Killer & Murderers of Bangla President & Civilians Sheltered in the U.S., the West, & Arab-Muslim Countries

http://www.prothom-alo.com/opinion/article/611131/%E0%A6%AF%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B7%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%9F%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%A5%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%99%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%97%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A7%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%96%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BF-%E2%80%98%E0%A6%85%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%93%E0%A7%9F%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A1%E2%80%99%E2%80%93%E0%A6%8F%E0%A6%B0

Prothom Alo August 24, 2015

সরল গরল

যুক্তরাষ্ট্র থেকে বঙ্গবন্ধুর খুনি ‘অসওয়াল্ড’–এর প্রত্যর্পণ

মিজানুর রহমান খান | আপডেট: ০২:০৬, আগস্ট ২৪, ২০১৫ | প্রিন্ট সংস্করণ

  

বঙ্গবন্ধু হত্যার মৃত্যুদণ্ডপ্রাপ্ত আসামি এ এম রাশেদ চৌধুরীর যুক্তরাষ্ট্রে রাজনৈতিক আশ্রয়লাভের ঘটনায় কি মার্কিন নীতিগত পরিবর্তনের কোনো ইঙ্গিত আছে? এই প্রশ্নের উত্তরে নিরেট হ্যাঁ বা না বলা কঠিন।
কিন্তু আমরা মনে করতে পারি যে ১৯৭৫ সালের বিয়োগান্ত অধ্যায়ের পরে ঢাকার মার্কিন দূতাবাসকে ঘিরে অনেকেই রাজনৈতিক আশ্রয়লাভের চেষ্টা করেছিলেন। ৩ নভেম্বরের সূর্যাস্তের আগে ফারুক-রশীদসহ খোন্দকার মোশতাক মার্কিন হেলিকপ্টারযোগে পালাতে চেয়েছিলেন। কিসিঞ্জার সিদ্ধান্ত দিয়েছিলেন দরকার পড়লে তাঁরা আপাতত মার্কিন দূতাবাসে আশ্রয় নেবেন। মেজর মহিউদ্দিন আহমেদ সস্ত্রীক আশ্রয় প্রার্থনা করেছিলেন, তিনি পাননি। রাজনৈতিক আশ্রয় প্রার্থনার বড় নাটকটি ঘটেছিল নভেম্বরে যখন ফারুক-রশীদ ব্যাংককে মার্কিন মিশনে ধরনা দিয়েছিলেন। কিসিঞ্জারের বিবেচনার নীতি আমরা জানতে পারি। কিন্তু মার্কিন পররাষ্ট্র দপ্তর হয়তো তাঁকে সমর্থন দেয়নি। তখন প্রেসিডেন্ট ছিলেন জেরাল্ড ফোর্ড। নিক্সন টিকে থাকলে কিসিঞ্জার যদি তাঁদের আশ্রয় দিতেন, তাহলে অবাক হতাম না। কিন্তু যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের প্রশাসনে ন্যায্য নীতি গ্রহণকারী লোকের আকাল পড়েনি। ব্যাংককে হোয়াইট হাউস, ঢাকায় বোস্টার ও দিল্লিতে স্যাক্সবি—এই তিন মার্কিন রাষ্ট্রদূত তাঁদের আশ্রয় না দিতে কিসিঞ্জারকে চিঠি লিখেছিলেন। স্যাক্সবি লিখেছিলেন, তাঁদের হাতে রক্ত লেগে আছে।
তাই যুক্তরাষ্ট্র যখন স্বতঃপ্রণোদিত হয়ে এ কে এম মহিউদ্দিন আহমেদকে ২০০৭ সালে ফেরত পাঠায়, তখন তা ছিল দৃশ্যত পঁচাত্তরের নীতির ধারাবাহিকতা। এক-এগারোতে কীভাবে এ রকম একটি আওয়ামী লীগবান্ধব সিদ্ধান্ত মার্কিন প্রশাসনে আপনাআপনি গৃহীত হয়েছিল, তা-ও কম বিস্ময়কর নয়। যদি কেউ হিসাব মেলাতে চান, তাহলে বলতে পারেন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র বুঝতে পেরেছিল আওয়ামী লীগ বড় মাপে ক্ষমতায় আসছে, সুতরাং একটি সন্ধি করে রাখা হোক। ১৯৯৬ সালে প্রথম সরকার গঠন করে শেখ হাসিনা মার্কিন প্রেসিডেন্ট বিল ক্লিনটনকে ঢাকায় আনতে বড় ভূমিকা রেখেছিলেন। ক্লিনটন ৩২ নম্বরে না গেলেও কূটনৈতিক শিষ্টাচার রক্ষায় কোনো ছন্দপতন ঘটেনি। ড. মুহাম্মদ ইউনূস ইস্যুতে একটা অহি-নকুল সম্পর্ক রাতারাতি কী করে এত দ্রুত ডালপালা বিস্তার করল, তা-ও এক প্রশ্ন। অনেকেই একমত এই বিষয়ে ব্যক্তিগত আবেগ-অনুভূতি রাষ্ট্রীয় নীতির ওপরে স্থান পেয়ে থাকতে পারে। কিন্তু এটা স্বস্তির যে এই বিষয়ে অনেক দিন ধরে একটা স্থিতাবস্থা বিরাজ করছে, আর তাকে ভালো একটা অগ্রগতি হিসেবেই দেখা হয়ে থাকে।
পঁচাত্তরের খুনিদের রাজনৈতিক আশ্রয় নাকচ প্রশ্নে মার্কিন সরকার পঁচাত্তরের নীতির ধারাবাহিকতা বজায় রাখবে বলে ধারণা ছিল। আকস্মিকভাবে রাশেদের রাজনৈতিক আশ্রয় প্রদানের ঘটনাটি তাই অবাক হওয়ার মতোই। ঢাকায় সাবেক মার্কিন রাষ্ট্রদূত মরিয়ার্টির ২০০৯ সালের তারবার্তা (উইকিলিকস সূত্রে প্রাপ্ত) অবশ্য সাক্ষ্য দিচ্ছে যে ২০০৮ সালের জানুয়ারিতেই মার্কিন বিচার মন্ত্রণালয়ের বোর্ড রাশেদের রাজনৈতিক আশ্রয়ের আবেদন মঞ্জুর করেছিলেন। তবে ওই সময় পর্যন্ত খুনিদের বিষয়ে মার্কিন নীতি ছিল—রাজনৈতিক আশ্রয় প্রার্থনা-সংক্রান্ত কোনো তথ্য প্রকাশ না করা। নবম সার্কিটের বিচারিক সিদ্ধান্তে মহিউদ্দিনকে ফেরত পাঠানো হলো। আবার আরেক ইমিগ্রেশন বিচারকের রায়ের সূত্রে খুনি রাশেদ সস্ত্রীক আশ্রয় পেলেন।
যদিও এমনটা হতে পারে যে ২০০৭ সালে মহিউদ্দিন যে বিচার–প্রক্রিয়ায় এসেছিলেন, সেই প্রক্রিয়ার সঙ্গে পঁচাত্তরে তাঁর প্রার্থনা নাকচ হওয়ার বিষয়টি বিবেচ্য ছিল না। মার্কিন পররাষ্ট্র দপ্তরের প্রশাসনের এটা মনে থাকার কথা। তারা কি এ-সংক্রান্ত তথ্য আদালতকে জানিয়েছিল? আমরা তা জানি না। রাশেদের বিষয়ে সিদ্ধান্তের বিস্তারিত আমরা জানি না।
এখন বাংলাদেশ সরকারের উচিত প্রকাশ্য বক্তৃতা-বিবৃতি এড়িয়ে কূটনৈতিক চ্যানেলে নীরব অথচ জোরালো কূটনৈতিক তৎপরতায় শামিল হওয়া। জিএসপি সুবিধাভোগকারীদের সাম্প্রতিক তালিকায় বাংলাদেশের নাম না থাকায় সরকারি প্রতিক্রিয়ায় বিরক্তির ছাপ স্পষ্ট ছিল। অথচ ওই সময়ে বাংলাদেশের নাম অন্তর্ভুক্ত হওয়ার কথাই ছিল না। তাই যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের প্রতি সরকারের বিরাগ স্পষ্ট হয়ে উঠছে। ন্যায্য বিষয়ে ন্যায্য কথা নিশ্চয় বলতে হবে। এবং সেটা কখন কী ভাষায় বলতে হয়, তার উদাহরণ ফিদেল কাস্ত্রো রেখেছেন। মার্কিনদের প্রতি কঠোরতা প্রকাশে বিশ্ব তাঁর মুখে কখনো ‘দুই আনার মন্ত্রী’ ধরনের অমার্জিত মন্তব্য শোনেনি।
সরকারের মিত্র হিসেবে পরিচিতরা হিলারি ক্লিনটনের নির্বাচনকে সামনে রেখে অনেক অপ্রয়োজনীয় মন্তব্য করছেন। সত্যিকারের প্রত্যক্ষ নির্বাচনের মাধ্যমে যুক্তরাষ্ট্র প্রথম নারী প্রেসিডেন্ট হিসেবে হিলারিকে পেলে তা হবে বিশ্ব সভ্যতার জন্য এক অবিস্মরণীয় গৌরবের বিষয়। এ রকম একটি উপলক্ষের সম্ভাবনা বাস্তবে রূপ পেলে আমাদের বিদেশি বন্ধুরা সন্তোষের বহিঃপ্রকাশ ঘটাবেন। সেই কূটনীতি থেকে নিজেদের অকারণে দূরে সরিয়ে রাখার পরিবেশ তৈরি করা সমীচীন হবে না।
পররাষ্ট্রনীতিতে আবেগের স্থান নেই। সীমান্তের বাইরে স্থায়ী শত্রুমিত্র হয় না, সেখানে জাতীয় স্বার্থ ছাড়া আর কিছু স্থায়ী হতে নেই, ব্রিটিশ প্রধানমন্ত্রী পামারস্টোনের এই উক্তি বিশ্বনেতারা মেনে চলছেন। বাংলাদেশের মতো বিদেশনির্ভর দেশের জন্য আবেগতাড়িত নীতি আরও বেশি অনিরাপদ। প্রতীয়মান হয় যে মহিউদ্দিন ও রাশেদের বিষয়ে পরস্পরবিরোধী বিচারিক রায় এসেছে। এ রকম সিদ্ধান্তের বিরুদ্ধে রিভিউর সুযোগ থাকাটাই স্বাভাবিক। কারণ, বঙ্গবন্ধুর হত্যার বিচারের মানের প্রশ্নটি নবম সার্কিটের বিচারকেরা যাচাই করেছিলেন, আর তাঁদের রায় বাংলাদেশের পক্ষে এসেছিল। মার্কিন কংগ্রেসম্যান ম্যাকডারমট মহিউদ্দিনের প্রত্যাবাসন ঠেকাতে একটি বেসরকারি বিল (এইচআর ২১৮১) এনেছিলেন। কিন্তু তা বিফলে গেছে। সুতরাং আমরা দেখলাম এক-এগারোতে মার্কিন রাজনীতিকেরা আমাদের রায়ের পক্ষেই থাকলেন। উপরন্তু নবম সার্কিট কোর্ট অব আপিলস বললেন, ‘মহিউদ্দিন এটা প্রমাণ করতে ব্যর্থ হয়েছেন যে তাঁর অনুপস্থিতিতে যে বিচার হয়েছে, তা মৌলিকভাবে অন্যায্য। এবং তাঁকে যথাযথ প্রক্রিয়ার আশ্রয় লাভ থেকে বঞ্চিত করা হয়েছে।’ তাহলে এটা খতিয়ে দেখার বিষয় যে রাশেদ তাহলে কী প্রমাণ করেছেন। একই বিচার–প্রক্রিয়াকে বিপরীত প্রমাণ করতে পারার অর্থ দাঁড়াবে, অভিন্ন আইনি প্রশ্নে মার্কিন আদালতের রায় সাংঘর্ষিক হয়ে উঠেছে। আসলে আমাদের জানতে হবে কী যুক্তিতে রাশেদ আশ্রয় পেলেন।
ভেতরে ভেতরে যা-ই মনে করা হোক না কেন, বঙ্গবন্ধু স্বাধীনতার আগে ও পরে মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র সরকারের সঙ্গে ভারসাম্য রক্ষার নীতি সতর্কতার সঙ্গে রক্ষা করে চলেছেন। তখন খুব বিরল ক্ষেত্রেই প্রকাশ্য মার্কিন বৈরিতা দেখানো হয়েছিল। তা না হলে কিসিঞ্জার ঢাকা সফরে আসতেন না, তাঁর বাংলাদেশনীতি বঙ্গবন্ধুর অজানা ছিল না। কিন্তু তিনি এও জানতেন বাংলাদেশ রাষ্ট্রের মাপের চেয়ে তাঁর ব্যক্তিগত আবেগ-অনুভূতি পররাষ্ট্রনীতিকে ছাপিয়ে যেতে পারে না। দুর্ভিক্ষ সৃষ্টিতে কিসিঞ্জারের হাত আমরা নাকচ করতে অপারগ, কিন্তু দেখার বিষয় হলো পঁচাত্তরের ৬ আগস্টে বোস্টারের সঙ্গে সাক্ষাতে বঙ্গবন্ধু উচ্ছ্বাসের সঙ্গে নয়া মার্কিন খাদ্য সাহায্য প্রদানে গভীর সন্তোষ প্রকাশ করেছিলেন।
মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র প্রশ্নে বঙ্গবন্ধু মার্কিন জনগণ, মিডিয়া, কনসার্ট, টেড কেনেডি ও অার্চার ব্লাডের মতো লোকদের ভূমিকাকে আলাদা করেছিলেন। সেটাও এক কৌশল ছিল। মুজিব জোটনিরপেক্ষ নীতি এবং কারও প্রতি বৈরিতা নয়, সবার সঙ্গে বন্ধুত্বকে পররাষ্ট্রনীতির মূলভিত্তি করেছিলেন, যা কালোত্তীর্ণ হয়েছে। আবেগের কারণে এ থেকে সরে যাওয়া উচিত হবে না।
কূটনীতির প্রচেষ্টা চালাতে হবে। বিএনপিরও উচিত হবে খুনিদের ফেরত দিতে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রকে অনুরোধ জানানোর। দুই দেশের মধ্যে
বন্দী প্রত্যর্পণ চুক্তি সইয়ের প্রক্রিয়াকে তীব্র করতে হবে। বর্তমান মার্কিন রাষ্ট্রদূত মার্শা বার্নিকাট খুনিদের ফেরত দেওয়ার ব্যাপারে বিবেচনার আশ্বাস দিয়েছেন। বার্নিকাট এ বিষয়ে ঢাকায় তাঁর পূর্বসূরি রাষ্ট্রদূত ডেভিড এন মেরিলকে অনুসরণ করার প্রকাশ্য নীতি বিবেচনা করতে পারেন।
১৯৯৬ সালে মার্কিন পলিটিক্যাল কাউন্সেলর ছিলেন স্টিফেন আইজেনব্রাউন। তিনি এক সাক্ষাৎকারে তথ্য প্রকাশ করেন যে মেরিল মার্কিন পররাষ্ট্র দপ্তরের কাছে খুনিদের ফিরিয়ে দেওয়ার পক্ষে জোরালো অবস্থান নিয়েছিলেন। মার্কিন প্রেসিডেন্ট রিচার্ড কেনেডিকে ১৯৬৩ সালে গুলি করে হত্যা করা হয়। রাশেদের মতোই তাঁর আততায়ী হার্ভে লি অসওয়াল্ড মার্কিন সামরিক বাহিনীর লোক ছিলেন। তাঁর বিচার হয়নি। কারণ, গ্রেপ্তারের দুই দিন পরে তিনি এক তথাকথিত ক্রসফায়ারে নিহত হয়েছিলেন। খুনের আগে হার্ভে স্বপক্ষত্যাগী হিসেবে সোভিয়েত ইউনিয়নে রাজনৈতিক আশ্রয় লাভ করেছিলেন।
ডেভিড মেরিল যুক্তি দিয়েছিলেন যে কেনেডির খুনি হার্ভে লি যদি পালিয়ে বাংলাদেশে আশ্রয় নিতেন, তাহলে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রও তো বাংলাদেশের কাছে সহযোগিতার অনুরোধ জানাত। আমরা মনে করি, সর্বোচ্চ আদালতে মৃত্যুদণ্ডপ্রাপ্ত রাশেদকে যুক্তরাষ্ট্র আনুষ্ঠানিকভাবে রাজনৈতিক আশ্রয় দিয়ে রাষ্ট্রদূত মেরিলের সেই যুক্তিকে আরও বেশি তীক্ষ্ণ করে তুলেছে।
মিজানুর রহমান খান: সাংবাদিক৷
mrkhanbd@gmail.com

http://www.prothom-alo.com/bangladesh/article/614548/%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%99%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%97%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A7%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%96%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%B6%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%9F%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BE-%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%8B%E0%A6%9A%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A7%9F

Prothom Alo August 27, 2015

বঙ্গবন্ধুর খুনিদের আশ্রয়দাতা দেশের সমালোচনায় কৃষিমন্ত্রী

নিজস্ব প্রতিবেদক | আপডেট: ১৫:২৬, আগস্ট ২৭, ২০১৫

Minister Matia Chowdhury

বঙ্গবন্ধু শেখ মুজিবুর রহমানের খুনিদের আশ্রয়দাতা দেশগুলোর সমালোচনা করেছেন কৃষিমন্ত্রী মতিয়া চৌধুরী। আজ বৃহস্পতিবার দুপুরে রাজধানীর জাতীয় প্রেসক্লাবে আয়োজিত শোক দিবসের এক আলোচনা সভায় মতিয়া চৌধুরী এ সমালোচনা করেন। শেখ রাসেল দাবা ক্লাব এই আলোচনা সভার আয়োজন করে।
আলোচনা সভায় কৃষিমন্ত্রী প্রশ্ন তোলেন, যদি আমেরিকার প্রেসিডেন্ট কেনেডির হত্যাকারী কেউ বাংলাদেশে থাকত, তাহলে তারা কি বাংলাদেশকে ছেড়ে কথা বলত?
কানাডাসহ যেসব দেশে বঙ্গবন্ধুর খুনিরা আছেন, সেসব দেশের জনগণ ও সরকারের উদ্দেশে প্রায় একই ধরনের প্রশ্ন রাখেন মন্ত্রী।
মতিয়া চৌধুরী বলেন, বাংলাদেশের জাতির জনকের হত্যাকারীদের আশ্রয়দাতা দেশগুলো লম্বা লম্বা কথা বলে। তাদের ‘মানবাধিকার’ নিয়েও প্রশ্ন তোলেন মন্ত্রী। খুনিদের বিচার দাবি করেন তিনি।
১৪ আগস্ট প্রথম আলোয় প্রকাশিত প্রতিবেদন অনুসারে, বঙ্গবন্ধুর খুনিদের একজন এ এম রাশেদ চৌধুরীকে রাজনৈতিক আশ্রয় দিয়েছে যুক্তরাষ্ট্র। আরেক খুনি মোসলেম উদ্দিনও যুক্তরাষ্ট্রে আছেন। তিনি সেখানে রাজনৈতিক আশ্রয় চেয়ে পাননি। আর মৃত্যুদণ্ডবিরোধী অবস্থানের কারণে নুর চৌধুরীকে বাংলাদেশের কাছে ফেরত দেবে না কানাডা। আত্মস্বীকৃত ছয় খুনির অপর তিনজন খন্দকার আবদুর রশিদ, শরিফুল হক ডালিম ও আবদুল মাজেদ কোথায় আছেন, তা সরকার জানে না।

Hypocracy of Communal Left of India: Bangladesh Assessment

http://www.observerbd.com/2015/06/23/95703.php

The Daily Observer, Dhaka, June 23, 2015

IN BLACK & WHITE

An out of touch Indian journalist

--- Syed Badrul Ahsan

The first time I heard of Kuldip Nayar was in the early 1970s. His slim work, Distant Neighbours: A Tale of the Subcontinent, had just been published in India. It was the theme of the book, Nayar’s interviews of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto on their meeting soon after Pakistan’s military defeat in Bangladesh and the Bengali leader’s release from solitary confinement in Mianwali to house arrest near Islamabad, which aroused my interest in the Indian journalist. I was not to get hold of the work until nearly a decade later, though, when Zakia Badrudduja, the young woman I was in love with and whom I was happily destined to marry, located the book for me at College Street in Calcutta. And, yes, Calcutta was her hometown.

Since that time, my respect for Kuldip Nayar has been abiding. I have read his articles and truly enjoyed going through his memoirs. There have been the many occasions when he and I have met as participants at various seminars in Delhi, Lahore, Islamabad and Kathmandu. Not long ago, he was present at a memorial meeting on the hugely respected Nikhil Chakravartty in New Delhi. I was proud to be there, for I was in the good company of Medha Patkar, Dr. Kamal Hossain and S. Nihal Singh.

I have always found Kuldip Nayar to be a dispassionate observer of politics in South Asia. It is a quality not many in the profession, be it in Dhaka, Delhi and Islamabad are able to bring into their assessment of conditions in the subcontinent. It was, therefore, with disbelief that I went through Nayar’s write-up, “A shot in the arm for Hasina”,  in the issue of The Statesman of 11 June 2015.

My surprise comes related to the viciousness which appears to underline the entire write-up, given especially the fact that Kuldip Nayar’s reputation as a journalist of integrity has always impressed people in South Asia. In the Statesman article, though, Nayar obviously fails the test of integrity. Observe what he has to say about Bangladesh’s prime minister and right at the beginning too. Sheikh Hasina, he informs his readers, needed the presence of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Dhaka to “shore up (her) sagging image.” That is quite a bolt out of the blue. You tend to ask where exactly Nayar has found the Bangladesh leader’s image sagging. Could he have been listening too intently to the right-wing opposition led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party of former premier Khaleda Zia arrayed against her, indeed against secular forces in the country? Nayar comes forth with no evidence to demonstrate that Sheikh Hasina’s image is on a nosedive. Besides, by suggesting that the Bangladesh leader needs an Indian leader’s support to enhance her image in her country, Kuldip Nayar is calling into question the patriotism and integrity of a political leader who has, in office, been engaged in rolling back the many manifest wrongs that in the past were committed by regimes benefiting from the collapse of secular forces in 1975. Nayar has lost sight of the fact that Sheikh Hasina heads a government which holds office under proper constitutional provisions. His article gives you the bad impression Bangladesh’s government is in office on the strength of extra-constitutional action.

Kuldip Nayar notes that Sheikh Hasina has no right to “flout the Constitution and accepted norms.” Of course she hasn’t. But the problem --- for Nayar --- is that he cites no instance of any violation of the Constitution by Bangladesh’s prime minister. If he has been listening to certain quarters in Dhaka who have never been comfortable with the maintenance of constitutional government through the general election of January 2014, he is doing grievous wrong to his sense of journalistic propriety and to his readers. Let the record be set straight. In the months prior to the January 2014 election, the BNP-led opposition engaged in a long series of violence, layered by repeated general strikes and blockades, to force the government elected in December 2008 to resign and hand over power to an unconstitutional caretaker administration.

It is a matter of satisfaction for Bangladesh’s people that the Awami League-led government refused to genuflect before such unreasonable agitation and went ahead with holding a fresh election in January last year. That was a constitutional act. Yes, the fact that a hundred and fifty three lawmakers were elected without contest did not make us happy. But what do you do if no rivals step up to give such ‘elected unopposed’ politicians a fight? How is a government supposed to act when in the midst of voting, for reasons that are really no reasons, a political party instructs its candidates to take themselves out of the voting? Had the January 2014 election been deferred, democratic politics would come into question and --- who knows? --- yet once again a third force, unelected and therefore unrepresentative, would be foisted on the country. Why didn’t Kuldip Nayar consider these realities before putting his pen to paper?

You are quite at sea when you have Kuldip Nayar wondering “why and for how long” Sheikh Hasina’s government can be supported by India. Really? Now, that is not unacceptable, for it shows Nayar speaking from on high. The tone is condescending. Besides, he suddenly appears to have lost touch with the dynamics of Bangladesh politics. Whatever makes him think that Bangladesh’s government is in power today because of Indian support? By making such insinuations, Nayar clearly insults the people of Bangladesh and only reinforces the thought that elements like him are people who create the bad image of India being Big Brother in the region. He should have done his homework properly before flailing away at Bangladesh’s democratically elected government. He thinks the ballot boxes at the recent elections to the city corporations in Dhaka and Chittagong were stuffed by ruling party supporters. Yes, they were, in a fairly small number of cases, ninety seven in all. That was a wrong act, indeed a criminal act. But, again, Nayar should have pointed out the hundreds upon hundreds of other polling booths where voting went on undisturbed. It is obvious he did not do his arithmetic very well. And those who gave him the wrong figures did not serve him well.

Kuldip Nayar has always been of the opinion that Indira Gandhi was an authoritarian leader, principally because of her imposition of Emergency in 1975. And now he has attempted to tar Sheikh Hasina with the same ‘authoritarian’ brush, something which certainly does not become him. He is disturbed that Narendra Modi made what he calls a mistimed visit to Dhaka. You are curious: does Nayar believe that Modi’s visit should have taken place after Sheikh Hasina had abdicated her democratic responsibilities and those who have been agitating against constitutional government had been allowed to take charge of Bangladesh?

Nayar speaks of the “cavalier manner in which (Hasina) has suppressed dissent.” He cites no instance to substantiate his statement. Does he not read all that is being written in Bangladesh’s newspapers? Does he not see the commentaries regularly castigating the government and especially Sheikh Hasina written by Bangladeshi newspaper editors for whom he remains a hero? None of his friends --- and they all wrote commentary after commentary in the pre-January 2014 period asking for the election to be shifted, without considering the bad constitutional ramifications such postponement would lead to --- has had his voice stifled.  Has he never watched a talk show on the nearly thirty privately-owned Bangladeshi television channels, where panelists regularly excoriate the government over its policies?

Nayar disseminates a patent untruth when he accuses the Bangladesh leader of “herself extinguishing the flame of democracy.” He has conveniently skirted around the fact that in the twenty one years before she led the Awami League back to power in June 1996, it was a restoration of democracy and everything it symbolized that Sheikh Hasina and her party struggled for. For Kuldip Nayar, there seem to be some inconvenient truths he would rather look away from. He does not tell his readers that General Ziaur Rahman, General Hussein Muhammad Ershad and Khaleda Zia went out on a limb to destroy Bangladesh’s history through upholding the notorious Indemnity Act preventing a trial of the killers of the Father of the Nation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Many of those killers were sent abroad as diplomats. Some others formed political parties and contested elections engineered by unelected regimes. The elected government of Khaleda Zia, in office from 1991 to 1996 and then from 2001 to 2006, maintained the ugly tradition of a denial of history instituted by the military regimes.

All of that despicable manifestation of power was done away with under Sheikh Hasina. Her government repealed the Indemnity Act and brought the killers to trial. The collaborators of the Pakistan occupation army, rehabilitated by Zia, Ershad and Khaleda, have had their comeuppance, to the relief of Bangladesh’s people, under Sheikh Hasina. Is all that an extinguishing of democracy? Is upholding anti-history a sign of democratic behaviour?

Kuldip Nayar makes no mention of the street violence generated by Khaleda Zia’s BNP in tandem with the notorious Jamaat-e-Islami. He has no time to reflect on the more than 150 innocent citizens pushed to their deaths in petrol-bombing by opposition activists. He deliberately ignores the fact that under this government a number of elections and by-elections have been held, acts which have clearly reinforced the nation’s faith in democratic politics.

It was a badly written article. It ignores reality. It lacked in moral integrity. Worse, it has made a serious dent in Kuldip Nayar’s standing as a journalist. When a journalist of repute slips in judgement, you who have been his admirer feel the pain. You begin to think of tragic flaws, those which ruin otherwise perfectly good men.

Syed Badrul Ahsan is Associate Editor, The Daily Observer. E-mail: ahsan.syedbadrul@gmail.com #

http://www.thestatesman.com/mobi/news/opinion/a-shot-in-the-arm-for-hasina/68705.html

Statesman Calcutta June 11, 2015

A shot in the arm for Hasina

Kuldip Nayar
Posted at: Jun 11 2015 5:48AM

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Dhaka was mistimed. It looked as if he had gone to shore up the sagging image of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. He has only heightened anti-India feelings because New Delhi is not seen as neutral.

I do not know why and for how long we have to support the authoritarian rule by Prime Minister Hasina in Bangladesh. True, she is the daughter of Sheikh Mujib-ur Rehman, who liberated East Pakistan from distant and oppressive West Pakistan. But that does not give her the right to flout the Constitution and accepted norms.

Take for example, the recent municipal polls at Dhaka and Chittagong. Ballot papers in favour of candidates of the ruling Awami League were shoved into the ballot boxes to the horror of voters and others. Sheikh Mujib must be turning in his grave. He had restored the people’s right to express themselves against the military junta ruling from Rawalpindi.

No doubt, Modi’s visit has given a shot in the arm to secular forces against the burgeoning influence of fundamentalists, led by the Jammiat-e-Islam. But Hasina would still have had her way. In fact, the cavalier manner in which she has suppressed dissent arouses doubts about her credentials. Did she ever have conviction about a free state and the democratic way of governance?

The most glaring example is the manner in which she has humiliated Bangladesh’s first foreign minister Kamal Hasan. He is a colleague of her father Sheikh Mujib and is a legend in his lifetime for adhering to values. The boycott of elections by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) was an unthinking act. True, Hasina made it obvious that she would go to any extent to win at the polls. Yet, if the BNP had participated a few of its candidates would have been returned and would have opposed Hasina’s point of view before the people.

Undoubtedly, general elections decide the fate of rulers. But the municipal vote is important to assess whether the party which won has fulfilled through governance the promises it had made during the national poll campaign.

India is lucky that the path on which the first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, put the country - democratic and secular - is being followed diligently. His daughter Indira Gandhi derailed democracy and not only gagged the press but suspended fundamental rights. But people did not take things lying down. They ventilated their pent-up anger when elections were announced and It is unimaginable that even the mighty Indira Gandhi could be defeated.

It is another matter that when she returned to power in 1980 she went out of the way to punish even those bureaucrats who carried out their duties. It is a pity that she took revenge against all those whom she suspected were anywhere near the Janata government.

The Congress Party in India, the author of the emergency, has learnt its lesson. The party has regretted its misdoings. I wish the party had apologised to the nation. There is a lot of difference between a regret and an apology.

Unfortunately Bangladesh, a product of the people’s right to a say in governance, has lost the vigour of expression which the nation once had. This is a sad development by itself. But it becomes all the more poignant when the person changing it is from the family which liberated the people from the clutches of West Pakistan.

No one else is to blame except Hasina. She is herself extinguishing the flame of democracy. That it should be done by the daughter of Sheikh Mujib is not only disappointing but also disconcerting. That she can shackle the nation still further is a harrowing thought. But it can happen since she has effaced the lines between right and wrong, moral and immoral.

In this atmosphere of Hasina representing a dictatorial figure, Modi’s visit was all the more unfortunate. He should have said somewhere while in Bangladesh that the country was a product of revolution and it should continue to radiate the same kind of thoughts. But he preferred to placate her even though the people of Bangladesh were disappointed because they expected India to give some sign that it is not happy with the way Hasina is functioning.

True, Modi was able to implement a long-standing agreement on the exchange of enclaves. But this understanding had the support of all parties when the matter was discussed in parliament. Of course, the credit for implementing the accord goes to him. But he should have used the opportunity to thank all the political parties in supporting the accord with a useful and endearing neighbour. For him to take the credit of demolishing the “Berlin Wall” is churlish.

I wish he had refrained from criticising Pakistan. Not that the criticism is uncalled for but on foreign soil when he was talking about amity in South Asia, he should have avoided singling out Islamabad. He should realise, as his predecessors have, that the countries in South Asia someday must have a common market and lend a helping hand to each other in business, trade and development.

The people of Bangladesh were expecting some agreement on the Teesta waters. But foreign minister Sushma Swaraj’s statement was unhelpful because even before undertaking the journey to Dhaka she said that Teesta was not on the agenda during the current visit by Modi. West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee’s visit along with Prime Minister Modi was an important development. It should indicate to Dhaka that New Delhi is serious about settling the problems on Teesta. That it did not happen during Modi’s visit should not be taken to mean that India was adamant in having its own way. In fact, Mamata’s visit should convince Dhaka that while a settlement may take some time the process has started.
  

Protect Hinuds, Amnesty International urges Bangladesh

Daily Star, Dhaka

March 7, 2013

Protect Hindus, AI urges Bangladesh

Star Online Report

(Destroyed Deity)

This March 5 photo shows vandalised idols in a Hindu temple in Singra upazila of Natore.

In the wake of a wave of violent attacks against the country’s minority Hindu community, Amnesty International has made an urgent call to the government to provide them with better protection.

Over the past week, individuals taking part in strikes called for by Islamic parties have vandalised more than 40 Hindu temples across Bangladesh. Scores of shops and houses belonging to the Hindu community have also been burned down, leaving hundreds of people homeless, said a press release of the international rights watchdog.

“The Hindu community in Bangladesh is at extreme risk, in particular at such a tense time in the country. It is shocking that they appear to be targeted simply for their religion. The authorities must ensure that they receive the protection they need,” said Abbas Faiz, Amnesty International’s Bangladesh Researcher.

“All political parties in Bangladesh should condemn strongly any violence against the Hindu community, and to instruct all their members and supporters not to take part in such attacks.”

Survivors told Amnesty International that the attackers were taking part in rallies organised by the opposition Jamaat-e-Islami and its student wing Islami Chhatra Shibir.

Jamaat has publicly denied any involvement in violence against the Hindu community.

The latest attack took place on Wednesday in Daudkandi in southeastern district of Comilla, where a Hindu temple was vandalised and burnt down.

One survivor told Amnesty International that on February 28, his family’s village of Rajganj Bazar in the southeastern Noakhali district was set on fire by people taking part in a Jamaat-organised strike.

“They moved into our properties and set fire to 30 of our houses. Seventy-six families were living in these houses. They also set fire to our temples – all are now vanished,” the survivor said, who asked to remain anonymous out of concerns for his safety.

He said the authorities have provided temporary accommodation to the affected families, who had lost almost all their belongings to theft or destruction in the violence.

Another survivor said that on March 2, a group of about 100 young men holding banners in support of Jamaat looted and damaged four shops in Satkania near Chittagong and vandalised a Hindu temple in the village.

Bangladesh’s Hindu minority makes up only eight percent of the population, and has historically been at risk of violence from the Muslim population—including during the independence war in 1971, and after elections in 2001.

“Given the obvious risks the Hindu minority faces in Bangladesh, these attacks were sadly predictable. We urge the authorities to take note of the violence and act to prevent further attacks,” said Faiz.

Tensions have been running high in Bangladesh in recent weeks as JI and its student wing have called strikes and mass protests against the ICT, which has found some of its senior members guilty for crimes committed during the 1971 war.

Protesters have also been involved in violent clashes with police, who have used tear gas, rubber bullets or live ammunition against them. At least 60 people have been killed, mostly by police fire, but among the dead are also several policemen.

“While there are credible reports that police firing may have followed violent attacks against them by protesters, police use of excessive force cannot be discounted”, Faiz said.

Bangladesh 1971 War Crime Charge: Muhammad Kamaruzzaman

The Daily Star, Dhaka

Thursday, August 30, 2012 Front Page

Kamaruzzaman's War Crimes

Witness recalls brother's killing 

Staff Correspondent A witness yesterday told International Crimes Tribunal-2 Jamaat-e-Islami leader Muhammad Kamaruzzaman and his accomplices killed his brother at Serih Bridge in Sherpur on August 23, 1971.

Musharraf Hossain Talukder, brother of martyr Gholam Mostafa and the fifth prosecution witness in the war crimes case against the Jamaat assistant secretary general, said a case was filed after liberation against Kamaruzzaman in connection with the killing. The 56-year-old witness said after the nine-month war, they had heard about the killing from one Abul Kashem, who was also shot by Kamaruzzaman and his accomplices that day.

Terming Kamaruzzaman as the chief organiser of Al-Badr, an auxiliary force of the Pakistan occupation army in greater Mymensingh, and controller of the Al-Badr camps in the area during the war, Musharraf appealed to the tribunal to try him for "committing crimes against humanity, including the killing of his brother [during the war]."

On June 4, the tribunal framed seven charges against Kamaruzzaman, who hails from Sherpur, in connection with the murder and torture of unarmed civilians during the war. The fourth charge is related to the killing of Mostafa. The two-member tribunal headed by Justice ATM Fazle Kabir with member Judge Md Shahinur Islam also recorded the cross-examination of Musharraf before adjourning the case proceedings until today.

Another member of the tribunal was absent yesterday due to the death of his father. During his 45-minute testimony, Musharraf said he was a class VII student of Sherpur GK High School and Golam Mostafa, the eldest among his seven brother and sisters, was an HSC examinee from Sherpur College during the War.

Musharraf said Mostafa, at the time literary secretary of Sherpur College unit Chhatra Union and a regular contributor to Radio Rajshahi, went to India for arms training after March 26, 1971, and returned after around one and a half months. Before the HSC examinations in 1971, it was announced that those who would not take part in the exam would be counted as "anti-Pakistani and supporters of freedom fighters", said the witness.

Musharraf said Tofael Islam, one of his paternal uncles in his village Kharkharia, was a member of the Shanti Committee, another auxiliary force of the Pakistan army. He had convinced Mostafa to sit for the exam, assuring him of all-out support. "After Maghrib prayers on August 23 [1971]… my brother went to Sherpur College intersection to buy batteries for the radio," said the witness.

"At that moment, at the diktat of Sherpur Al-Badr chief Kamaruzzaman, some of his followers picked up my brother and took him to a camp set up at the house of Surendra Mohan Saha, a prominent businessman of Sherpur," said Musharraf. He said after learning of the matter, the family informed Tofael Islam about it and he went to the Al-Badr camp and met Mostafa that night.

"He [Tofael] met Kamaruzzaman at the Al-Badr camp and requested him to release my brother," said the witness, adding that Kamaruzzaman asked his uncle to leave the camp. Later, Tofael requested another Shanti Committee leader Samidul Haque to release Mostafa and Samidul also requested Kamaruzzaman, said Musharraf.

"On that night [August 23, 1971] Kamaruzzaman along with some Al-Badr men took my brother to Serih Bridge over the Mrigi river," said the witness. "One Abul Kashem was also taken to the bridge. At first, he [Mostafa] was charged with bayonet and afterwards he was shot to death," said an emotional Musharraf, adding, "Kashem survived as he jumped into the river with bullet injuries on the fingers of his right hand."

"After the Liberation War, Abul Kashem met us and told us about the killing," said the witness, adding that on August 24, some people from his village recovered Mostafa's body from the northeast side of the bridge and brought him to their village. "I had seen the body. There was no flesh under the right knee and he received bullets on his chest," added the witness.

He said after the Liberation War, either his father or his mother filed a case with local police against Kamaruzzaman along with some other Al-Badr members in connection with the killing. After his testimony, defence counsel Kafiluddin Chowdhury cross-examined the witness for one hour and asked him around 30 questions.

Replying to a question, Musharraf said their house in Sherpur town was looted during the war. Meanwhile, the same tribunal completed recording the cross-examination of Abdul Momen, the first prosecution witness in the war crimes case against former BNP lawmaker Abdul Alim.

Witness Momen, a former student leader, testified before the tribunal on August 6 when he said the former BNP lawmaker had ordered the killing of nine Hindus of Khetlal upazila in Joypurhat during the war. During the cross-examination, defence counsel AEM Khalilur Rahman said on April 20, 1971, Alim left Joypurhat sadar after hearing that the Pakistan army had killed former minister Fazlul Bari on March 27, and took shelter in Paikar village in Amdai union for three to four months.

But in his testimony, Momen said a few days before Eid-ul-Fitr in 1971, Abdul Alim and Major Afzal, a Pakistani army officer responsible for Joypurhat during the war, came to Hatsahar Hat in Khetlal where they addressed a meeting and he heard Alim's speech 30-40 yards away from the spot.

"You have given false testimony for financial benefit," charged the defence counsel.

Bangladesh 1971 War Crime Charge: Mojaheed Azad

The Daily Star

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Testimony of torture

War crimes witness testifies against Mojaheed, Azad

Staff Correspondent

Testifying in two cases yesterday, a freedom fighter said he was tortured by war-crimes accused Azad and others after Jamaat leader Mojaheed held a meeting with a Pakistani army officer and Razakars at Faridpur Circuit House.

Ranjit Kumar Nath alias Babu Nath told the International Crimes Tribunal-2 that expelled Jamaat member Abul Kalam Azad and his cohorts tortured him inhumanly after Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed signalled them to take him away from the circuit house.

Ranjit, the seventh prosecution witness in the case against Mojaheed, gave a heart wrenching testimony on how he was picked up by Azad and his associates, confined to a house in Bihari colony, tortured and how he escaped.

Ranjit also gave his testimony as the fifth prosecution witness in the case against Azad alias Bachchu Razakar before the same tribunal yesterday.

In the case against Azad, Ranjit said Jamaat Secretary General Mojaheed, Bachchu Razakar and some Biharies (Urdu speaking people) welcomed the Pakistani army when they arrived in Faridpur on April 21, 1971.

They took the army to Prabhu Jagatbandhu Ashram (temple).

“The Pakistani army men shot eight priests dead while Mojaheed and Bachchu were with them,” said the 62-year-old witness from Faridpur.

The three-member tribunal, headed by Justice ATM Fazle Kabir with members Justice Obaidul Hassan and Judge M Shahinur Islam recorded Ranjit's separate testimonies.

Mojaheed was produced before the court yesterday. Azad is on the run.

During his 40-minute testimony in the case against Mojaheed, Ranjit said he was involved with the Awami League in 1971 and took part in several of its meetings and processions.

“I took shelter on the outskirts of Faridpur town after the Pakistani army arrived on April 21, 1971,” said Ranjit, adding that on the first week of June 1971, he went to the town to collect information about the Liberation War.

When Ranjit was approaching the town, one Habi Matabbar, terming him a freedom fighter, handed him over to Abul Kalam Azad, Abul Mia and Kalu Bihari at East Khabashpur.

“Beating me up, they took me to Faridpur Circuit House on a rickshaw and Major Koreshi, a Pakistani army official, Mojaheed, Afzal and other Razakars were holding a meeting there,” said Ranjit.

According to the prosecution, as a leader of Islami Chhatra Sangha, the student wing of Jamaat in 1971, Azad was a close associate of the then central Chhatra Sangha leader Mojaheed.

Getting a signal from Mojaheed, Azad and his associates blindfolded Ranjit and took him to Faridpur Zila School ground and put him under a plum tree, said Ranjit.

After a few minutes a car went there.

“Someone in the car in Urdu said, 'Don't shoot him. Hand him over to the Biharies and slit his throat in the morning',” said Ranjit.

He said he was then taken near a Bihari colony on Mollah Bari Road.

“Hanging me up side down from a kadama tree, they [Azad and others] beat me up for one hour and one of my teeth and a bone of my nose were broken,” said Ranjit.

Later, they confined Ranjit to a house inside the Bahini colony and around midnight Ranjit escaped breaking through a window, he said.

After his testimony, defence counsel Munshi Ahsan Kabir cross-examined Ranjit and asked six questions before the tribunal adjourned the case proceeding until tomorrow following a defence plea for adjournment.

During his 32-minute testimony in the case against Azad, Ranjit gave almost similar descriptions about his confinement, torture and escape.

After the Pakistani army arrived, they set up their camps at Faridpur Zila School, the stadium, and Rajendra College.

“Bachchu Razakar occupied the house of Ramkrisna Agarwal,” said Ranjit.

In association with Azad, the Pakistani army used to catch and bring pro-liberation people from the town and villages and tortured and killed them at Faridpur stadium, said Ranjit.

“There was a pond. Bodies were dumped there. The place was identified as the killing field,” said the witness.

Earlier yesterday, Mojaher Sikdar, the third prosecution witness in Azad's case, testified that Azad killed Sudhangshu Mohan Roy, landlord of Kolaran of Faridpur on May 14, 1971.

The 65-year-old from Kolaran said around 3:00pm on May 14, 1971, 10-12 armed people were going towards east past his home.

“Of them, I knew one. He was Abul Kalam Azad alias Bachchu. Bachchu was my classmate in Bahirdia Qaumi Madrasa,” said Mojaher.

He quoted Azad as saying, “I come from Faridpur after receiving training. Now I will govern the country.”

Mojaher followed Azad when they were going towards Sudhangshu's house. They brought Sudhangshu and his son Monimoy Roy out and took them 200 yards east of their home, said Mojaher.

“Bachchu Razakar shot Sudhangshu Babu from behind,” said Mojaher, adding that another person shot Monimoy while he was crying.

On Monday, Nepal Chandra Pathak, the first prosecution witness in the case, testified that he had seen Azad shoot Sudhanghsu to death.

Meanwhile, Dhala Matabbar, the third prosecution witness in the case, in his testimony said Azad had killed Chitta Ranjan Das of his village Fulbaria in Faridpur during the Liberation War.

The 61-year-old said when he was on his way to Fulbaria market on the 19th of the Bangla month Jaistha, he saw Azad and his three cohorts beat Chitta up.

Afterwards, taking Chitta under a tree near his home, Bachchu Razakar shot Chitta, said Matabbar.

On Monday, Jyotsna Rani Das, wife of Chitta and second prosecution witness in the case, testified that Azad killed her husband after torturing him.

Matabbar said around 200 Hindu families left for India after the incident including Jyotsna.

State-appointed defence counsel Abdus Shukur Khan cross-examined the witnesses.

In the beginning of the court proceeding, Shukur Khan informed the tribunal that he could submit neither any documents nor a list of defence witness in the case as he did not get any cooperation from Azad's family members.

Following Shukur's time petition, the tribunal extended time until December 5 to submit documents and defence witness list.

Meanwhile, Triubnal-1 yesterday asked the prosecution to submit formal charge or a progress report of the ongoing investigation against war-crimes suspect Jamaat leader Mir Quashem Ali on January 29 next year.

The tribunal gave the order following the prosecution's prayer for time extension.

Meanwhile, the defence of Jamaat leader Delawar Hossain Sayedee continued with their closing arguments in the crimes against humanity trial at the tribunal yesterday.

Defence has spent nine sessions for placing their arguments.

 

The Daily Star

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Mojaheed involved in mass killing

Prosecution witness from Faridpur testifies at war crimes tribunal

Staff Correspondent

Jamaat-e-Islami leader Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed was involved in the mass killing committed in four Hindu-dominated villages in Faridpur during the Liberation War.

Sixth prosecution witness Abdul Malek Mia said this during his testimony in the crimes against humanity case against Mojaheed before the International Crimes Tribunal-2 yesterday.

He said Pakistani army men along with armed Razakars, some Biharis (non Bangla speaking people), one Hammad Moulana and Mojaheed went to the villages in the middle part of the Bangla month Jaistha during the war.

“These people were involved in looting, arson and killings [committed in these villages],” said the 75-year-old former politician from Faridpur.

Malek said he visited the villages on the following day of the incident and heard about Mojaheed and others from survivors and victims.

On June 21, the tribunal indicted the Jamaat secretary general from Faridpur with seven charges of crimes against humanity committed during the Liberation War.

The three-member tribunal, headed by Justice ATM Fazle Kabir with members Justice Obaidul Hassan and Judge M Shahinur Islam, recorded Malek's testimony as well as his cross-examination before adjourning the case proceeding until November 27.

During his 34-minute testimony, Malek said he was the president of Awami League Dikrirchar Union unit and was living in Kajem Matabbar village of Faridpur in 1971.

The Pakistani army was angry at the Hindu community and Awami League leaders and activists and killed them, said Malek.

On April 21, 1971, Pakistan army went to Faridpur and set up their camps at Police Line, stadium and Faridpur Rajendra College, said the witness adding, “Along with Razakars [an anti-liberation force] and Biharis, they committed looting and other atrocities.”

On a Jaistha morning, Malek's wife informed him that the Pakistani army was approaching towards their village and Malek hid himself in a ditch beside his home, said the witness.

“Our village was Muslim-dominated. They [attackers] didn't do any harm to our village,” said Malek, adding, “They entered the Hindu-dominated Bhangidangi, Baidyadangi, Baladangi and Majhidangi, set houses ablaze there and killed people shooting indiscriminately.”

The atrocities were too much for him to take, said Malek, adding that the following day Aftab Uddin, a Muslim league leader and the then chairman of their union, whilst going past their home asked Malek to go to the affected villages with him.

“I went with him and visited the areas. All houses of the villages were burnt down... Bodies were lying here and there,” said Malek.

When they reached the villages some 50-60 people came out of hiding.

The chairman ordered the people to bury the bodies and they followed his order, said Malek, adding, “There were approximately 30-40 bodies there.”

Then Malek came to know from the locals that the Pakistani army along with armed Razakars, some Biharis, one Hammad Moulana and Mojaheed had gone to the villages from Faridpur and these people were involved in the atrocities, said the witness.

After lunch, defence counsel Syed Mizanur Rahman completed cross-examination of Malek within 45-minute and asked around 40 questions.

Replying to a question, Malek said he could not say specifically from whom he had heard the names of Hammad Moulana and Mojaheed on that day.

“You have given an untrue testimony after being trained by prosecution to make Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed unfit and unacceptable in Faridpur and national politics,” suggested Mizanur.

“It is not true,” replied Malek.

Meanwhile, the tribunal adjourned the case proceeding of former minister Abdul Alim until today following a time petition from his defence counsels.

The Daily Star
Sunday, October 14, 2012

'Bengali intellectuals killed on Mojaheed's order'

Star Online Report

Pakistani forces in association with the collaborators had killed Bengali intellectuals during Liberation War upon the direction of Jamaat-e-Islami Secretary General Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mojaheed.

"Mojaheed gave the direction as commander of Al-Badr Bahini," said Shaheen Reza Noor, executive editor of the daily Ittefaq, adding that Mojaheed was the president of East Pakistan Islami Chhatra Sangha, the then student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami, from October to December of 1971.

He was testifying before the International Crimes Tribunal-2 on Sunday as the forth witness against Mojaheed.

Noor is the son of the then executive editor of Ittefaq, Serajul Hossian, who was picked up by a group of seven/eight masked men on December 10 in 1971.

He said Pakistan military force prepared the plot to kill the intellectuals to eliminate the bright minds of the soon-to-be independent Bangladesh.

About his father, Noor said Serajul was picked up by a group of people wearing masks on December 10, 1971.

His family even did not find the body of his father, Noor said.

Mojaheed is facing seven charges, including murder, torture, and imprisonment of people, genocide, and hatching a conspiracy to kill intellectuals during the Liberation War.

 

The Daily Star

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Mojaheed led Al Badr in killing intellectuals: Shahriar Kabir

PW also identifies Nizami as chief of Al-Badr

Eminent writer Shahriar Kabir comes out of International Crimes Tribunal-2 after giving his testimony on Sunday. Photo: Palash Khan

Star Online Report Al Badr led by Jamaat leader Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed had killed hundreds of intellectuals, journalists, teachers and other professionals between November 15 and December 15 in 1971.

Writer and journalist Shahriar Kabir told this to the International Crimes Tribunal-2 on Sunday while giving deposition against detained Jamaat Secretary General Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed.

Meanwhile, Misbahur Rahman Chowdhury, a member of the then Bangladesh Islami Oikya Jote (BIOJ) of Moulvibazar unit, gave his testimony before the tribunal as the first prosecution witness against Jamaat Ameer Motiur Rahman Nizami.

Misbahur identified Nizami as the chief of Al-Badr formed to collaborate with the Pakistani military during the 1971 Liberation War.

A leading researcher on war crimes Shahriar Kabir, also the first prosecution witness against the Mojaheed, gave his deposition from 10:51am to 1:30pm in presence of war crimes suspect Mojaheed.

Al Badr was formed with the leaders of Jamaat's student wing Islami Chhatra Sangha (ICS), he said.

Mojaheed, 64, was indicted with seven charges, including murder, torture, and imprisonment of people, genocide, and hatching a conspiracy to kill intellectuals during the Liberation War.

The writer said Mojaheed and Jamaat chief Motiur Rahman Nizami were the leaders of Al Badr during the Liberation War in 1971 and they were involved in the killing of intellectuals in a planned way.

Defence counsel will cross-examine Shahriar on August 30.

He was arrested on July 29 in 2010.

The tribunal-1 had rejected Mojaheed's bail petition twice and after his case was transferred to the tribunal-2, it rejected his bail prayer on August 7.

Mojaheed is among the 10 BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami leaders facing war crimes charges before the tribunals.

NIZAMI CASE

Misbahur Rahman Chowdhury told the tribunal that Sirajul Islam, the then president of BIOJ, had sent him a letter requesting him to join AL Badr during the Liberation War.

The letter reads, “If you join Al Badr, Motiur Rahman Nizami would be happy.”

Sirajul Islam also mentioned in his letter that every members of the BIOJ would also join Al Badr, Misbahur said in his statements.

On May 28, the tribunal framed 16 charges against Nizami for his alleged involvement in murders and torture of unarmed people in 1971.

The 69-year-old Jamaat leader was the president of Islami Chhatra Sangha (ICS), student wing of Jamaat in 1971.

Members of the ICS were used to form the AL Badr -- an auxiliary force formed to collaborate with the Pakistani military that committed genocide and mass killing during the nine-month-long war.