It’s of extreme significance that the ‘Muslims leaders all over the Muslim world’ were not upset when Muslims, and others, were being mowed down with genocidal intent in Bangladesh in 1971.
Source/Credit: Dhaka Tribune
By Zeeshan Khan | December 19, 2013
It’s most unfortunate that representatives of the governments of Pakistan and Turkey did not refrain from commenting about the execution of Quader Mollah for crimes against humanity. It was unstatesmanlike and insensitive, but more poignantly, it revealed the extend to which these governments, or at least those individuals, still adhere to the skewed narratives of 1971, in which an “Islamic” resistance to growing unbelief was being mounted by the Pakistan army and their cohorts in East Bengal.
Like the Pakistan chapter of Jamaat-e-Islami, which held a huge janaaza for him, and the numerous religious organisations around the world that are calling him a martyr, they seem unable to look beyond Quader Mollah’s religious orientation.
In fact many Muslims around the world, especially in Bangladesh, are unable to see beyond that either. He was, to many, a pious man and an honest politician for Islam, who has been persecuted by the sinister Awami League out of a) political convenience and b) a deep-seated hatred for Islam. The latter is reinforced by acts seen as immoral and corrupt, of which, unfortunately, there are plenty.
Closeness to “Hindu” India, and Sanskrit influence is also viewed with suspicion. Those with an austere Wahabbi outlook, think Bangladesh has lost its way and is becoming a breeding ground of “Yahud” and “Nassara” western values and “Nastik, Mushrik” thinking. Islam is under assault, as the “Jamaat” tries to “Hefazat” it, and resistance is both political survival as well as religious duty.
Or so various Imams at different mosques I’ve visited, and the numerous Waazs that you can hear from time to time, seem to warn about. These are always vague, oblique references inserted in Khutbahs, but references nonetheless.
I wonder why the mosques have never commented on the issue of justice for the victims of 1971? The Friday morning after Quader Mollah lost his life, the mosque I go to had a Khutbah about how Islam is being persecuted around the world and how being Muslim had become a crime, but licentiousness a virtue. A few references to the violence all around us was also made.
While I listened to him I thought: couldn’t the more difficult conversation about what the Islamic punishment for war crimes are, also have been encouraged? There are Khutbahs about the consequences of all sorts of things, why not these? Perhaps it’s difficult to veil such a direct reference or maybe the mosques are genuinely careful not to stoke fires, but the most obvious answer is, of course, because they don’t believe Quader Mollah or the others are guilty.
We now enter the murky place where every sort of difficult conversation is being ferociously had.
Concerns about the soundness of the trials, capital punishment and authoritarianism by the government influences the way Western governments approach the issue of the 1971 war crimes. They are wary of the government’s motives. Western liberals and rights groups are pushing their own cart up their own hill, and insist that capital punishment is a violation of human rights.
They seem more concerned about the rights of the accused than about justice for the crimes of 1971, which as human rights organisations, you’d imagine they’d be pleased to see done. But they make the fair point that there are serious questions about the soundness of the trials, and that there may be a witch-hunt on in Bangladesh. The same groups have also remarked on the government’s use of excessive force and its democracy deficit; again, fair points.
Most Bangladeshi liberals don’t share their western counterparts’ sentiments about capital punishment, and accept that certain crimes are punishable by death. But they believe for justice to be done, and for the result to be above reproach, even clearly guilty people have to be tried in the right way.
Then there are those who believe that these particular individuals might not even be the guilty ones, and point to the lack of credible evidence or corroboration as proof that the government is not concerned about real justice, just political expediency. Still others believe in forgiveness and reconciliation, Mandela-style, perhaps even Mujib-style.
Jamaat-e-Islami don’t believe these are the right people at all, naturally, since they make up a lot of the party’s leadership, but, to their credit, have expressed a desire to see the real culprits brought to book.
The conspicuous silence on the issue of justice for 1971 by other religious groups however, like Hefazat-e-Islam, is noteworthy. Their 13 points demand death for blasphemy but have nothing to say about rape, murder or arson. Like their contemporaries in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia, they become extraordinarily verbose and even violent when it comes to things like cartoons, but say precious little about the killing of innocents.
Governments of other Muslim countries have been the murkiest of all, if not downright sketchy. The Pakistan’s Interior (Home) Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan said:
“There was no doubt that Molla was hanged because of his loyalty and solidarity with Pakistan in 1971 … Every Pakistani is saddened and grieved over his death … It would have been better if the Bangladeshi government had shown farsightedness‚ large heartedness and magnanimity instead of opening old wounds.”
The minister went on to say Molla remained a supporter of a united Pakistan till the very end, before the creation of Bangladesh. There are too many things wrong with this statement. First, the fact that it was made by the Interior Minister and not the Foreign Minister is problematic, as it remains unclear as to how this is an interior matter for Pakistan, at least anymore.
Secondly, for the government of an offending nation to presume to tell the government of the offended one what would have been “better” in terms of magnanimity, is ridiculous, especially since the same government hasn’t yet been able to muster up the magnanimity to offer an apology for the events of 1971, even after having been asked for one.
Thirdly, Molla was not executed for his loyalty or solidarity but for crimes against humanity. If, however, the two are synonymous then the minister is right. By stating that Molla was loyal to a united Pakistan till the very end, Khan is inadvertently admitting that “Koshai Quader” of Mirpur, a known war criminal, and Abdul Quader Molla are one and the same person, a claim that Quader’s and Jamaat-e-Islami’s defence have been trying quite hard to disprove.
To make it worse for them, Pakistan’s National Assembly observed a moment of silence for Quader Mollah, on 16th December no less, and then passed a resolution tabled by Jamaat-e-Islami (Pakistan), with a majority, demanding the Bangladeshi government ends cases against the Jamaat’s leaders. Interior Minister Khan announced the government’s support of the resolution and once again took the pulpit to preach to the government of Bangladesh by saying there should be “a policy of forgive and forget.”
Despite the redundancy of a Pakistani resolution on Bangladeshi affairs, the fact that the interior minister of Pakistan attempts to decide what Bangladesh’s policy should or should not be, from the floor of his House, is telling of the sort of attention he thinks his government is entitled to in my country. What’s more telling though, is the fact that Jamaat-e-Islami (Pakistan) made no attempt to correct Khan’s assumption that Quader Molla was in fact Koshai Quader.
There was of course, no acknowledgement of the atrocities of 71, until, ironically, a Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) MP brought it up, when he asked if Molla was not a convicted killer. The PPP opposed the resolution.
A Pakistani blogger commenting on the reactions to Molla’s execution observed that “no Takfiri-Deobandi (Salafi groups that support Jamaat) has said a word about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Bengalis killed…”
Meanwhile, the Turkish Prime Minister is in it up to his elbows brokering, and has tried to convince Sheikh Hasina a number of times not to stay her course regarding the war crimes tribunal. His foreign minister was particularly busy, shuttling between the Saudi Foreign Minister, US Secretary of State John Kerry and British Foreign Secretary William Hague, in an effort to prevent the execution of Quader Molla. One wonders how lovely it might have been had Turkey been this active in trying to find a solution to the war of 1971.
Erdogan pleaded with Hasina saying: “We are concerned that this execution will cause increased tension in Bangladesh. Turkey believes that the sorrows of the past will not be healed by these kinds of acts, and neither will reconciliation be ensured in this way.” Last year, Turkish president Abdullah Gul sent a letter to the Bangladeshi president asking for “clemency” for the people charged with war crimes, including Molla, for the “sake of peace in society.” Note, that there was no suggestion that they might be innocent, nor an acknowledgement of our right to justice. Hours before Molla was executed, Ankara tried again to save his life, and when they were unsuccessful, issued the following statement:
“The execution of the death penalty sentence given to one of the leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami, Abdul Quader Mollah, despite all concerns and suggestions voiced by the international community, including our prime minister, has led to a grave sadness and indignation. We harshly condemn this execution; may God have mercy upon him.”
Once again one wonders why such sadness or indignation didn’t fall upon the government of Turkey when the Pakistan army was killing ordinary people in Bangladesh, or why they didn’t feel the need to act so urgently.
But it’s not really that difficult to understand their response when you consider Turkey’s own position in the moral order of things. Its in their interest to hush up attempts at obtaining justice for genocide, considering they have a history of genocide against the Armenians and are, even at this very moment, persecuting the Kurds, banning their language and killing their people. Of course Turkey wants “clemency,” they’ll want it for themselves soon enough, and the precedence of an oppressed people taking their oppressor to task is too difficult a reality for them to countenance.
Saudi Arabia’s reactions to the trials have also been absurd, although, thankfully, they refrained from putting their foot in it after the execution. But a letter sent to Sheikh Hasina last year by an ex-Saudi ambassador was so completely patronising that one can’t help but wonder if this tone was taken because our prime minister is a woman.
Not only was it completely out of place for an ex-diplomat to address a national leader so condescendingly, but it also smacked of the sort of authority that is usually reserved for senior family members, like uncles. In the letter the ambassador feels the need to qualify Sheikh Hasina by saying:
“This [mentioned earlier] incident depicted the fact that you are a God-fearing Muslim woman. Besides, you were always keen to perform Umrah whenever you had a chance.”
As though “approval” of her piety was somehow his to give. He then goes on to use emotional blackmail by saying, “some consider the revocation of these decisions as disrespect to your father, which is an unacceptable matter.”
After much Arab-style smooth talking, he finally gets to the point and says, “nothing can justify the unjust decision to arrest Muslim leaders … As someone who loves Bangladesh and its people, I would like to say that many Muslim leaders all over the Muslim world are upset about the arrest of Muslim groups and leaders such as Professor Ghulam Azam who was accused of charges that no one would believe.”
So there it is. “Muslim leaders,” according to Saudi Arabia, and not war criminals are being persecuted in Bangladesh.
It’s of extreme significance that the “Muslims leaders all over the Muslim world” were not upset when Muslims, and others, were being mowed down with genocidal intent in Bangladesh in 1971. In fact, most Muslim countries sided with Pakistan and did nothing to stop the carnage, with some, like Iran, actively supporting it, and refused to recognise Bangladesh after the war was over. Saudi Arabia didn’t recognise Bangladesh even after Mujib requested it to, to allow Bengali Muslims to perform their Hajj. In the book “Mujibeyr Rokto Lal” by MR Akhtar Mukul, a meeting between Sheikh Mujib and King Faisal of Saudi Arabia at a non-alignment summit in Algiers, is described, which contains the following conversation:
“Faisal: Your Excellency, I have heard that Bangladesh is expecting some assistance from us. But the question is, what kind of assistance are you looking for? Of course we have some pre-conditions for providing any form of assistance.
“Mujib: Your Excellency, please forgive me for my brashness. I am the Prime Minister of Bangladesh. But I don’t think Bangladesh is begging for alms from you.
“Faisal: Then what is it that you are expecting to receive from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?
“Mujib: The pious Muslims of Bangladesh wish to claim their right to worship at the site of the Holy Kaaba. Your Excellency, you tell me if there can be any preconditions to that?”
But in fact King Faisal did put conditions on it. For Bangladesh to be recognised by Saudi Arabia, and for Bangladeshis to be able to travel to Mecca and Madina, it would have to rename itself the “Islamic Republic of Bangladesh” and free the Pakistani prisoners of war. When Mujib asked the king what business it was of his what happens to Pakistani soldiers, he was told that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are practically the same.
So when the ex-ambassador wrote to Sheikh Hasina full of praise for Sheikh Mujib, he should have remembered that the government he served only recognised Bangladesh after Mujib was assassinated and we distanced ourselves from our traditional allies India and the Soviet Union, established Islam as the state religion and lifted bans on many Saudi-sponsored religious organisations that propagate Wahabbism.
It’s clear as day, why Saudi Arabia is concerned about the war crimes tribunal, but then it’s hardly surprising, considering Saudi Arabia often lets political agenda supersede principles, and had no qualms sending troops to Bahrain to quell a popular uprising for instance, or asking the US to attack Iran.
Frankly, a country that routinely beheads people for the smallest of crimes yet gives a religious cleric only 8 years in jail for raping and then savagely beating to death his own 5-year-old daughter has nothing at all to teach us about justice.
The government of Bangladesh is not answerable to any of these countries, and needs not pay attention to their requests or requirements, but it is answerable to itself, to us, the people of Bangladesh, and to posterity. This is why it is essential that the trials be conducted in the fairest and most transparent way possible.
They are establishing a legal precedence that will become part of history, and tampering with it will have dire long-term consequences for the way justice is dispensed in Bangladesh. If Quader Mollah was indeed innocent, then it bodes very badly for the moral integrity of this entire nation.
When Sheikh Hasina addressed the 68th UN General Assembly she told global leaders that the trial of suspected war criminals was indispensable to establishing justice, human rights and the rule of law in our country, things that are the hallmarks of a self-respecting, civilised nation.
These values are universal and surely even Islamists can see the wisdom of setting such a necessary precedence. However, everyone can also see the dangers of doing the opposite, and if the government, and these trials are targeting the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, then justice demands we be flooded by a river of retribution, without the slightest bit of higher ground to stand on.
Read original post here: Bangladesh: Justice for all, lobbying for some
This content-post is archived for backup and to keep archived records of any news Islam Ahmadiyya. The views expressed by the author and source of this news archive do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of Ahmadiyya Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments. Any comments irrelevant to the post's subject matter, containing abuses, and/or vulgar language will not be approved.