Raking Up The Past In Bangladesh Will Help No One
09 March 2016By Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi
I devote this week's column to answering Syed Badrul Ahsan, associate editor
of the Bangladesh newspaper, The Daily Observer, whose letter was published in
this newspaper (Feb. 6). His comments were in reaction to a previous column of
mine titled ''The blunders of the past and distortion of facts'' (Jan. 27),
which contained observations about an article published by senior journalist
Shamsul Huda in The Daily Observer.
I would like to respond to the points raised by Ahsan one by one. First, I
lived in Bangladesh for a few years during which I read a lot about the
incidents of 1971. I mixed with people from all segments of society but I
never read or heard from anyone I met anything about the alleged sexual
assault on Bangladeshi men, particularly about frisking them at checkpoints to
ensure that they were circumcised to prove their identity as Muslims. Ahsan
says emphatically that there is photographic evidence to prove his claim but
he did not mention who took the pictures of whom? Are these pictures of
abusers or victims, and where are these pictures now?
Second, as far as the issue of sexual assault on Bengali women is concerned, I
objected to making a comparison between what happened to Bengali women and
Korean women, by saying that there is no point of comparison between the
atrocities committed during the Second World War and during the civil war in
East Pakistan. I agreed with Shamsul Huda in condemning and denouncing
everything that happened to women on both sides.
But at the same time, I disagreed with him because of his disregard for the
sexual assault meted out to Pakistani women, especially Bihari women, at the
hands of Mukti Bahini, the militia of the Awami League party. One should not
differentiate between the victims of sexual assault whether they are Bengali
or Bihari women. I am of the conviction that this was what Bangabandhu Sheikh
Mujibur Rahman, the father of the nation, meant in resorting to the principle
of ''forget and forgive''.
Third, Ahsan objected to my remark that the Pakistani soldiers who suffered
defeat at the hands of the Indian army were taken to India as prisoners of
war. Was this not what happened? Was General Aurora a Bangladeshi? Who gave
the surrendered Pakistani general a solemn assurance that the surrendered army
personnel should be treated with the dignity and respect that soldiers are
entitled to in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention? Are
any of these soldiers still in Bangladesh? As far as the issue of civil war is
concerned, international law says that civil war implies any armed conflict
between different organized groups of citizens within an independent country.
This is what happened in East Pakistan until the intervention of the Indian
army.
Fourth, the Simla Agreement, signed by Indira Gandhi and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto,
was the basis that defined the relations between India and Pakistan with
regard to the handling of prisoners of war and their subsequent release. The
significant thing is that all of these soldiers, including 195 war crime
suspects, were released. I mentioned this issue only because of the
politically motivated trials that resulted in the execution of a number of
opposition leaders in Bangladesh. None of these leaders were included in the
list of the 195 war crimes suspects.
Fifth, regarding the atrocities perpetrated against the Biharis, Ahsan said
that this is a relatively new issue. But that is not correct. The Biharis have
been subjected to crimes during the civil war and afterwards when Pakistani
troops were taken to India as prisoners of war. The unarmed Biharis remained
insecure and were subjected to killing, rape and looting in addition to being
driven out of their homes. Thus, they were forced to live in squalid camps in
different parts of Bangladesh, and they are still languishing in these
overcrowded camps. I visited some of these camps when I was in Bangladesh and
saw the extremely pathetic condition of these people. How is it possible for
Ahsan to disregard the miserable living conditions of Biharis or stranded
Pakistanis? How can he say that their issue was raked up only recently when
the trial of opposition leaders started at the war crimes tribunal?
Ahsan also described these leaders as notorious Bengali collaborators of the
Pakistan army. In fact, this despicable description is not accurate. Take the
case of Jamaat-e-Islami leader Prof. Ghulam Azam as an example. He was one of
the most honest men I ever met in Bangladesh. He was also well-known in the
Islamic world for his righteousness and piety. The large number of people who
took part in his funeral procession is evidence of his popularity in
Bangladesh society.
Sixth, Ahsan criticized my reference to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto assuming power as
prime minister of Pakistan instead of his actual post of president. In the
article, my emphasis was on his taking power as the head of the state, whether
as president or prime minister, immediately after the end of the war.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that raking up old issues and exaggerating
them by recalling unfortunate incidents and stories that have been forgotten
with the passage of time is quite undesirable as it will help no one. Such a
tendency is doing harm even to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who folded the pages of
the past and unveiled a new chapter of ''forget and forgive.'' Raising these
incidents after a gap of four decades is in a way doing injustice to the
undisputed leader of the Bangladeshi people and calling into question the
decisions taken by him and the amnesty granted by him.
– 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