Distorting Historical Facts About War Crimes
11 February 2016By Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi
Mahfuz Anam, editor in chief of the Bangladeshi newspaper The Daily Star,
recently wrote an editorial titled ''Another step toward justice,'' in which he
praised the recent execution of two leading opposition leaders convicted of
war crimes. He also lauded the decision taken by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina
to try the so-called war criminals, who purportedly committed war crimes
during the civil war that resulted in the secession of East Pakistan and the
creation of the new state of Bangladesh 44 years ago.
In the article, Anam deals with a number of topics in an illogical way, which
has nothing to do with objectivity and what really happened. First of all, he
denies the fact that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman gave a general amnesty to any of
those accused of war crimes.
I agree with him that only 195 Pakistani soldiers where accused of war crimes
at the time and that these soldiers were among the prisoners of war taken to
India following the war. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who took over as the prime
minister of Pakistan after the creation of Bangladesh, managed to secure the
release of these men along with other Pakistani soldiers on the basis of the
Shimla Agreement that was signed with the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
There is, therefore, no question of whether Sheikh Mujibur Rahman pardoned
them or not.
However, what happened later was that some of the opposition leaders were put
behind bars after a gap of 44 years. Charges of war crimes were framed against
them. Some of them have been executed while others face trial for war crimes.
There were no charges of war crimes framed against them during the period of
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman when he ruled the country from the beginning of 1972
until mid-1975.
In the article, Anam alleges that it was General Ziaur Rahman, who released
over 11,000 people who had been put behind bars on charges of war crimes. I do
not know where he obtained these figures? The charges of war crimes framed
during the 1970s were only against 195 Pakistani soldiers and there were no
charges made against any Bangladeshis. General Zia might have released some
political prisoners whom Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had jailed after they accused
the latter of attempting to undermine democracy through dissolving political
parties and transforming the country into single party rule and curtailing
freedom. Most of these prisoners were freedom fighters.
Anam's other argument is that the first significant voice demanding the trial
of war criminals was raised by Jahanara Imam, whose son Shafi Imam Rumi was
arrested and tortured to death. She took the initiative to constitute and
convene a Gono Adalat or People's Court and to hold the first ever public
''trial'' of war criminals. It is to be noted that there is no basis for her
claim from a legal point of view. How can Anam justify the killing of senior
opposition political leaders in the name of war crimes allegedly committed 44
years ago on the basis of a demand raised by a woman who emerges on the scene
after a gap of several years. This woman might have some psychological reasons
for her claims which have no credibility from a legal point of view.
How is it possible for Anam, who speaks about enforcing justice, to remain
silent about the plight of the stranded Pakistanis or Biharis? These people
have been subjected to killing, looting and rape and they have been driven out
of their homes. They have been forced to live in squalid and crowded camps
without having even the basic amenities of life.
In the last part of the article, Anam admits that the war crime trials have
been criticized. ''Whatever flaws were pointed out went through corrective
measures with the final process going through all the legal steps foreseen in
our constitution,'' he says. But he did not say who is responsible for these
flawed trials and who has criticized them.
In fact, these critics include the United Nations Human Rights Council,
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other international and local
human rights bodies. All these organizations have reiterated on several
occasions that these trials do not meet even the basic international standards
and prerequisites of international law.
Anam also did not mention the scandals involved in the war crimes trials, such
as the Skype scandal. The British magazine The Economist published the Skype
conversations involving the Tribunal's presiding judge which subsequently
resulted in his resignation. There was also another scandal in which a
prosecution witness, who became a defense witness, disappeared mysteriously
from the court premises. It was latter found that he had been kidnapped and
taken away in a secret police vehicle. After six months, he was found in an
Indian jail in Kolkata.
Historical facts must not be distorted and no human being should perish
unjustly. The ongoing Bangladesh war crimes trial is politically motivated and
its aim is to liquidate political rivals which will only lead to further
injustice.
— Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi is a former Saudi diplomat who specializes in Southeast
Asian affairs. He can be reached at algham@hotmail.com
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments