Faruque Ahmed
The death of Prof. Ghulam Azam as a convict of crimes against humanity at Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU) Hospital prison cell on October 23 has raised more questions than closing his case dossier.
The nonagenarian leader of Islamist movement and former Amir of Jamaat-e-Islami in Bangladesh who also enjoyed wide exposure to Muslim countries as a pan-Islamist scholar was serving a 90-year sentence at an age of 93 at the time of his death.
Meanwhile, the International Crime Tribunal (ICT) awarded death sentence to Maulana Matiur Rahman Nizami last week on similar charges of crimes against humanity during the liberation war; however all contested by the defense as framed up charges. Another verdict on Mir Qasim Ali is scheduled early this week on Sunday.
Controversy over Ghulam Azam
Ghulam Azam was tried on charges of genocide and other war crimes in 1971 when he actively campaigned against the liberation of Bangladesh and collaborated with the occupation forces to keep Pakistan united.
The ICT-1 awarded the verdict on July 15 last year and his appeal against the verdict to the Supreme Court was scheduled for hearing on December 2. His death from a massive heart attack however left the matter to be now finally resolved by history in an impassionate environment.
There is a widely held belief that the ruling party Awami League is holding war crime trial of its former political cohorts for switching sides to BNP led alliance although it helped Awami League to form the government in 1996 with overt support from Jamaat leader Ghulam Azam and his party men.
So controversy ran high throughout the hearing of Ghulam Azam and other’s cases case as Jamaat held the claim that the trial is a political vendetta while in the court defence lawyers raised the quality of prosecution materials and the credibility of witnesses saying these were tailored to suit purpose.
Defense lawyers said the charges were framed up to implicate Azam with the tragic war time tortures and killings to which he had no connection.
They said horrendous war crimes had taken place but the government is trying the wrong persons to eliminate its past political friends who have defected to anti-Awami League platform.
Meanwhile many Islamic organizations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty Internal and US government War Crimes Envoy Stephan Rap were among others who repeatedly urged Bangladesh government during the trial to ensure a transparent neutral trial.
Azam said he was a pol. leader, not a human right abuser
Defense lawyers complained of outside intervention to influence the trial process. Meanwhile the Skype conversation and e-mails on trial related matters as chronicled by Wikileak showed that the war crime charges against Salahuddin Quader Chowdury, Motiur Rahmab Nizami and Ghulam Azam were drafted for the court by an outsider from Belgium capital Brussels. The draft judgment of Delwar Hussan Sayeede’s case; which was closer to end had also come from the same source.
The court however ruled that it can take research assistance from outside and issued show cause notices on unauthorised use of court materials by some local and global media. The Bengali daily Amar Desh was closed and The Economist was asked to reply the show cause.
The rule said unauthorized use of court materials is punishable by law and not cognizable before the eyes of law. The ICT verdict thus remained above question and since it came from a duly constituted court, people got to accept it and we also accept it; no matter the Gonojagoan Manch and such other pro-government activists’ forums held regular rallies to influence the court’s verdicts.
But the mammoth crowd that gathered at the Namaj-e-Janaza of Prof Gulam Azam at the Baitul Mukarram national mosque last week opened a different dimension about how to judge the man who died with war crimes tag on his neck.
Now the nation has an official verdict that says he was rather given a lesser sentence considering the old age while he actually deserved capital punishment. But the huge gathering at Baitul Mukarram which looked like a human sea staggering over city streets came as a stark reminder to people despite the enormity of war crime charges that he was equally loved and admired by many.
The question is now whether he was innocent that earned him the love from people or it was essentially a gathering of party men who came to the place to eulogize their leader on death.
Prof Azam however dismissed all war crimes charges that included planning, committing genocide, torture of people and killing of a police officer Shiru Mia and three other civilians. He maintained that whatever role he had played was that of a political leader and he was never been involved in activities stated as crimes against humanity.
Unlike Qadir, Azam’a was a public funeral
The prosecution mainly used newspaper cuttings against him in support of the charges but Azam’s lawyers maintained these only showed the profile of a political leader and a Peace Committee founder and so on.
Nowhere had they said Azam had killed a man or tortured others. He said he worked for Pakistan on ideological ground; there was noting criminal in that. But the prosecution said Ghulam Azam as the leader of Jamaat-e-Islami was a collaborator and he can’t disown the tragedy and political and moral responsibility of the killing of the millions. He got what he had deserved.
Setting aside the debate, Ghulam Azam’s public funeral however brought to the fore the highly divisive nature of the country’s politics where the man is despised as a notorious war criminal in one hand but also held high by many on the other.
And in the eyes of many this politics of divisiveness has its root inside and outside the country where people are at work to see Bangladesh is fighting internally to go away with their benefits.
Meanwhile, many people have raised the question as to why the government has allowed the public funeral for Prof Ghulam Azam unlike Abdul Qadir Mollah whose body was sent to his village home after execution under police escort and the burial was quite private at night keeping villagers at a distance.
Ghulam Azam’s family has a lot to thank the government for the political generosity which allowed it to hold a public burial and use it to prove the popularity of the man who is most disliked by people on war crime issues.
However some of the ruling party front organizations like Awami Ulema Parishad and Online Activists Forum tried to foil the funeral procession at Baitul Mukarram but finally kept out of the scene in view of the huge crowd that gathered on the occasion.
Who gains – BNP or AL?
Meanwhile, political observers have raised question about BNP politics vis-à-vis Ghulam Azaam’s burial. Why any senior party leaders did not attend his Namaj-e-Jamaza is a big question that really remained shrouded in mystery despite the fact the Jamaat is a party which is a fighting the government together with BNP in the street.
It appeared that Awami League has won most people’s sympathy by allowing a trouble free public burial of Ghulam Azam but BNP lost to a large extent by failing to attend the Janaza and going without explaining why it made the choice to keep away from a funeral of the supreme leader of a major alliance partner.
Source: Weekly Holiday
