floral wreaths on the coffin.

Controversial Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen was Thursday brought to Rajasthan from West Bengal, a day after the outbreak of large-scale violence in central Kolkata during a ’shutdown’ called by a Muslim outfit over the Nandigram situation, and for cancelling her visa.

Official sources said the writer reached here Thursday afternoon and was discreetly taken to a safe place.

West Bengal police had suggested to Nasreen Wednesday that she could be moved out to Rajasthan.

Wednesday’s shutdown was also called to protest against the Nandigram violence.

The visa of the Bangladeshi writer has been extended by the Government till February 17 next.

Detained former prime minister Khaleda Zia yesterday served a legal notice on the Election Commission (EC) asking it to withdraw, rescind or cancel within 48 hours its letter inviting Maj (retd) Hafizuddin Ahmed of BNP for electoral reform talks.

The notice served through Khaleda’s lawyer said if the EC fails to do so, he (lawyer) has instructions from her “to go for appropriate legal actions, if deemed necessary.”

The EC on October 5 issued a letter inviting Hafizuddin as BNP representative for the November 22 dialogue with it on electoral reforms.

Khaleda’s lawyer barrister Mohammad Nawshad Zamir, in the notice, alleged that the EC’s letter was issued violating “the BNP constitution in a manner which is illegal, malafide and without lawful jurisdiction.”

The legal notice has been served on the EC represented by the chief election commissioner and election commissioners, Chief Election Commissioner Dr ATM Shamsul Huda, election commissioners Brig Gen (retd) M Shakhawat Hossain and Sohul Hossain, the EC secretary and the state represented by the principal secretary to the chief adviser.

It said that according to BNP constitution, the chairperson is the only elected person in the party, and has the exclusive authority and power to expel or nominate anybody as secretary general of the party.

BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia, exercising her power as per party constitution appointed Khandaker Delwar Hossain secretary general, expelling Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan from the party on September 2, a day before she was arrested in connection with Gatco graft case.

And the EC was informed of Khaleda’s decision through letters from BNP’s Office Secretary Rizvi Ahmed on September 5 and 24, the notice mentioned.

It also said that the letters also requested the EC to communicate with BNP’s new Secretary General Khandaker Delwar for the proposed dialogue or any other matters concerning BNP. In the absence of the BNP chairperson, the secretary general is the only legitimate representative of the party for the dialogue, it stressed.

Despite this, hurried issuance of letter to Hafizuddin to represent BNP in the dialogue with the EC was intended to subvert the process of law, the notice said.

It mentioned that in defence of issuing letter to Hafizuddin, the EC has made the plea of doctrine of necessity, which is totally inappropriate and inapplicable in the present case.

The legal notice referred to a November 4 writ petition filed with the High Court (HC), which issued a rule on the EC and the government to show cause within two weeks as to why they should not be directed to invite the legitimate BNP officials for dialogue.

It pointed out that just a day after issuance of the HC rule, the EC dispatched a letter inviting Hafiz, acting secretary general appointed by a BNP standing committee meeting on October 29.