Sat 31 Mar 2007
-
We are regularly updating the blog as we are finding information on the Mohiuddin’s case. The following is Mash’s summary of other blogs where the issue is covered extensively. Thanks Mash. Great research. I am just copying your links for others benefit.
- The main thread now in this blog where you can post your research and comment is here
- Mash is covering this extensively as well at his site.
- There has been a story in LA Times today which interviews Sajeeb Wajed Joy
-
Rezwan, at The 3rd world view, has extensive coverage including many links to other bloggers here.
-
Salam Dhaka has updates about NPR coverage of this story here.
-
Shafiur, at Imperfect World, goes prehistoric on Dana Rohrabacher here.
- Mohiuddin’s son, who is lobbying extensively for his father, has posted a defense of his father on his blog here. He claims to have "first hand experience" of the "truth". I leave it up to the reader to determine if the so-called "first hand experience" is the "truth". The only comment I would make is that Mohiuddin must have been sleep-walking the night of the murder not to have remembered his involvement in killing Mujib and his family or to not have heard the artillery shelling that most of the millions of Dhaka city residents heard.
- Salam Dhaka writes that Mohiuddin’s deportation has been delayed by 45 days.
- Sajeeb Wajed Joy, Mujib’s grandson, retells the story of the massacre by Mohiuddin and his cohorts. Compare and contrast this post with the "truth" as told by Mohiuddin’s son (in the link from the previous update above).
April 1st, 2007 at 5:28 am
To make my intent of this write-up clear, I’m just telling a story perhaps about a benevolent Zaminder of Bengal. One day someone came to him for some favor. He did the favor he was requested for. While the person was leaving his room expressing his gratitude and salam the Zaminder stopped the man and offered him 10 takas. Man was surprised and said, I didn’t come for this money and don’t need it. Then Zaminder insisted him, oh man, take it. You will one day need it. And said, now I helped you and one day definitely you will give me a Baansh/Bamboo. This is the money for you to buy the Baansh.
Now you are all out against the heroes of 1975, about a dozen of young army officers who fully cognizant of the 100% risk of their lives if mission had failed, had saved the nation. Now you are all out to give them Baansh.
If they didn’t take that ever boldest step with the resolution for the greatest sacrifice for the motherland for whom they fought and died, on that fateful day, we would perhaps still have been ruled by the dictator despotic tyrant like Sheik Mujib. You people who hates the greatest heroes, didn’t have lived long under a tyrant leader; if you had, then probably would have understood how these” Bravest Savior Sunny Sons of the Soil” had saved you. The greatest irony is , for liberating the nation they have been fugitives with death sentences.
If there hadn’t been 15th August of 1975, till date we had to long for the liberation from tyrant ruler as we have seen the Iraqis under Saddam, Libyans under Gaddafi and so on in different parts of the world.
Now we are enjoying the freedom of press and media and free to distort the truth. We see hundreds of dailies, Prothom Alo, Shesh Alo, Shakaler Kagaj, Bikaler Kagaj etc, scores of weeklies, ATN, ETV, channel one, channel I, Ruposhi, Urboshi etc. This media liberty even we couldn’t have imagined about.
********* ***********
[Message partly deleted for relevance: the rule of shaikh mujib is not in question here - UV admin]
April 1st, 2007 at 9:35 am
Bitterboy,
Whatever the end results may have been, people who cold-bloodedly murder pregnant women and children cannot be heroes. Maybe yours, but definitely not mine and thankfully not for a greater portion of Bangladeshis and the humanity.
However, I will not support Mohiuddin facing this judgment for different reasons. Those who are advocating bringing him back to Bangladesh must remember that we are not talking about bringing him to justice; the judicial process has run its due course and has ended. It is the judgment that you want him to face, a judgment that is intrinsically inhuman and a residual of Middle Ages.
Farhad
April 1st, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Farhad, I too do not advocate the death penalty. However, the judicial process has not run its course, as you state.
There are three important components to any form of justice, from the state’s (representing the people) perspective. The trial, conviction and the sentence. The first two have been carried out. The sentence however, the punishment part, has been delayed. A justice system without punishment is a hollow system. If he cannot be brought to face his sentence then it will set a precedent that these crimes are indeed without consequence. It is that principal at stake here.
A preferred outcome, from my perspective would be, for him to acknowledge his crimes and plead for clemency in the carrying out of his sentence. He had an opportunity to do that during trial. He chose to not avail himself of that opportunity during trial or on appeal. He has continually put himself above the law and acted with impunity. For that reason, as a matter of justice and for the integrity of the justice system and of any future hope of justice in Bangladesh, he must be brought before the court to answer for his crimes.
The state has a responsibility to dispense justice when a crime has been committed. If the Bangladesh government fails to dispense justice, it fails one of its primary responsibilities as a government. I am prepared to argue against the death penalty in this case and in all other death penalty cases. But my views on the death penalty do not trump the structural and institutional need for a robust and effective justice system in Bangladesh and other civil societies.
April 1st, 2007 at 4:18 pm
The most humane form of justice, in my opinion, will be a PARDON of AKM Mohiuddin, and in fact all remaining group, by Mujib’s family.
The former Pope asked to meet his OWN would-be assassin face-to-face IN JAIL, and told him this “I forgive you”. The Pope, having survived bullets shot at him, forgave the Turkish man, asked that he be released early from his sentence, and the guy ended-up converting to a Christian and devout Pope follower.
Gandhi constantly forgave criminals during his time, and those gestures often turned them into Sandhus.
Another example, when a 70-year old Jewish survivor of Nazi camp, was asked how she would punish the Nazis for killing all her family when she was a child, she asked to forgive them all. Because the lives of her family will never come back, why create and live with that enmity. The peace of mind and of society, that comes with FORGIVING, is the best form of justice.
In the case of Mujib, who was closer to God for many Bangalis, there could not be a more humane, more UNITING and nation-building gesture than the total FORGIVING and PARDON of the Mujib killers. We know the history, we know the errors, we know the events - can we now do a move like Gandhi and Pope, after 32 years?
I believe if Mujib was alive today he would pardon AKM Mohiuddin and the entire group, therefore the Mujib family should take this opportunity to be as GREAT as Gandhi, Pope and Mujib.
Then not only will Mujib himself be raised to his heights - but the entire Bangladesh nation will remain with reverence and unity that was the dream of Sheikh Mujib.
April 1st, 2007 at 4:22 pm
The death sentence is always justified by “the structural and institutional need for a robust and effective justice system”, but for most of us who oppose it, that is not enough.
Farhad
April 1st, 2007 at 6:28 pm
farhad, I was not advocating the death penalty. I was advocating Mohiuddin facing justice rather than flaunting his disregard for it.
Surely, you are not saying that since Bangladesh has a death penalty, that all violent crimes that can result in a death penalty should not result in sentences. I am guessing that you are not saying that if you commit murder in Bangladesh, because there is death penalty on the books, the punishment for murder should be freedom for the criminal. Because if I read your reasoning correctly from you post, that is exactly what you are suggesting in this case.
I want to abolish the death penalty, and while it is on the books, I want to see death penalty sentences commuted to life in prison. But I do not want to see criminals tried, found guilty, and then say, oh well, you are free to go now. That is not justice nor is it advocacy for human rights.
The “structural and institutional” need that I referred to is the need for society to be protected from criminals and for criminals to be punished by the state when mine or your human rights are violated by a murderer by depriving you or me of our fundamental human right to life. That need is served best, in my view, by substituting a life sentence in place of a death sentence. That need is served poorly, and not at all, by substituting a death sentence with no punishment at all.
April 1st, 2007 at 6:37 pm
bitterboy, you say:
[UV admin deleted bitterboy's post referred here because it contained baseless propaganda message filled with personal vengence]
Are you sure you really want to try to defend that position? You are suggesting that extrajudicial murder is justified because the victim is perceived to be a “tyrant” or “criminal” or “immoral”. Wow, that is a very dangerous line of thought. No doubt Osama bin Laden would agree with you. But the rest of us who believe in the rule of law do not justify murder by saying the victim had it coming to him because I bitterboy, or I Mohiuddin, say he had it coming to him. You will note that argument is a favorite defense of rapists - they say the woman deserved it because she is “immoral”.
Civilized society is one in which the state has a monopoly on the use of force. And the use of force by the state is severely constrained by the state’s burden to prove the target of force to be guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt and deserving of the punishment - that is done in a court of law. What you are suggesting and defending, on the other hand, is thuggery.
April 1st, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Friends,
This should be a big surprise :-How did Mohiuddin get a Pakistani Passport???? Uttorsuri written by Rubel Ahsan and here is the link he sent too:-
http://www.saag.org/%5Cpapers22%5Cpaper2183.html
So if that is true where will he be deported Bangladesh or Pakistan???????
April 1st, 2007 at 6:56 pm
KGazi:
very well said. However, I dont think Sheikh Hasina and her son are going that path.
Bitterboy:
you have put it very well. Those of us who survived the atrocities of Sheikh and his Rakkhi Bahini know how needed the coup was but it is unfortunate the family of Sheikh had to perish.
April 1st, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I won’t comment on bitterboy’s comments, as I don’t feel it’ll be of any use. But to Mr. KGazi, it is very easy to ask a bereaved family to forgive the killers of the family members. But my questions are:
1. Has the killers themselves sought any apology for their wrongdoings ? I see that even now, they are trying to justify their crime and continues propaganda against anything related to Sheikh Mujib.
2. Can YOU forgive the killers of your family members? Let’s see the perspective of Sheikh hasina. Her entire family apart from herself and Rehana were brutally killed on Aug 15. Not only that, the indemnity ordinance was added to our constituition so that she cannot ask for justice against this gruesome murder. Think about yourself is a similar position. Could you forgive the killers ?
3. Even if the family fogives the killers, is it an acceptable practice ? So many persons’ life had been taken, most of which were women and children who had nothing to do with politics. Will it set a good example if they forgive the killers ? Won’t it go against humanity ?
April 1st, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Bitter Boy , Are you living in Jungle or Civilized Society?
You are treating some cold blooded murderer
as the Golden son of the soil.
Then what is the need of Judiciary? It seems
We are in ancient Tex us of Western Clint Eastwood
environment where Gun Fight is the biggest
parameter of Law.
I just want to ask you one thing how do you
rate Bangla Bhai in the history of Bangladesh? Freedom Fighter?
April 1st, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Mash,
“Because if I read your reasoning correctly from you post, that is exactly what you are suggesting in this case”.
No, I am not.
You may not realize, but there is more that we agree on than disagree. For example,
“I want to abolish the death penalty, and while it is on the books, I want to see death penalty sentences commuted to life in prison”.
My thoughts, too, exactly. The only difference being that on matters as serious as this (literally a ‘life-and-death’ situation) it is hardly a philosophical proposition. You either propose death or life. There lies the real test.
My point was, is it justice you are seeking, or is it vengeance ?
Farhad
April 1st, 2007 at 8:55 pm
In moments like these human rights organizations like Drishtipat should take a clear stand and should soul search if it’s philosophy on this issue is different from that of organizations like Amnesty International who very categorically state that the Government of Bangladesh should………
“………ensure that the accused are not sentenced to death as this would violate their most fundamental right, the right to life. Amnesty International opposes the imposition of the death penalty at all times and considers it to be an ultimate form of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment”.
When we talk about human rights, this is the most fundamental right of a human being, the right to life. A penalty that is “an ultimate form of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment” cannot be justice.
Farhad
April 1st, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Farhad Bhai,
I have seen most of the opponents of death penalty are the proponents of abortion. I don’t understand this contradiction.
Nevertheless, whether death penalty is good or bad, that is a different question. This thread is not about that. No human right proponent will deny the importance of justice being served. None will back a criminal hiding in a foreign land to escape the hands of the law enforcers.
April 1st, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Tonay,
I don’t know, where do you hail from and where do you currently live in. But I hailed from one of the most respectable family in a plain land of green Bangladesh, not from your suspicious fringe jungle terrain. Currently, I’m living in a world cosmopolitan city and I don’t think I’am somewhere near Amzan Jungle.
Mr. Tonay, I have to brag about me as you suspected my background. By the way, I was the student of the best collge of Dhaka and best medical college of Bangladesh. I studied the best public health school of the world. I attended 4 universities of the world in long and short courses of the world. I had and have interactions with thousands of people; work in service sectors and getting well along with my co-workers. Nobody suspected me I’m from a Jungle and thugger.
I’m upbringing an ideology to love people, establish justice and rights of people and not to idolize any leader;contributing or incriminating right or wrong singularly to any individual leader. Everybody should have their due respect or blame. Idolizing
one leader denigrates others and undermines human respects and self-esteem.
I beleive except those who just oppose our independence war, every citizen alive at the time of liberation war had their best contribution to our independence. Even an
octagenerian man who did nothing actively and even who didn’t voted for Awami League in 1970’s election. Why?
Because most older people who had role in the liberation of Pakistan and love for Pakistan, yet suppressed their love for Pakistan and didn’t go agaisnt our liberation war, in my consideratin had also the best contribution to independent Bangladesh.
And about me, I have something more brag abuot me. If I claim shouldn’t
I had been at that time perhaps Bangladesh wouldn’t get independence sounds too much
bragging, but not totally baseless. HOW!
In 1969, [ as part of their strategies,
to weaken the unity of Bangalees and strength of our movement] Yahya goverenment tried to provoke communal riot by promulgating ammendement in Enemy Properties ordinace. In my home district, there was about to brew a communal riot between Muslim and Hindus. Leaders from the whole district and as well as Central leader from DAC [Democratic Action] had to come down to the village level to diffuse and settle the conflict. As I believe I’m born to tell the truth and fight injustice with my humble capacity, defying all threats
I witnessed in favor of the helpless hindu family against scores of students and our whole village; With my truthful witness the victimized family got justice and the imminent riot was averted. If there had been communal riot then politics could have turned otherwise and the government had excuse to undermine the people uprising. I’m proud of that incidence.
Mash, I’m not in favor of pre-emptive attacks. The criminals should be tried after they commit crimes, not based on just suspicion. The groups had taken the steps after the all sorts of heinous crimes already committed by the Awami/Baksal goverment, their numerous bahinis and thuggers.
I’m claim to be more human than any one who brags to be humanist and cry against killings and other injustces. I consider a
human as human if somebody is born of some woman’s womb, irrespective of he/she has well formed all organs or not, black, brown or fair, hindu or muslims, asian or africans, rich or poor, educated or uneducated so forth. I don’t discrimiate people against due to their faiths. I don’t have problem thinking Mohammed and Mohendra are the two roses from the same stalk.
I love to call a spade a spade until somebody can convince me what I call a spade is not a spade.
So, Tonay and Admins, I never used any offensive words in this forum like jungle, bas**** etc but I sometimes see them here. I try to use all the facts I know. I believe, everyone is eduacated and sane but different people have different views and that’s very natural. Censor doesn’t work so well. Try to use all civil weapons like logic, facts and figures to convince the opponents.
Finally to defend my position about sad 1975’s event I would paraphrase Abrham Lincoln’s quote “…When even an elected ruler becomes tyrant and manipulates the system of government in a way that there doesn’t exist any democratic or legal options to change government or force the ruler to step down, then any actions legal or apparently illegal or violent, against that despotic rulers is legitimate.”
And glaring example, we are supporting the
current government, though it emerged using force and overstepping constitution because
there was no alternative way to stop the mess and political anarchy. This transition was bloodless but could have been bloody.
Thanks.
April 1st, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Farhad, I have no problem with Mohiuddin’s sentence being commuted to life. If the US were to demand that he be sent back only on condition that he is not executed, I would support that too. But the US will not do that given the US government’s stance on the death penalty.
But I do have a problem with Mohiuddin absonding and not facing justice. No, I am not looking for revenge. I am looking for justice. The longer he is able to game the system and make a fool out of Bangladesh and his victims, justice loses.
The death penalty is not the issue. I won’t use a death penalty argument, especially since both countries (US and Bangladesh) have the death penalty, to let a convicted criminal make a mockery of justice.
April 1st, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Dear FZ and Mash,
This post is about Mohiuddin facing the death penalty, which some of us will call justice. Why do we bother with it at all ? Because the crime committed was so barbaric. We seek reason and logic to redeem not only us, but also the perpetrator of the crime. As if there is an implicit complicity in letting him go, and it is our collective responsibility not to let that happen. To me, to let that happen is to take part in another crime in a collective sense. It is not justice.
Farhad
April 1st, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Here are two hypothetical questions:
1. A serial killer who shows no remorse for his killings has escaped his homeland.
He got death penalty in the US. He gets caught in England. Now as a human rights activist, would you help him to evade justice so that he is not returned to USA? By doing this are you not violating the rights of the victim’s family for fair trial and retribution for the injustice?
2. A woman was raped and she became pregnant. She wants to get abortion. If you are against abortion, would you be against the abortion of this child who was going to born because of an injustice to the woman? or would you believe that there can be exceptions in the cases of rape and incest?
The point I am trying to make is that everything should not be seen as black and white. In black and white, (saw it in a RSF press release) Falu, the head of a private TV channel, is now the victim of journalist oppression by the current govt. In reality, we know what’s the case.
I absoultely agree with Mash on this that if we encouraging flaunting of justice then we are encourage all others who got the highest punishment in BD to evade justice and as such violating the rights to redress for the victims’ families. THis is specially the case in this where the convicted and his family routinely promotes them as hero, shows no remorse and continues to taunt and insult the victim’s family.
April 1st, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Hi Farhad, I think we will have to agree to disagree. Once again, just so we are clear, I am not advocating the death penalty. But to “let him go” will set a very dangerous precedence. It is important to fashion a remedy for the victim and the agrieved society when a crime is committed. The alternatives are not as you suggest - letting him go, or killing him. That is a false choice.
I think a reasonable position for anti-death penalty advocates to take is to demand a commutation of the death sentence. But to suggest that there should be no consequences for murder as long as the death penalty is on the books is not a sustainable argument. That is an argument not even Amnesty will make.
I am a strong supporter of Amnesty International. I am also a strong advocate against torture. I have campaigned against torture on the Internet as part of “Bloggers Against Torture”. I am one of its founding members. I am an equal advocate against the death penalty. But I am not for the miscarriage of justice that has taken place for over three decades now.
Incidentally, I posted the same article that is on my blog to a number of leading progressive and liberal blogs in the US, including the human rights group blog Never In Our Names. They have front paged the article and I have received words of support for Bangladesh at every one of these blogs.
In addition to “Never in our Names”, here’s a list of the blogs where I’ve posted the article:
Daily Kos where the post was highlighted as one of the posts that are important. I am a regular posted on Daily Kos(probably the most trafficed blog in the world), and I have received significant support there for this case from the community.
Taylor Marsh, where I am a guest blogger.
Diatribune where it was a front page post.
Booman Tribune
I was just asked by the owner of Progressive Historians to post the article there - which I will do shortly.
I feel with the American progressive blogging community behind me as I have started to raise awareness for this case, that there will be overwhelming support in the US for sending Mohiuddin back to Bangladesh. I am doing my part to spread the word about this case. On human rights principles, I believe I am on firm ground - and my belief is strengthened by the support I have received for my posts on this case from the progressive American blogs.
April 1st, 2007 at 11:30 pm
dear admin,
I think and belive you are wise enough to sensor the wrong wordings here. So why not you sensor the posting of BITTERBOY?
He is telling like the son of the killers of Bangabandhu and his family.
Please tell something to BITTERBOY.
Sushanta
April 1st, 2007 at 11:46 pm
It is so sad that one’s view of Mujibur’s political decision will make him justify “gruesome killing spree of a few disgruntled arrogant and ambitious majors”. The killing spree that got innocent women and children killed. I cannot imagine how the remaining family ever moved on with their lives. Sultana Kamal and sheikh Moni’s wife were pregnant. She and Moni got shot in front of their two toddlers. Both Sultana and Rozy were practically newlyweds. Russel was a mere ten year old. They killed Mujib’s sister’s family (who was married to Seniyabot). How do these acts measure up to whether Mujib should have been removed from his job or not?
I don’t think Zia’s murder was justified either. There should have been investigation on who silenced major Manjur before he could spill the beans. Thankfully they spared the lives of Mrs Zia (an innocent housewife) and Tareque and Arafat who were probably 12 and 10 at the time.
There had always been controversy about the way Zia validated Indemnity Ordinance, thus legalizing the multiple murders of Aug 1975, and established the murderers in lucrative diplomatic jobs. There is no evidence that (that I could find) he ever intended to prosecute them. He killed over thousands of military officers in the firing squad who tried to stage coup against him, totally bypassing court martial, in order to keep the chain of command strong in army (at least till May 1981). The Indemnity Ordinance came handy for him because those were done under the Martial Law period. But none of those justified the way he was murdered on May 30 1981.
I was a child living in Chittagong few miles away from the Circuit House when that happened. I have no memory of Mujib as the head of govt. As far as I was concerned Zia was our hero – every single night we watched him in TV, mesmerized with how he traveled village after village and was determined to rebuild a war torn land. Couple of months before the accident he came to a multi school performance where I was a participant. I remember shaking his hand I was so thrilled. I had recurring nightmares for months after he suffered the horrible death. I would never wish death to anyone. Period.
April 1st, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Asif,
Answers to your two questions above:
1. Yes, I will if I am asked to. What is more important is that I will not actively advocate his deportation to USA. The catch phrase in your question was ‘retribution for the injustice’. Justice is not retribution, neither is it vengeance or revenge.
2. I believe abortion is a woman’s choice, regardless of whether it is the result of rape or otherwise. Before a child is born the life of the mother and the child are one, so are their rights. But why are we confusing it with the death penalty ?
Let me quote Rumi on a different post in this very blog:
“I protest this sort of state organized murders. Let their be no death penalty anywhere in the world. A state is not a murderer and it must itself not go down to become another murderer only to punish a murderer”.
So I guess I am not alone on this.
Mash,
No problem in us disagreeing, however your arguments for advocating sending someone to face death penalty, and at the same time philosophizing against it, I find quite contrived. It may appease your conscience in some way, but cannot go all the way in providing you with the moral redemption you seek.
Farhad
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:26 am
Zafa:
In the army, if anyone plot a coup or otherwise commits any crime, the punishment is meted out through courtmartial. From what you say, these ‘thousands’ of officers never received court martial. Where do you get this information from?
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:54 am
Re: #23
There are many books and online documents available in the internet to corroborate that info, one of them is in http://www.geographic.com
Check out Bangladesh’s history and govt pages, especially post independence era. If they are wrong we as Bangladeshi should officially complain for distorting our military history. Since this not the subject of the thread I’ll keep the excerpt very short:
….On November 7, Zia secured his release from house arrest, reportedly with Jatiyo Samajtantrik Dal backing, and staged a third coup. Musharraff was killed, Zia and other senior officers restored a semblance of army unity, and the jawans returned to barracks.
As Zia attempted to consolidate power under his new title of chief martial law administrator, additional challenges to his authority occurred. In April 1976, conservative officers led by Air Vice Marshal M.G. Tawab attempted to overthrow Zia after recalling four of the “killer majors” from exile.
… ….. ….
In the aftermath of the failed coup, Tawab was exiled, the Twenty-second East Bengal Regiment was disbanded, Taher was hanged…. ….
An even more serious breach of discipline occurred on September 29, 1977, when Japanese Red Army terrorists landed a hijacked aircraft at Dhaka International Airport (present-day Zia International Airport). While Zia and his senior staff officers were busy negotiating with the hijackers, an entire army battalion mutinied in Bogra. ….
The uprising was the handiwork of the Jatiyo Samajtantrik Dal, which again exhorted jawans to kill their commanding officers. … …Alarmed by the spreading disorder within the ranks, senior army officers rallied behind Zia’s leadership. After several days of heavy fighting that killed an estimated 200 soldiers, loyal troops succeeded in suppressing the rebellion. Zia then moved swiftly to purge mutinous elements from the military. Within a span of 2 months, more than 1,100 had been executed for involvement in the uprising…. …..it was the most devastating punishment exercise in the history of Bangladesh, carried out with the utmost speed and with total disregard for justice and the legal process……
….Declaring himself president in 1978, Ziaur Rahman signed the Indemnity Ordinance, giving immunity from prosecution to the men who plotted Mujibur Rahman’s killing and overthrow.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:28 am
Reading the postings on the subject, I am confused what version of the 75′ massacre I should teach my ten days old daughter when she grows up! As a nation we are still debating the incidents that happened within our life time. God only knows what other versions of the Mujib killing are in stock for our next generation after we are gone.
We must be really a confused bunch. No wonder in our country killers go free, but once caught we call for mercy; faint hearted to shed blood lest the convicted is not really guilty!
Cheers
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:43 am
Farhad, I am comfortable morally with my position. I am also comfortable as a practical matter of law.
The thing I find curious is why are you advocating that he should be set free? Shouldnt you be arguing that the Bangladesh government should commute his death sentence?
Setting him free cannot be a morally sustainable position, and certainly cannot be a legally sustainable position.
Amnesty International has not taken the view that he should be freed - they have only taken a principled stand against the death penalty. I think that is where most human rights organizations are because they realize that setting him free in itself is a violation of the human rights of his victims.
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:08 am
Bitter Boy, it is useless to speak about here in which universities you have attended and all. Rather having so many degrees I am surprised to see you are trying to justify crime. Yes I am living in Singapore. But I don’t have any problem to live in Jungle if civilized society is behaving in such manners.
A common basic you should understand. None of us should support one of the brutal murder of the history.
Just go through this blog. Here Mash and Farhad Bhai are speaking about death punishment. But Every one of them is agreed in here that it is crime and It is the fact
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:18 am
Mash,
I have no cause to have personal vengeance on Sheik Mujib. I personally very much want these past issues to be burried for good giving our every leader their proper place in the history.
As in this bloggers’ forum I may look like most crude mujib-hater. But I’m not. I’m outraged while we put Sheik Mujib on our altar, we put our brave great other leaders on our door-mat where clean our feet.
I just say, despite Sheik Mujib was a great leader he did great blunders after his assumption of power. 1975 incidence was the sad for his family and as well as for the nation but it was historically inevitable. It should been have the lesson of our political leaders. Still we are kept doing the mistakes with same pace and even more.
I don’t negate all the qualities of Sheik Mujib as a leader. But giving him respect we berates others like Zia, Tajuddin, Osmani and so on. I get angry when leader like Zillur Rahman says Zia had no or very little contribution to the independence. Once he said, Zia was a soldier of our exile government and took allowance. As if he revolted for 500 takas allowance from Mujib Nagar Sharker. Such mean mentality we have.
I’m saddened to see, the current government didn’t pay the minimum homage to Tajuddin, one of my great heroes. For certain reasons, I have more respect for Tajuddin than Sheik Mujib.
While giving Sheik Mujib his over dues, Awami leaguers put Gen. Osmany down. Everybody who was grown up to the level of understanding in 1971 we know Gen. Osmany was the commander-in-cheif[Muktijodder Sharbadinaayak]of Muktibahani. All on a sudden after Hasina took the leadership disputed his title and denigrated him by calling Army chief [ Prodhan senapoti].
I don’t want to make it lengthy. My father-in-law was the private/part-time tutor of Sheik Mujib in calcutta. I had heard many good stuffs about Sheik Mujib. I visited Sheik Mujib’s Majar, and as a muslim I recited from Al-Quran for about 30 minutes and prayed for his departed soul.
Religiously it’s not good to say bad about a deceased. But I do it for the sake of people’s awareness of the facts about our leaders as they aren’t private citizen, rather public figures. We can do it with the intent that we can learn from history.
I speak against Sheik Mujib, Sheik Kamal, Sheik Moni. But I never said anything against Sheik Shahid. He is extremely good and honest guy so far I know about him.
So, again I had no personal interactions with Sheik Family to have personal vengeance.
Thanks.
May God give every one of us true guidance.
Thanks.
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:22 am
Mash,
Where have you read that I am advocating that he should be set free ?
In an earlier post of Rumi, I had commented:
“I always advocated that justice be dealt out to the killers of Bangabandhu, but cannot support that justice if that translates into a death sentence.”
I think you and I have two different concept of ‘justice’, but we both seek the same.
Farhad
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:34 am
Mash,
As for Amnesty International, this is what they have to say in conclusion for the Bangabandhu Murder Case:
1. Amnesty International is aware that as of late May 1997, there has been no substantial hearing of the case due to repeated adjournment of the hearings on procedural points raised by the defence. However, it urges the Government of Bangladesh to ensure at all times that these trials conform to the internationally established fair trial standards.
2.Amnesty International is urging the Government of Bangladesh to ensure that the accused are not sentenced to death as this would violate their most fundamental right, the right to life. Amnesty International opposes the imposition of the death penalty at all times and considers it to be an ultimate form of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
3.Amnesty International urges the Government of Bangladesh to institute an impartial and independent inquiry into allegations by the accused that they have been subjected to torture and ill-treatment. Should these allegations be substantiated, the perpetrators should be brought to justice without delay.
This is hardly advocating Mohiuddin’s return to Bangladesh to face the ‘judgment’. For more details, check out the link below:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA130021997?open&of=ENG-BGD
Farhad
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:15 am
Farhad bhai,
I am trying to find out what’s Amnesty’s current position on this (the one quoted is from 1997). However, this is a tough one, just like you are interpreting Mash’s stand — send him home equals to let him be hanged, your position of don’t send him home is equal to setting him free. Because if he goes to 3rd party country like Libya, he will never be tried that’s for sure.
So the just stand is to let him face justice and campaign for the commuting of his death sentence.
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:47 am
Ref # 25
Hope this is not too far away from the current topic.
Sufibaba,
I am totally with you on this one. How are we ever going to know the true history?
A few more ‘urban’ legends regarding political killings in BD to add to the list, the mystery of which we will probably never be able to unravel.
1. 10,000 JSD activists killed during Mujib rule. Is this true? Who are they and who killed them??
2. Who killed Siraj Sikder? Why? How? Will he ever get justice?
3. What really happened between 3rd - 7th November, 1975??
4. 1100 or 2700 army officers were killed by Zia. Is this true? Who are these people? Shouldn’t these people get justice?
5. Why and how was General Manzoor killed? Why was he silenced? or was he really?
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:09 am
bitterboy,
I’ve no intention to argue your point of view. But, your information about the muktijuddher shorbadhinayok is wrong. The Mujibnagar government proclamation of independence(http://banglapedia.net/HT/P_0289.HTM) clearly states that,
” till such time as a Constitution is framed, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman shall be the President of the Republic and that Syed Nazrul Islam shall be the Vice President of the Republic, and
that the President shall be the SUPREME COMMANDER of all the Armed Forces of the Republic,”
Gen Osmani was the Commander of Armed Forces, not the SUPREME commander as you have claimed. So he was the Prodhan Senapoti, not the Shorbadhinayok.
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:17 am
Asif,
“……..he will never be tried that’s for sure”; you don’t need to worry about trying him; he has already been tried. Its the sentence we need to worry about. There should be some sort ‘plea bargain’ with the country that wants him. “Commute the sentence and you will get him”. This could be our advocacy, not just sending him to the gallows.
As for Amnesty International, I will not be surprised if their current position is unchanged, as nothing much has changed since 1997 for them to change their principal. As a strong opponent of the death penalty, they had consistently opposed deporting even despots to countries that uphold death penalty. I can be quite certain they have done so in this case too.
Farhad
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:06 am
Asif, Mash,
A common mistake that’s made on this thread is that Mohiuddin is not being sent back to Bangladesh to be tried, but to face a judgment of a trial that has run its course. Hence, the “stand is to let him face justice and campaign for the commuting of his death sentence” is rather weak. If what you mean by justice is to face the judgment, we are sending him to face death, not to stand trial again. To “campaign for the commuting of his death sentence” after that would be somewhat irrelevant, don’t you think.
Farhad
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:42 am
In reply to Zafa (#21):
The assertion about the “thousands of military officers” killed without courts martial is not necessarily totally true:
1. I remember at least one such court martial proceeding against the “sepoy rebellion” soldiers. Quite a lot of the defendants were subsequently executed.
2. Thousands of officers being killed would have singularly decimated the officer corps. Considering the top-heavy nature of the Bangladesh Army, probably not such a bad thing. But it would have been unrealistic for Zia to do. Besides, he was pretty popular with the Army, and wouldn’t have needed to do it anyway.
The subject of courts martial brings up an interesting question:
Does anyone know why “the majors” weren’t tried for Mutiny?
It would have been a far easier case to prove. Even Maj Mohiuddin’s defense of merely manning a roadblock — without a state of war or emergency extant, and without the hand-over of local control by civilian police forces — would have been reason for proceedings.
By the same token, as serving military officers, the other Majors could also have been easily tried for the crime of mutiny.
Of course, that would have brought us full circle to the problem of extradition. The penalty for mutiny (in pretty much all armed forces, including the US) is death.
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:09 am
I think its a fairly weak position to take no position on the extradition while the convicted killer calls himself hero for murdering inncocent civilians and makes a mockery of our judicial system and while the victims’ family longs for justice (sentencing).
The Government of Singapore has consistently argued that the use of the death penalty is not a question of human rights. It has vigorously defended its stance that executions have been effective in deterring crime, particularly drug trafficking. In a letter addressed to the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and circulated in 2001 at the 57th session of the Commission on Human Rights, the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Singapore to the UN stated: “…the death penalty is primarily a criminal justice issue, and therefore is a question for the sovereign jurisdiction of each country [...] the right to life is not the only right, and [...] it is the duty of societies and governments to decide how to balance competing rights against each other.”
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:36 am
Somebody murdered women and children on that day in 1975.
The hypocracy of Bitterboy is that not once will they acknowledge need to serve justice for this crime even if we place aside the Sheik Mujib murder.
They gloss over this very quickly and hero-worship the Mujib Family murderers.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:40 am
Asif,
The Government of Singapore is no role model for me on human rights issues. I sincerely hope it is not for you either.
By citing its arguments in favour of the death penalty, do you endorse this form of punishment now ?
Who said about not taking any position ? How about this, if I may quote from my earlier comment:
“There should be some sort ‘plea bargain’ with the country that wants him (Bangladesh, in this case). “Commute the sentence and you will get him”. This could be our advocacy, not just sending him to the gallows.”
Or would you prefer sending him to sure death for the sins he has committed ?
On Singapore and human rights, this is what Wikipedia has to say:
“……..the government has broad powers to limit citizen rights and to handicap the political opposition. In 2006, Singapore ranked 146th out of 167 nations by Reporters Without Borders in the Worldwide Press Freedom Index. Government pressure to conform has resulted in the practice of self-censorship by journalists.[2]
Singapore uses the death penalty extensively and has, according to Amnesty International, the world’s highest execution rate relative to population size.[1] The government has contested Amnesty’s assertion that this constitutes violation of human rights. Caning, in addition to imprisonment, remains a routine punishment for numerous offenses. Internment has been used to deal with espionage, terrorism, organized crime, and narcotics. Citizens’ privacy rights occasionally have been infringed, and the government has restricted freedom of speech and freedom of the press and has limited other civil and political rights. Censorship of sexual, political and racially or religiously sensitive content is extensive…..”
Links to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reports are also available if you so require.
Farhad
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Farhad bhai,
Sorry I used Singapore quote just to show the reasonings used by them to support death penalty. But agree that they are definitely not a role model on human rights. Regarding Amnesty’s position now on this, you are spot on. I believe the position that you mentioned extradition in exchange of commuting the death penalty is a good position for the human rights advocate. The following was sent to drishtipat from Amnesty’s Bangladesh desk this morning after getting our enquiry. Note though that Amnesty is not supporting it because of the sentence and not because fair trial did not happen on this.
Amnesty will not oppose the investigation of those accused of human rights violations, and the trial and conviction of those who have been found to be involved in human rights violations. However, such investigtions and trials should be informed by three main standards: that torture is not used to extract information; that trials are in accordance with international fair trial standards, and that the death penalty is not imposed as punishment.
In the case of Mr Mohiuddin Ahmed, his conviction to death is a very problematic issue and, on that ground, Amnesty will not be able to support his extradition.
Please see the following links to AI documents relating to the case.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA130021997?open&of=ENG-BGD
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA130031998?open&of=ENG-BGD
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Asif,
I too have no problem with the fairness of the trail. It is the death sentence that I oppose.
Farhad
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I am out on the road and using my PDA. I’ll write a fuller response later.
However, I wanted to point out that Amnesty’s stance is a principled one against the death penalty. They said they will not support the extradition, but they have not released anything yet opposing it either.
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Mash,
What’s wrong with having principles ? Why can’t we have some too ? Await your fuller response.
Farhad
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Shahed (#32) and Shahed (#36),
Once again here is my stance.
Even if the allegations against Zia were true, I will never agree that the fate he succumbed to was right.
Even if the allegations against Zia’s son Tareque Rahman are proved in court to be true, I do not think his entire family (wife and daughter and others) should be condemned for life.
What throws me off totally is that in this civilized society there are people (some self proclaimed highly educated ones) who claim that the grisly killing spree of Aug 15 ’75 was not only just, but we should honor those murderers by calling them heroes.
When Aug 15 happened Hasina was in Germany with husband and kids. Rehana was only sixteen, and was vacationing at her sister’s house. A clip from New York Times from Aug 19 1975 said the two sisters did not know for days what happened to their loved ones. Sajeeb said in his blog to this day they don’t which grave belongs to which family member. The sisters were barred from entering their own country Bangladesh during Zia regime. Why? Why couldn’t they come back to visit their family graves? Why should they have been punished like that when the murderers were enjoying diplomatic previleges??
Those who are close to me know that I am absolutely non partisan. I have zero bias to any political parties. When I was in middle school the text books I read in BD on history/social-studies did not give me the comprehensive picture of the 70’s. When I grew up I started to realize each govt we had after ’71 did not do fair governing. They were blind with their own political ideology, ruthless in their own ways, and allowed some opportunists to blatantly loot the country. As I started to read up the documents from neutral sources I found there had been way too much cover ups and propaganda about the previous govt by the next govt. Only in the last decade and half the media had been enjoying freedom and general public are not so afraid to speak up their mind.
There had been atrocities launched on innocent people in the 70’s that never came out to public view. I think it is a much greater crime to kill a human being than to have a faulty govt policy. But that’s just my opinion.
Blind faith and misguided notions can make people do the unthinkable. There are suicide bombers in the world who believe they are doing the right thing, and they are doing it in the name of God and that they should go to heaven for their sacrifice.
The JMB militants also believed they had every right to kill the judges because there should not be any man made court or laws, there should only be the ones prescribed by the shariah.
I don’t believe in death penalty. But ask the victims’ families in Jhalokathi – they will tell you otherwise.
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Dear FARHAD BHAI and ASIF BHAI
Here is going on a debate about death penalty. We, Bangladeshi are a very strange national. We have raised the question of death penalty as it is a matter of killing of BongoBandhu and his family. But we did not make a debate or postings in DP regarding the crossfire of six persons for killing two officers of RAB.
Strange ! Very Strange!!
Sushanta
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Shushanta,
UV blog had protested against the extra judicial killings by RAB numerous times. There had been way too many incidences to discuss individually. UV (and Drishtipat) stand against all killings that were done without due process of law.
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
ZaFa,
I was not referring to any of your comments. I was echoing Sufibaba’s concern and merely expressing my frustration over the contradictory information that hangs in the air. There is very little clarity regarding things that I have said (#32).
As far as Zia and Mujib killing, I think we were and are on the same page. These kinds of killings cannot be justified. I hope you do know that ‘Shahed’(me) and ‘Shahed Aziz’ are two different bloggers.
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Farhad Bhai I understand your standing .on the
point of human right, U don’t want death as verdict. But what will be the substitute arrangement particularly country like Bangladesh where political meta fore is working every where. I Just want to support
Asif’s Libya instance.
why should we go to African region? Even in
Bangladesh we are watching the Indemnity ordinance.whatis your standing about Nathuram Godseys?
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Tanoy,
Opposing capital punishment as a matter of principle is a personal choice, but once taken, the difficulty is to maintain consistency in this particular stand. One cannot be selective in matters of principle; otherwise it does not remain a principle of any worth. I will quote again a part of my earlier comment on Rumi’s post:
“I fully and wholeheartedly support you on this. Much that I wanted Bangla Bhai and his cohorts brought to justice, I will oppose any ‘justice’ that calls for taking away another human life. The real test for us all is when such judgment falls on people who have caused some of the most heinous crimes. Can we still then uphold our beliefs ?”
What can we do in such circumstances ? Most of us, myself included, do not have the resources or the time to embark on a crusade to protect and defend any criminal that faces the death penalty. The least we can do is not be proactive in sending them to face their sentence. I decided to place my comments on this post only when I felt a number of us are actively seeking that Mohiuddin is sent to his death, taking this to constitute justice.
A true opponent of capital punishment will take several steps further than that. I neither have the will, courage or conviction to go that far. To quote Rumi’s words in the earlier post:
“I do not have the means to launch that massive scale protest, but I’ll do my own protest. Every time a death sentence is conducted by the state of Bangladesh, I’ll post a picture of a child in this blog.”
That’s more than what I would do.
Farhad
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:06 am
Farhad,
Sorry for the late response - its been a long day. Once again, I do want to state that I am not conflating ‘justice’ with ‘death penalty’, they are not the same in general, and certainly not the same in this instance. The notion that Mohiuddin will be taken from the plane to the gallows is nonsense. To wit, the others who have been convicted are still awaiting the carrying out of their sentences. As I recall, all appeals were exhausted in 2001. So, I don’t particularly see a rush to carry out the death sentence in this case.
Now, to get back to the earlier discussion. I said that Amnesty was taking a principled stand to not advocate the extradition because, per Amnesty’s stance, they cannot support the extradition because it may lead to the death penalty. They however are not advocating keeping Mohiuddin outside the reach of Bangladeshi law either. That last bit is crucial. If Mohiuddin or anyone faces an imminent execution, I expect Amnesty to send out an action alert, but I will be very surprised to see Amnesty send out an alert advocating that Mohiuddin be allowed to live freely in the United States or be deported to a third country. Because the latter would also be counter to Amnesty’s principles - allowing mass murder to be carried out without consequence is antithetical to any human rights campaigner.
So, let’s be “principled”. You are now up against two competing principles, one is being against the death penalty, the second being the right of anyone to have recourse to the law when their human rights are violated by a mass murderer. In this circumstance, what will you choose? Will you choose to let the murderer roam free?
You have dismissed my suggestion that we should campaign against the death penalty, and campaign for commuting death sentences to life in prison. That is not an academic exercise. The option you suggest in principle and in fact is to aid and abet a mass murderer as he defies the rule of law.
I will sleep a lot better knowing that a mass murderer is in custody and not roaming free.
You also said:
I will say a couple of things here. An absolutist position is not necessarily the same as sticking to one’s principles. In other words, principals can be interpreted to sometimes mean the opposite of the original intent. There are plenty of examples of this in everyday life. Some extremist religious practices come to mind - all performed in the name of strict adherence to principles.
There is also danger when principles are used as a moral club. The argument goes like this: “I am taking a principled stand. Since you do not agree with me, you are either being selective in applying these principles or you simply do not have any principles. Therefore, you are morally deficient.” Many people have sacrificed their intellect to the so-called pursuit of principles.
To conclude, I respect your position on this matter. I do believe you are practicing your principles. I think we both agree about the need to abolish the death penalty. The fact that we differ on this matter does not mean that I have abandoned my principles, or selectively used them, however. It just may be that you and I differ on what the principle is and how it must be applied.
Our discussion has moved far afield of the original topic, I think, into a general discussion of the death penalty and/or morality. I am happy to continue this discussion in a separate thread or via email if you prefer, so that we don’t take over this thread with a bilateral conversation. In fact, I would welcome it. These matters are important, and should certainly be discussed.
Thanks,
Mash
p.s. You can drop me a note using the “Contact Me” page on my blog and we can continue from there. Thanks.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:51 am
go to freedin.org
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:14 am
FZ,
Constitution was framed in 1972, not at the beginning or at time of liberation. Proclamation of independence, is something very literal stuff. It was not a 100% factual document and had some inconsistencies. Mujib Nagar government had to piece-together some truths and half-truths, some valid and invalid stuff in it to give it somewhat legal basis so that exile government could claim, it was legitimate government.
Sheik was made the president and commander in chief in absentia. This was total theoritical stuff. Reality was different. Syed Nazrul Islam was acting President in absence of Sheik Mujib. But Syed Nazrul Islam was never a Commander-in-chief. General Osmany led the war as supreme commander of Army, Navy and Airforce. General Osmany presided all the meetings of combined forces and was the decision-maker on behalf of all three forces and he was the supreme commander, not Mr. Syed Nazrul Islam. Now we try to distort the history based on what was later added or refined in the consitutional proclamation.
I will urge FZ to look at the News-paper archives before Hasina’s reign. Then you will certainly get the truth.
Thanks.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Mash,
You write:
“You have dismissed my suggestion that we should campaign against the death penalty, and campaign for commuting death sentences to life in prison. That is not an academic exercise. The option you suggest in principle and in fact is to aid and abet a mass murderer as he defies the rule of law.”
My comment 34 and 39 on this very post:
“There should be some sort ‘plea bargain’ with the country that wants him (Bangladesh, in this case). ‘Commute the sentence and you will get him’. This could be our advocacy, not just sending him to the gallows.”
Farhad
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Farhad,
Touche.
However, as a practical matter, the United States will not and cannot do that, given its own support of the death penalty. The only reasons not to send him back is if he can make the case that his trial was not free and fair, or that he will be tortured. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has already rejected his argument that the trial was not fair. They have also rejected his torture argument.
So, it seems to me, there is no conceivable reason for the United States not to hand him over. Given that reality, and since this is not an academic exercise, the only practical course available to the death-penalty critic is to lobby the Bangladesh govt directly to commute his sentence.
We must not lose focus of the primary issue here - the need for a killer to be brought within the rule of law. Once that is done (or concurrently), and the US cannot conceivably prevent that without reeking of hypocrisy, we can work to get his sentence and other death penalty sentences commuted. But the quid pro quo you suggest will not occur, nor will I support it, because of the competing principles involved.
Incidentally, I just put up a post on Dana Rohrabacher on my blog that examines his curious involvement in this case, and his hypocrisy. There are forces at work here on Mohiuddin’s behalf that are not exactly concerned about human rights.
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Mash,
Do you sincerely believe Bangladesh government, upon our petition and active lobbying, but without any form of leverage, will commute the death sentence ? I don’t know what kind of influence you have over them, but we have not seen anything like this happen even a few weeks ago. And who are the ones that are going to lobby for this ? You, I and a few of his family members ? What kind of strategy do you have in mind (if at all any)? What is your best guess of the likelihood of this strategy ? What will happen if he is finally executed ? We throw up our hands and say, “Well, we tried.” knowing very well the strategy is doomed to fail. At least, let’s be honest to ourselves now.
Maybe by now we should write directly to each other (I have already sent you my e-mail address) instead of the two of us hogging up the blogspace.
Farhad
April 5th, 2007 at 7:55 am
[...] In response to the query from Drishtipat, Amnesty wrote: [...]