Luxury of lies

The International Crimes Tribu

nals (ICTs) of Bangladesh are walking steadily towards ending the impunity that has been prevailing for 41 years. The people of Bangladesh and, of course, people around the globe are eagerly observing the trial of the perpetrators who committed one of the worst genocides in history. Since inception, the ICTs have been facing numerous obstacles. At home and abroad, in media and international forums, propaganda efforts are being launched to impede the trials, to defame the ICTs, and to spread misperception about the whole process. Evidences tell that unbelievable amount of money has been invested in every corner of the globe. Dr Ali Al-Ghamdi, a former Saudi diplomat, is another straw in this current. For the last few months, using a Saudi media platform, he has been lying consistently about the ICTs. His writings in this context specialise in twisting historical facts and dishonouring the Liberation War of Bangladesh. Two of his previously published articles implicitly threaten the Prime Minister of Bangladesh. The last shell from his propaganda barrel has been launched on December 19, 2012 in Saudi Gazette which he titled “A trial to Deny Justice”. It may seem that Dr Al-Ghamdi has not yet understood how the ICTs are operating and what the people of Bangladesh think about it. What Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi is doing is just part of a well-planned, worldwide propaganda mission against the ICTs.

His article starts with a discussion about the creation of Pakistan. He repeatedly attempts to paint the trial of the perpetrators of one of the most heinous genocides in history as a trial of the so-called ‘Muslim’ leaders in Bangladesh. This observation will be helpful to understand the communal underpinnings of Dr. Al-Ghamdi’s pieces. Let us now have a look at the major lies embedded in this article.

The lies can be divided into two levels. One of them is about the Liberation War of Bangladesh against the backdrop of which the current trials are taking place. Another one is about the ongoing trial procedures. We shall discuss both one by one.

* * *
Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi starts with the bizarre proposition that Pakistan was divided because of the mistakes committed by both sides – East and West Pakistan, which cannot be further from the truth. It is interesting that being a self-proclaimed specialist in South-East Asian affairs he is still in such appalling denial of the facts. Surely a specialist knows about the declaration of Yahya Khan on December 24, 1970 that Sheikh Mujib, the then leader of Awami League would be the Prime Minister of Pakistan after the landslide victory in the 1970 Election [1]. Surely he, while specializing in South-East Asian affairs, learned about the Larkana Conspiracy and the betrayal of the Pakistani army and politicians [1]. The truth is, Bengalis were deprived and discriminated despite the development of Pakistan being mostly dependent on East Pakistan’s resources. The 23-year long deprivation led the Bengalis to stand for their rights – an uprise which the Pakistan army aimed to crush by military intervention, by genocide. This was no mistake of “both sides”, rather, was the obvious outcome of the colonialist behaviour of Pakistani rulers against which the people of the East exercised their right to self-determination.

Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi tagged the nine-month long Liberation War of Bangladesh as a civil war – an assertion which is technically and historically wrong. Since Bangladesh had unilaterally declared its independence at the very beginning of the genocide, the war became an international war by definition, even in light of the recent positions adopted under international law, namely the Kosovo case before the International Court of Justice. Calling it a “civil war” is just an effort to minimise the significance of the war. Inclusion of the interference of India is an exaggeration. India was a great friend of Bangladesh and provided military help, but the war was fought by the people of Bangladesh. On December 3, 1971 Pakistan waged war against India and started attacking inside its territory [2]. This is how India was involved in the ‘war’ and the Bangladesh-India alliance formed. Pakistan armed force surrendered not to Indian army as Dr. Ali-Alghamdi says, but to the previously mentioned allied force as per the Instrument of Surrender [3].

The third paragraph of Dr Ghamdi’s article is a classic example of fact-twisting. For the convenience of discussion we may have a clear look,

“The Pakistan army was accused of committing war crimes, including murder and rape, during the civil war. The first government of Bangladesh, headed by the father of the nation Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, issued a law to try war crimes, and accordingly a list of suspected war criminals was prepared. The list contained 195 Pakistani soldiers and there were no civilians among those accused of war crimes. Another law was issued to try Bangladeshis who collaborated with the Pakistan army. Under this law, more than 100,000 people were arrested but were later released due to a public amnesty announced by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who came to power in West Pakistan managed to secure the release of the Pakistani soldiers, taken as prisoners of war by India, following his talks with the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. There were some suspected war criminals among these soldiers. With this, the trials of war crimes suspects seemed to come to an end.”

Lie number one, the number of laws were not one, but two. First one was the Collaborators Act of 1972 which was applicable to the people who collaborated with the Pakistani Army in committing genocide and other crimes. The second one, International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973 was issued for trying any person responsible for committing international crimes in the territory of Bangladesh including those 195 Pakistani prisoners of war. Section 3(1) of the Act reads [4],

“A Tribunal shall have the power to try and punish any individual or group of individuals, or any member of any armed, defence or auxiliary forces, irrespective of his nationality, who commits or has committed, in the territory of Bangladesh, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, any of the crimes mentioned in sub-section.”

As we see, there is no specification, neither for Pakistani army nor for their collaborators.

Lie number two, the 195 Pakistani war criminals were not forgiven or released. They were just transferred to the custody of Pakistan while Pakistan was responsible for bringing them to justice as part of their obligation under international law. Due to serious diplomatic clash among Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India concerning those Pakistani prisoners of war, a tri-partite agreement was signed by those three countries. According to this agreement, the government of Pakistan took the responsibility of arranging the trial of the 195 war criminals. Let us have a look at section 13 of the agreement [5],

“The question of 195 Pakistani prisoners of war was discussed by the three Ministers in the context of the earnest desire of the Governments for reconciliation, peace and friendship in the sub-continent. The Foreign Minister of Bangladesh stated that the excesses and manifold crimes committed by those prisoners of war constituted, according to the relevant provisions of the UN General Assembly resolutions and international law, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and that there was universal consensus that persons charged with such crimes as 195 Pakistani prisoners of war should be held to account and subjected to the due process of law. The Minister of State for Defense and Foreign Affairs of the Government of Pakistan said that his Government condemned and deeply regretted any crimes that may have been committed.“
Lie number three, the question of bringing the war criminals to justice never came to an end. Dr. Al-Ghamdi speaks of the public amnesty for the collaborators. Let us check who were eligible for the amnesty [6],

“PERSONS NOT COVERED
The clemency granted under para 1 shall not extend to persons, who under the aforesaid order are convicted for or charged with or alleged to have committed any offense under section 302(murder),section 304(culpable homicide not amounting to murder),section 376(rape),section 435(mischief by fire or explosive),section 436(mischief by fire of explosive substance with intent to destroy house),and section 438(mischief by fire of explosive substance to any vessel), of the penal code.”

The war criminals who are currently being tried by ICTs did not care for this procedure. Rather Ghulam Azam and some other collaborators fled as we see from the news of The Dainik Bangla on 10 February, 1973.
After the declaration of the general amnesty, about nine thousand collaborators were in custody. The trials continued till the assassination of Sheikh Mujib on August 15, 1975. Some news headlines from The Dainik Ittefaq will prove this:
“Two Al-badars sentenced to life” (December 5, 1973),

“14 collaborators sentenced to death in Barisal” (Aprli 2, 1974),

“2 collaborators sentenced to life” (April 20, 1975)
Dr. Al-Ghamdi lies as he says that the collaborators were released. More than 20 collaborators were sentenced to death; many were sentenced to imprisonment for different durations. Dr. Al-Ghamdi speaks of political leaders; in the following we present a number of news headlines regarding their trials and imprisonments:
“PDP leader Nurul Amin sentenced for collaboration” (Dainik Bangla, July 5, 1972)

“Jasimuddin, minister of aggressor’s reign, sentenced to life” (Ittefaq, November 26, 1972)

“Jamaat-e-Islami leader Maolana Yousuf sentenced to life” (Ittefaq, December 5, 1972)

“Solayman sentenced to life in Khulna” (Ittefaq, December 23, 1972)

Dear readers, these are just half of the Al-Ghamdi lies, save your wonder for the rest. Let us now see how Dr. Al-Ghamdi is defaming ICTs.

* * *

Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi says that several international organizations have criticized the proceedings of the ICTs. This is true, and there is no such trial which stands above criticism. The historic Nuremberg Trial which laid the foundation for trials of war criminals was criticized as victor’s justice or as being “fundamentally unfair”. The trial of the perpetrators of genocide committed in Cambodia, Yugoslavia and Rwanada were also criticized. So is the ICTs, and those criticisms have been answered.

Then Dr. Al-Ghamdi brings up the controversial role of The Economist. He repeats a number of archaic arguments that have been raised and answered to on a number of occasions. Once again, we shall discuss the issue in brief.

Firstly, significant clerical help is arranged for judges who preside over historic tribunals which have come to operation to deal with serious crimes like war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity. An army of research associates along with copy editors and proof readers are engaged to help the judges. Such arrangement was not possible in case of the ICT. An insolvent country such as Bangladesh could not afford such luxury, due to bureaucratic complexity and financial limitations.. Some selfless souls have given this research, editing and drafting help to the ICT judges. This is reflected in the ICT-I’s December 6^th Order order as well. The court has made it clear that help is provided for research, drafting and editing assistance only. This assistance was provided according to the instruction and extent set by the judges. What is wrong with providing assistance regarding research and copy editing under the direction of the judges? Proof-reading does not make anyone the writer. There is nothing illegal or opaque in the whole process.

Secondly, the discussion in the illegally hacked audio recording was informal and, at its worst, a gossip. Justice Nizamul Haque and Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin talked about the ongoing trial, its progress, and the response of people and government. Theirs was no different than the private conversations that take place in millions of living rooms. The transcript published by the perpetrators shows that they talked about Hajj schedule, social gatherings, their physical conditions and, of course, about the ICTs. This is very predictable as they both are men of law; one of them is directly involved with ICT-1. So, here is nothing to be surprised.

Thirdly, it is mentioned that Government of Bangladesh has gone crazy to finish the trial. This is also very natural for the Government. We don’t see many examples of such trials in history. Bangladesh has taken up this mammoth task after four long decades. She is using her resources and manpower so that the tribunals can operate successfully. People of Bangladesh are wholeheartedly waiting to witness justice after what they have gone through in 1971 and the following forty two years. So, there is nothing shocking if the Government is concerned about the tribunal’s pace. What is indeed noticeable is that both Justice Nizamul Haque and Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin repeatedly mention their commitment to a fair trial, irrespective of how long it might take. Unfortunately, this talking point is carefully left out by Dr. Al-Ghamdi and other compatriots of his who are on a mission to discredit the ICT. What Mr Ghamdi fails to acknowledge is that the materials that have been allegedly hacked, have obviously been obtained using illegal means. His tolerance of illegality to such an extent is quite revealing about his role, and certainly indicates lack of objectivity on his part.
Dr. Al-Ghamdi expresses his concern about “dramatic shifting of witness”. About the missing witness, Mr. Sukh Ranjan Bali, it was mentioned that he has been missing for the previous 9 months. His daughter, Monica Rani Mondal, filed a general diary about this in the police station in person. However, he appeared in court under defence attorney’s supervision when the prosecution was looking for him. After the hacking incident a different question arises – are the witnesses actually safe? The privacy of an honourable judge has been breached, illegally. And since judges are the custodians of the secrets regarding witness protections, we can certainly fear that their security and privacy have perhaps been breached too. This could be an explanation why witnesses under given names refused to appear, as their real identity must have been compromised by this hacking.

Nobody, involved in this Skype incident, committed anything illegal or unfair. This has been made obvious by the Economist’s report [7] –

“We do not believe he has broken any laws and cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. In addition, our investigations have not covered any aspect of the defence’s approach to this tribunal.”

Though no law has been violated, Justice Nizamul Haque has resigned to keep the trial free from unnecessary debate. In this context, Dr. Al-Ghamdi, referring some lawyers of Bangladesh, wants a retrial. This is absurd as the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act does not allow retrials for such reasons. From section 6(6) of the Act [4],

“A Tribunal shall not, merely by reason of any change in its membership or the absence of any member thereof from any sitting, be bound to recall and re-hear any witness who has already given any evidence and may act on the evidence already given or produced before it.”

Again and again, Dr. Al-Ghamdi tries to portray a scenario that Bangladesh Government is aiming to weaken their political rival, the so called Muslim leaders of Bangladesh. The truth is, the trial has nothing to do with the religion or politics of the alleged war criminals. The accused are being tried for what they have done forty years ago, not for the political ideology they are loyal to. Our South-East Asian expert must have heard about the strike observed by the leftist political parties. They demanded the completion of trial of war criminals as soon as possible and they are not sharing the ruling power. Again, we may ask, who Dr. Al-Ghamdi is calling Muslim leaders? That Jamaat-e-Islami, the leading party which consists of top war criminals, has wiped out ‘Rule of Allah’ from their party charter just to qualify for the election [8]. And he calls it an Islamic party!

The 1136-word article of Dr. Al-Ghamdi is but an eclectic collection of inaccuracies. It appears to be prepared intentionally to spread propaganda against the ongoing trials and to impede justice. It can serve one single purpose – creating misconception. Previously, he wrote a letter addressing the Prime Minister of Bangladesh which also was full to the brim with misinterpretations and misrepresentations.

* * *

We may conclude with some words from Syed Asif Shahkar, a Sweedish Justice of Pakistani origin. About the ongoing trial of the war criminals in Bangladesh Mr. Shahkar says [9],

“It is unfortunate that the country could not hold the trials of those who betrayed their brothers in native land. There is no question that they [war criminals] would escape the trial.”

While people around every corner of the globe, even from Pakistan, want justice to be upheld and war criminals to be brought to justice, people like Dr. Al-Ghamdi are trying to impede the trial.
What people like Dr. Al-Ghamdi are avoiding is the obvious fact that the victims of the genocide are the people of Bangladesh. Three million people has been killed, about four hundred thousand women have been brutally raped and tortured. All the people of Bangladesh want is justice; all they want is the end of an impunity that has been haunting them for four long decades.

For the sake of justice and humanity, ICTs need cooperation of the people from all over the world. The peace-loving people from every corner of the globe as well as the government of Bangladesh must take immediate measures to stop such propaganda.

Source: bdnews24