Wed 30 May 2007
[Today it late President Ziaur Rahman's 26th death anniversary. This commemorative post represents personal view of the author. ]
The force was never with late president Ziaur Rahman.
DUCSU was then under BNP’s student wing Chhatra Dal (JCD) control, so was majority of the dorms of DU. JCD was overwhelmingly single largest students’ party at DU campus. At that time, when two new dorms were built at DU, they were named Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Hall and Muktijoddha Ziaur Rahman Hall.
Today, Prothom-Alo gave single column 3 inches bottom of first page treatment to Zia’s death anniversary and the news item started this way, “Ex-President, Sector commander and Z force leader Ziaur Rahman’s…”.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Bill Clinton once said that how you feel about the 1960s determines your politics in the US. If you think that decade was a time of progressive movements for civil rights, women’s liberation and peace then you’re a Democrat. If you think it was a time of moral decay, loss of family values and defeatist foreign policy then you’re a Republican.
In Bangladesh the similar litmus test is the late 1970s. If you think that the late 1970s was a time when a military dictatorship abandoned socialist and secular ideologies and allowed the rise of political Islam then you are likely to support Awami League. If you think it was a time when a young, hard-working leader ensured much needed political and economic stability and experimented with representative government, then you don’t vote AL (though this doesn’t necessary mean you vote BNP).
The arguments about the 1960s still resonate in America because the baby boomers are the largest voting bloc. In Bangladesh, people who remember the late 1970s are a dwindling bunch. An entire generation equates BNP with not Zia but his sons. It will be interesting to see what this means for the future electoral maths in Bangladesh.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:01 am
And I should add where I stand on the late 1970s. I think Zia’s most important contribution is that he introduced the market economy.
AL didn’t stand for socialism until the 1970 election. While there probably was no alternative to nationalise Pakistani-owned businesses, it didn’t need to nationalise Bangladeshi-owned firms. Its brand of socialism was our original economic sin - the root of bureaucratic inefficiency and mass corruption. The antidote to this is market competition, and that was introduced by Zia. He didn’t need to - socialism was still en vogue, even China hadn’t started its reforms at that time. If Zia was a run-of-the-mill tinpot dictator, he would have styled himself a socialist. But he didn’t.
Like much else about Zia, this is also often igrnored by both sides of our politics.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Mujib and Zia, we all do not consider them as our prominent leaders who helped shape up our future identity. Extent of their success and failures may very but what is so unfortunate is a division has been perpetuated deep in the society, either you love him or hate him. It is not that I can not ignore one’s misdeed considering the many other important acheivements, but a culture that has been orchestrated throughout that, you got to love one and hate the other. Funny enough, this love or hate both at their extreme. This nation never learned to make discussions but only arguments. Proliferating diverse opinions replaced the clash of the same.
A rational outlook or approach to all our leaders would have healed many unnecessary antogonism and prejudice.
It seems till today we are not ready to learn from their mistakes rather compound them so that none of us can benefit.
Sincerely wish this string does not end up there.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Zia is the only military dictator who could give birth to a political party which could not only survive after the death of its founder, but also won elections in two nationally and internationally accepted general elections. This could be possible only because Zia established a poltical party not just to legalise his rule, but also to set a new trend in politics - an initiative never taken by a military dictator before and after his death to date. This is a unique facet, of the enigma named Zia, very rarely discussed in any circle, but needs to be looked into much deeper to have a rational understanding of his persona.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Still, I remember May 30, 1981. This day felt like we lost our family member. Yes, Pres. Zia was so close to our heart.
I feel that bangladesh will have to wait another century to get a leader like President Zia. This is our selfishness that we cannot give due respect to a leader like President Zia.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Zia was the greatest opportunist and murderer in the Bangladeshi history.Zia Murdered ruthlessly 1143 Army,Navy,Air force brave officers including Taher who brought him back from captivity. He rewarded Taher by court marsall.
Mustaq put him Army cheif right after mujib killing. Zia was the only beneficiary of killing Mujib.He rwarded killers by giving them diplomatic posts in overseas.
He engaged in student body politics and destoyed DU.Rememebr Niru bablu?
May 30th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
1. Zia rehabilitated the self-confessed murderers of Bangabandhu Shiekh Mujib.
2. Zia also rehabilitated the Razakaars who had collaborated with the Pakistani army in carrying out atrocities against intellectuals and religious minorities during 1971.
3. Zia created a “managed democracy” which remained largely beholden to the military and his political party.
4. Zia desecrated the secular Constitution and undermined the Rule of Law throughout his stint in power.
5. He killed thousands of army officers who he felt could be a threat to him.
6. He was responsible for corrupting politicians by paying rich bounties to those who were filing to join his newly floated political party.
7. In a verdict passed on 30 August 2005 the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh declared Zia’s seizure of power by military coup and his military regime as “unlawful and unconstitutional.” Zia’s martial law decrees, his ascendancy to the presidency in 1977 and the referendum held in 1978 were declared “unknown to the Constitution.”
On this day, it is also important that we do not forget the above facts about Zia.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
#6 and #7:
I urge both of you to assess the situation with reasoning. Mere repeatation of political stunt will not hide truth; it will come out.
Zia did not rehabilitate razakars, Mujib issued National Pardon to accused razakars.
Lets not forget the then political situation. If Zia was not there, we would have been under “BAKSAL” rule and would have been same situation as North Korea today.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Pls read the statement of Col. Taher and his last letter from Jail. Look how Major Zia rewarded Col. Taher.
http://www.col-taher.com/last_letter.html
http://www.col-taher.com/statment.html
And pls have a look at http://www.majordalim.com/ and you will find how Major Zia was related to Kill … and…..and …
May 30th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
corrected:
Hyder,
Base your arguments on facts; not on conjecture and surmises. How do you know Bangladesh would have become like North Korea? Why not like India or Malaysia?
The creation of BAKSAL has to be seen in the global context of the Cold War. Not that I am supporting BAKSAL but Zia did support it! He was one of the first army officers to have joined BAKSAL. He praised the concept in an article written by him and published in the Weekly Bitchitra. Should we call Zia a hypocrite as well?
May 30th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Ziaur Rhaman, the first military dictator of Bangladesh, was born in 1936 in Bagbari village under Gabtoli upazilla, Bogra, a northern district of Bangladesh. His father, a settler from India, was a district science officer. In his teens, Zia was in West Pakistan. Zia joined the Pakistan army in 1953 and was commissioned from Kakul military academy two years later. In the India- Pakistan war of 1965, he led a company and was said to have sent to Germany for higher training. Later in his career, Zia was appointed as the instructor of Pakistan Military Academy at Kakul.
More below
Source: http://www.muktadhara.net/page81.html
May 30th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Imagine inside army where your own colleagues or groups wants to kill you. As an army officer and a fighter, Zia knew well about killing or be killed. If indeed he killed ‘thousands’ army OFFICERS, then imagine what he did to Pakistani army in 71. Although history is yet to find ‘thousands of angry’ army families whose loved ones those were killed by Zia to come forward to discuss & demand justice of then happenings. Till then it remains as another propaganda feature of AW. He is indeed a true fighter, hero and leader with vision. Regardless of all propaganda, people of Non-AW love (not puja) him dearly. Both Muzib & Zia had unfortunate death, but after Muzib’s death people were mute, but not so the case for Zia. As for Zia becoming beneficiary of Mujib’s death, ask then foot soldiers what they believed in Zia. Out of many other senior officers why foot soldiers picked him to lead. Many things he did right, where people found him as an alternate expression of then torturers, murderous, corrupt Bakshal/AW. Rest is history & history proved he was so correct to make AW one of a ‘major parties’ and not remained ONLY party.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Hyder: “Zia did not rehabilitate razakars, Mujib issued National Pardon to accused razakars.”
There is a difference between (1) granting general amnesty after a war for the purpose of reconciliation and (2) rehabilitating those criminal elements and bringing them to the forefront of politics. Jamaat and Islamic fundamentalism was resurrected by Zia and not by the general amnesty granted by the post war government. And for your information the amnesty was not applicable for the more serious war crimes.
There is no denying that military dictators like Zia and Ershad used religion for the purpose of politics and encouraged the extremists from the fringes of politics to take the limelight.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
The posts in this thread is proof of how divisive the characters Zia (similarly, Muzib) is! Will there ever be a national compromise between these two camps? The real life is not completely black or white. It is always some shade of gray. The sooner we accept that fact, the better it is for the country.
By the way, the second website majordalim.com…who owns it? There is no identification there. How can one be sure of the authenticity of the writings there?
May 30th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Enhance Reading
http://www.thedailystar.net/2007/05/30/d705301501132.htm
May 30th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Jyoti
which aspects of the market economy are you referring to? Also, can you please tell us if you are for a deregulated or regulated market?
Thanks.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
RE# 4
If you credit him with winning two nationally and internationally recognised election, you must also blame him for the corruption within BNP and BNP’s recent attempt to rig the election by manipulating every branch of the government.
Let’s just recognise Ziaur Rahman as he should be, as one of our great leaders and not try to give him undue credits and also not fault him for the current state of BNP.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Ziaur Rahman and his legacy should be debated objectively, and not with the colored lenses of love and hate. I think I have to alternatively agree and disagree with some of your points.
Zia’s brand of Bangladeshi nationalism: Yes, it had a different flavor - and certainly he gets credit for the regional identity envisioned by SAARC - but did it stand out as a polar opposite of 1971 nationalism, even if you subscribe to the opinion that Mujib was more about Bangali nationalism than Bangladeshi nationlism? Does it matter? Are we splitting hairs?
I remember the immediate feelings I had about Zia’s brand of nationalism at the time it happened. It felt divisive, like you had to give up being Bangali to become Bangladeshi. But maybe my judgement and analysis was clouded in those early days of political awareness. In the rear view mirror, Zia has emerged as a much stronger leader now, in hindsight, than I ever allowed myself to give him credit for back then.
On the other hand, let’s not get carried away by stating Zia was not involved in coups. Your referral to “the coup” of 1975 - assuming you mean Nov 7 by Col Taher - doesn’t account for the many coups of 1975, including the big one on Aug 15. I have yet to read a factual account of these coups taken as a whole. It’s unfortunate that Zia’s role in Aug 15 continues to be up for discussion. Why do you think Brig. Khaled Mosharraf moved against him? Some of the Aug 15 officers are still running loose - strap a mike on yourself, get them drunk and see if the truth will set them free. They are trapped by it forever.
As for that ill-fated military junta under Justice Sayem, there was no doubt who was calling the shots - if you recall the Air Force DCMLA Tawab was forced out in months, and yes, he actually had several guns pointed to his head. The subsequent “accidental” helicopter crash of Tawab’s next in command and successor Bashar, followed by a purge of the air force top brass, effectively decimated any threat from that quarter. And so it goes with other pockets of resistance in the newly “democratic” Bangladesh.
You have to love Gen Zia’s ability to manipulate the public perception. Of all the leaders of Bangladesh, I think he was the most complex by far. Everyone else you can pretty much figure out, Zia remains an exception to this day.
No one is infallible. Ziaur Rahman did what he thought he had to do, whether it was for the nation or to consolidate power or for whatever reason. I wish we could leave love and hate out of it, and just pass the history on to our kids, as it is, before it’s all lost.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Muhamad (16),
I’m for:
- private property and enterprise;
- strong competition in individual markets, which does require a powerful consumer protection agency;
- a transparent and efficient tax system: consumption taxes and proportional income tax;
- free trade, open border migration policy and free capital mobility (recognising that this requires sound financial market watchdog);
- independent central bank that targets price stability;
- balanced government budget over the cycle (which allows Keynesian style fiscal stimulus during recessions);
- publicly financed but privately-delivered health, education and infrastructure services.
Much of this is irrelevant for this post. The most relevant bit is the first point: private property and enterprise. Bangladesh’s liberation movement was not based on socialism (defined as nationalisation of industries and collectivisation of agriculture). However, socialist factions had strong political influence in the 1970s. Under one faction’s influence Awami League adopted a brand of ’somajtontro’ whose legacy is still with us. Another faction joined Zia, and Zia could have continued with his brand of socialism. To his credit, he did not.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
I should add that most Bangladeshi socialists in the 1970s (and beyond) were individually sincere and honest people. But it was the system they propagated that allowed corruption to flourish.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:10 am
On #8 and #13
Have anyone read Mujib’s “Shadharon Khoma” conditions correctly? The forgiveness was not for all. It categorically excluded those who were involved in five crimes such as killing, rape, setting fire. Now if you exclude these people, the ones only remain for “Shadharon Khoma” are those who for different reasons were enlisted with rajakars, but were not active (in many villages, the seniors enlisted the young people’s name only to save them from army!)
Why do you think the first amendment of the Constitution was made (which allowed prosecution and punishment of any person accused of genocide or war crimes)? Why even real prosecution of razakaers began for which Golam Azom was exiled and many others were imprisoned (one of the then detained person later became President).
May 31st, 2007 at 12:37 am
Can We Truly Respect Our Leaders?
Reading the comments “for and against” our national leaders in DP, I asked myself, why can’t we truly and properly respect our national leaders? Why we always fall in arguments? These are the two quick answers I got (and would love to know if anyone has others)
1. Obsession for Leadership
Leaders are human being and they have both the good and bad side in their intensions, decisions. But we supporters are so obsessed that we never find the awful side of our leader, rather dig the terrible side of other leaders to make our one comparatively better!
2. Virtue of Birth
Most of us believe what we have been taught to believe from our childhood. Just think of our own religious belief… isn’t it becoz we were born in this family? (Just imagine Bush was born in a Muslim family and Laden was born in a Christian Family!)
If such a deep rooted believe can come more from “virtue of birth”, and not from “rationale”, why can’t political belief?
The worst thing is, when we say that we did the “post-belief-research”. That is, “I really went through the history to find the truth”. The sad thing is, when we have a pre-fixed belief in our head, we only “research” to justify our belief and find only those evidences that suits our belief.
When we will agree that Ziaur Rahman was both (what has been said by the supporters and the haters), only then we will be able to pay a true homage.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:05 am
Although a bit offtopic I would like to draw attention to the comment published by Daily Times (Pakistan) written by Mr. William B Milam who just visited Bangladesh.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C05%5C30%5Cstory_30-5-2007_pg3_2
This in my opinion is a strong endorsement of the current government backed by the army. He is a person who has a keen interest on Bangladesh and will be able to brief the US government on the real state of things in BD, unlike the uninformed lobby based statement signed by the 15 US senators.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:26 am
Let this be the day we respect our leaders. Let this be the day we stop digging up the dirts. Let this be the day we allow the deceased to be in peace. Let there be peace on you, Ziaur Rahman.
Let this be the day we learn from your strength. While we know you are just as well a human being, and so will there be failings but today, let it be the time to remember your goods. There will be many tomorrows that we can learn to avoid the failings you faced. But today we remember you for whatever you did for the country in your humble capacity, however small may it be.
Thanks
LTT
May 31st, 2007 at 2:40 am
Boishakhi
Thanks for the link, Post # 23. The header really speaks for itself. It deserves a repetation. Good to see my confidence reiterated.
….”Junior- and mid-level officers of the Army, highly educated and professionalised by the Army’s extensive role in international peacekeeping, appear to have little interest in running the country but great interest in a country that is run efficiently and equitably”….
It is comforting to see such confidence expressed by formar US Ambassadar who succintly mentioned why are we not to be compared with Pakistan!
I look forward to a true democracy that will put country first. Not any party, not any leader, even if that is Zia or Mujib. I am positive, our leaders would have told us the same, if they could.
Forgot to mention: A good post by Rumi.
Thanks again, LTT.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:20 am
Jyoti
On ur #2 comment:
Why do you think socialism would be the only pathway for a dictator? This is how “neo-liberalism” is used by the dictators around the world:
- Dictators use privatization to broaden its coalition with business and bureaucracy
- The “pure growth” strategy is naturally beneficial to the dictators, because higher rates of growth make possible increased defence and administrative expenditures, and higher salaries and other fringe benefits, both for the civil bureaucrats and the military elites (in the two years of strict military rule following the takeover by Zia, there was an increase in defense and civil administration expenditure by over Tk. 2 billion, as against an increase of less than Tk. 1 billion in the total expenditure under all non-military headings taken together).
- Liberalism also happened largely under the influence and financial conditions of the aid agencies (note that foreign aid flow was the highest during the military rule in BD and the lowest during democracy)
May 31st, 2007 at 3:30 am
Further to my last post re Jyoti’s comment, this is what BIDS, the research wing of Bangladesh government, found when they surveyed 205 privatized industries in 1997:
- only 112 (54.6%) found operational
- 83 (40.5%) are closed
- 10 (4.9%) non- existent
May 31st, 2007 at 3:42 am
Shuvro (21),
You’re quite right. The general amnesty was for ‘collaborators’ not ‘war criminals’. A considerable confusion exists on this, and all sides of politics contributes to this.
Anyone accused of murder, arson, rape etc were not given amnesty. There is no reason whatsoever why someone cannot file a case against, say, Matiur Rahman Nizami for murder.
Collaboration is a different matter altogether. Did someone who worked for the East Pakistan government collaborate? Should he have been tried for it? Then there is the issue of political difference with Bangladesh’s liberation movement. What if you were a committed Muslim League supporter, and didn’t want to see Bangladesh created? So long as you didn’t commit any crime, should you be denied your right to your views?
In independent Bangladesh, for political expediency, everyone made tactical alliances with everyone else at some point, and there really is no generally good side. Given the political realities of late 1970s, an alliance between collaborator Shah Aziz and freedom fighter Col Oli and a Mujib Nagar veteran Moudud could be justified. Given political realities of 2006, an alliance between Maolana Mannan’s Inquilaab and Awami League could also be justified.
But what cannot be justified is to say that Sheikh Mujib forgave murderers so I don’t have to worry about it.
May 31st, 2007 at 6:49 am
Shuvro (26),
Dictators don’t have to be socialists, liberal economic policy could perfectly co-exist with brutal dictatorship: Zia’s contemporary Pinochet is a good example of this. A brutal dictatorship is bad whether it’s economic policy is market-oriented or socialist. But a market-oriented economic policy is more likely to deliver economic prosperity, and this makes the transition from dictatorship to democracy both more likely and more peaceful. Again, Chile post-Pinochet is a good example.
Note the use of pro-market rather than pro-business. Pro-business is not the same as pro-market. For example, if you privatise BTV to your brother-in-law for a commission and then ban all other TV channels, that might be pro-business, but it’s not pro-market. I suspect this might have happened in Bangladesh.
As for ‘pure growth’ strategy being naturally beneficial to the dictators, there is a flaw in your argument. If the dictator spends only on his cronies in the army and civil service, where is the growth going to come from?
If the economy grows, then without changing any policy, the dictator can pay more to its cronies. But this means that the cronyism is not too high to begin with - too high cronyism would kill the growth process in the first place. From this point, if the dictator increases cronyism, then the growth will suffer. So it’s not at all obvious that going for growth is natural for the dictator.
Back to the 1970s Bangladesh. Zia could have stayed with some brand of socialism. Every country in the world that tried that are worse off today. It’s hard to say how things would have been different in Bangladesh. Zia initiated pro-market reforms. This may be because he was pressured by the aid agencies. But even that’s the case, he could have snubbed the aid agencies by choosing the ally with the Soviet Union. I am glad that he did no such thing. Bangladesh may not be in a very good shape today, but it would have been far worse off as a Soviet satellite.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:16 am
Shuvro in 27:
I’ not familiar with the BIDS study that you are citing, so if you could provide a link or reference, it would be helpful
As for the meaning of the figures themeselves, I don’t understand why they are necessarily negative. An important argument for privatization is to open up the business to the disciplines of the market. If a certain number of businesses closed, it is likely that they were not profitable/efficient enough in the free-market. As an example: Biman as it used to be, was nationalized, but a money sucking vacuum of inefficiency, for whatever reason. True, privatization will lead to massive job cuts, but thats the only way that the airline can stay profitable. Why should our taxes go to pay for entities that aren’t necessarily providing essential public goods?
May 31st, 2007 at 9:43 am
Jyoti (#28),
“Dictators don’t have to be socialists, liberal economic policy could perfectly co-exist with brutal dictatorship”
- Actually this is the point I tried to make. When you said (#2) “If Zia was a run-of-the-mill tinpot dictator, he would have styled himself a socialist”… it confused me.
“Note the use of pro-market rather than pro-business. … might be pro-business, …I suspect this might have happened in Bangladesh”
- Agree. Shouldn’t blame the Zia though… all the post-independence “pro-market” initiatives became “pro-business” both in the hands of military and electoral regimes.
“As for ‘pure growth’ strategy being naturally beneficial to the dictators, there is a flaw in your argument. If the dictator spends only on his cronies in the army and civil service, where is the growth going to come from… if the dictator increases cronyism, then the growth will suffer.
- Well, this is not the flaw in the argument, it was the inevitable consequences. Look at Bangladesh’s growth figures… down (avg 4%) with military rulers, up (avg 5.5%) with democracy. Not to mention the stagnant economy of 80s, this can’t be explained only by global recession. So the growth did suffer.
“Back to the 1970s Bangladesh. Zia could have stayed with some brand of socialism… Bangladesh may not be in a very good shape today, but it would have been far worse off as a Soviet satellite.”
- Yes, Zia’s decision to end socialism certainly benefited the country. Without questioning why he did that, can’t agree more that it was the right thing.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:13 am
Amer (#30),
One report was carried out by the Board of Investment at the request of ECNEC in early 1991 to ascertain the fate of enterprises transferred to the private sector between 1977 and 1990. Another one was commissioned by Finance Ministry and was carried out by BIDS in 1997. They both have similar shocking results. I didn’t find them on the web, but found this, which cited the both: http://www.cpd-bangladesh.org/publications/op/OP16.pdf
Now, as regard your second question, I only agree with the “hypothetical” part of it. Bangladesh’s experience with privatization, as Jyoti (#29) said, was “pro-business”, not “pro-market”. The above mentioned survey results made it clear.
The intension was to sell government property at a cheap rate to your friend. There are incidences where someone bought an industry and then sold out the parts and pieces for quick money! It wasn’t the lack of efficiency!
Privatization can be a “goal” (for making quick money) or a “means” (to make an efficient economy). Regrettably in Bangladesh, the first one happened!
May 31st, 2007 at 12:22 pm
If you guys try to hair-split the definition of collaborators and war-criminals in context of general amnesty then in facts the people who are charged or suspected as war criminals are all none but collaborators. We know, factually Golam Azam gong never fought in the field with Pakistani Army. They just provided information about people who were in their eyes, enemies to Pakistan nation. So, court can’t validate their war culpability as war criminals. All the criminals of Pak Army were released by Indira Gandhi and Mujib through Shimla-Pact.
Thanks.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Bitterboy (#33),
You took the wrong example! Golam Azam was proven guilty for his role as war-criminal(though according to your comment, he never fought) by the court and in his absence his citizenship was banned (this is why twenty years later a new government had to issue a fresh “citizenship” for him… have we forgotten that much debated event?)
Take a closer look at history (or, have the already become history?), you will see that many well known collaborators were actually proven war-criminals and were detained! Now, how they become free, or how the prosecution process was stopped later on… that’s another story and definitely shouldn’t be discussed under this thread.
And btw, criminals of Pak Army were released only to bring back those who were trapped/captured in Pakistan.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Further to my comment on “shadharon khoma”, one can think of “shadharon khoma” as a tool!
He can use it to claim that all the collaborators have been forgiven and by claiming this HE can actually ease their rehabilitation.
Or, one can say… “look, all were not forgiven… so let’s find and prosecute them”.
And which ever decision ONE would take, it will be HIS own choice.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:16 pm
THe issue on who or what offenses were pardoned has been addressed here
http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2006/12/14/765/#comment-55982
May 31st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
“For example, if you privatise BTV to your brother-in-law for a commission and then ban all other TV channels, that might be pro-business, but it’s not pro-market.”
Jyoti, would that also be applicable to exclusive mergers and monopolies, say, for example, predominance of Microsoft?
(Excuse my bad example, am an uneducated man who just happens to read and write in English, like the character from Vikas Swarup’s book).
Secondly, what is so bad about the brotherinlaw example? Isn’t it an exercise in free will in a free market situation? Would anybody other than a closet commie object to absolute accumulation?
Going back to the shommanitho Ziaur Rahman, unless one happens to be an amnesiac, we know very well how he came to be where he was. I’ll let the well-informed and expert Bdeshis do the talking.
Thanks.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:15 am
Thanks admin for this “MUST READ” link: http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2006/12/14/765/#comment-55982
June 1st, 2007 at 12:37 am
#36
(#16 )Asif Says:
December 14th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Who pardoned the rajakars?
From Tormenting 1971:
“Ekatturer Ghatak Dalal Nirmul Committee (The Committee for Resisting Killers and Collaborators of 1971)……”
Asif,
Could you shed some light why the English of ‘Nirmul’ has been used above as ‘Resistance’ instead of annihilation or something like that?
Thanks,
June 1st, 2007 at 1:08 am
For those who shed tear for Col Taher ( And these are the same people who are drooling to see Mohiuddin Ahmed hanged to death)
Col Taher was tried in a martial law court. (The proceedings of the court is available at http://www.col-taher.com). Col Taher was charged with causing a mutiny in the military forces and attempting to break it down to form a people’s army. Col Taher never denied these charges. In addition, Col Taher also didn’t deny charges that he is responsible for killing of many leading freedom fighter army officers including Maj gen Khaled Mosharraf, Col ATM haider and Col Huda.
Rest of the accused who were tried, denied the charges and all got very light punishments for murder and revolt. But, like those JMB leaders, the martial law court had no option but to give him the capital punishment when he didn’t deny the charges.
What you expect Zia to do? What was righteous to do? Let the murder of Khaled Mosharraf/ Haider go unpunished and release Taher (a self confessed murderer of army officers) only to pay back a personal gratitude?
June 1st, 2007 at 1:48 am
Muahmad (37),
1. Mergers and monopolies like Microsoft. The crucial issue is competition over time. If you think that merger will lead to monopoly then in general you would want to stop that. However, there are times when a single firm is the most efficient outcome - these are the cases of natural monopoly. If this happens, then one can make a strong argument for public ownership.
2. What is wrong with the brother-in-law/monopoly example? First, BTV is owned by taxpayers, not the PM or a minister personally. If the minister’s brother-in-law wins a genuine competitive tender then that’s one thing, but otherwise selling it to the brother-in-law is not a pro-market reform. Secondly, legislating a private monopoly is not pro-market either.
I’ve answered two of your questions sincerely. I detect a sense of sarcasm in the rest. I respect your right to say whatever you want, but I’m not particularly keen on playing word games.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:52 am
Rumi Bhai,
Qu. 1 Did Col Taher killed or ordered to kill Khaled Musharraf / Haider ?
Qu. 2 Are you equating the Bangabandhu murder case trial (normal trial prcoedure) with Col Taher trial (martial court) ?
June 1st, 2007 at 4:22 am
We keep getting to the razakar issue again and again. After reading different threads, what is clear to me is that only pardon issued by Sheik Mujib was for supporters of Pakistan who did not commit crime. This does not include majority of current Jamaat top leaders because they,as reported,took part in different criminal activity during 1971 war as part of pro-pakistani campaign. I have some basic questions regarding their activity and following attempts ( or lack thereof) to prosecute them. I would appreciate if someone could put things in perspective.
1. If they had committed such crime, why any of the governments in last 36 years did not prosecute them? I understand that G.Azam lost his citizenship but was that all and nothing for the rest of the gang?
2. If they had committed such crime, why in all these years nobody (i.e. victim) came forward to testify or file a criminal case against them personally or collectively in last 36 years? If so, what happened to those lawsuits?
3. We have had a term of AL rule, why didn’t AL put them on trial? Sheik Hasina has reiterated many times her eagerness to put them on trial including in post #36.
4. According to the above thread posted by Admin (post #36). Ghatok Dalal Nirmul Committee created a “gono adalot” for a public trial. Why need “gono adalot” when there was legitimate justice system in BD?
5. Why a “gono adalot” was necessary without filing a single charge against Golam Azam or other Jamaatis in BD court?
It seems that we cannot accept them within our political system but we cannot get rid of them either.
Thanks in advance.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:30 am
Excellent post. As a Bangladeshi Nationalist and an avid Star Wars fan, I take my hat off to Rumi Ahmed.
May God rest in peace the valiant soul of President Ziaur Rahman.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:58 am
Mr FZ
I request you to put more questions to Mr.Rumi
3.I am in fond of Col. Taher. Are you the same of Mr Mohiuddin?
4. Can Mr. Mohiuddin be compared to Col. Taher?
5. How can you put the example of the punishment of JMB with Col. Taher and other army officer who were given death by Zia’s court martial?
June 1st, 2007 at 11:37 am
1. Yes Col Taher’s loyal soldiers killed khaled mosharraf and Haider. Taher were aware of Khale’s arrest and his internment at the second floor of a building at the former Rakhkhi bahini camp. People say he sent Habildar Jalil etc with that specific mission. And how Taher can deny this while he was boasting all along in the court that he organized the soldiers mutiny?
( Sara rat ramayan pore boli Shita kar ma!)
2. In the eye of the law, all murder’s are equal. Courts will not treat a case differently then the other.
What trial of Bangabandhu is to Sheikh Hasina, the trial and punishment of Col Taher is exactly the same for the children and family of gen Khaled Mosharraf, Col haider and Col Huda.
3. The similarity of Taher and JMB is that both Taher and the JMB leader were so much idealogy and passion driven that they didn’t hesitate to kill people to reach their goal and dare confess what they did. Both are extremism.
4. To Sushant’s question, yes when soldier’s do mutiny and active soldier’s are killed by other soldier’s they are tried in court martial. It’s not only Zia’s deed. Any other country, any other leader would have done that.
5. And I am not a fan of Mohiuddin. But I don’t want him hanged. In fact I don’t want anybody hanged. Even I don’t support hanging of Taher. I don’t support killing of army officers by different court martial rulings over the years.
But I don’t support Taher’s hanging does not mean that I am his fan and similarly I don’t support hanging of Mohiuddin should not make me his fan.
6. Mohiuddin and Taher are same in a way that both were involved in organizing military coups where lives were lost.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
In addition to Rumi Bhai’s comments on Taher:
1. By all reckoning, Khaled Musharraf’s coup, if successful, would have restored Sheikh Mujib to his rightful place in history. If you blame Zia for rewriting history, then you should also blame Taher - after all, it was Taher who overthrew Khaled Musharraf.
2. And what political slogans did Taher use in his coup? He may have stood for socialism and people’s democracy, but to mobilise his troops on 6-7 November 1975, he blatantly used the India bogey. He didn’t rally his troops by saying ‘let’s kill Khaled Musharraf and establish a classless society’. His message was ‘we have to kill Khaled Musharraf because he will give the country to India’. If you think that it is wrong to use anti-India feelings to hide your political weakness, then you should also say that Taher was wrong.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Rumi Bhai,
I expected that your response to the above questions would be as coherent as your main post.
Let me explain where my confusion is:
1. Taher were aware of Khale’s arrest…
- Zia also knew who are going to kill Mujib and when. When the masterminds of Mujib killing requested Zia’s support in the event, he allegedly replied, “As a senior official I can’t do this, but if you want to do it, GO AHEAD” (ref: a murderer’s interview to a UK channel… hope you’ve seen it).
Now, doesn’t it make Zia the murderer of Mujib?
2. Courts will not treat a case differently then the other.
- Aren’t we talking about two different cases, one with Martial Court and one with Civil Court? These courts are fundamentally different and same person would get different treatment from the two.
2. … the trial and punishment of Col Taher is exactly the same for the children and family of gen Khaled Mosharraf
- So would have been the trial of “you know who” for the children and family of Col Taher, won’t you agree?
5. And I am not a fan of Mohiuddin…
- You missed Sushanta’s (#45) indication… he was (I hope) referring to your line (#40) “those who shed tear for Col Taher … are the same people who are drooling to see Mohiuddin Ahmed hanged to death.”
So, according to your logic, if you don’t want Mohiuddin to be hanged, then you must support hanging of Taher (which you don’t)!
So, there is a serious flaw in your logic.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Banglarman (#43),
You can have your answers fro the info provided in admin’s post #36. Here is how:
Q1. I understand that G.Azam lost his citizenship but was that all and nothing for the rest of the gang?
- It was not all. Prosecution of 11,000 arrested collaborators began at that time. Many were sentenced to jail.
Q2. If they had committed such crime, why in all these years nobody (i.e. victim) came forward to testify or file a criminal case against them personally or collectively in last 36 years? If so, what happened to those lawsuits?
- Victims did come forward to testify or file a criminal case against them personally and those lawsuits were scraped when Zia abolished the basis (i.e. Collaborator Act) of those lawsuits.
Q3. We have had a term of AL rule, why didn’t AL put them on trial?
- Coz opposition leader, who have the support of fifty percent of the population, said, “after 30 years, this would be a blueprint to divide the nation”! (note that, world war II criminals got punishment even after fifty years!)
Q4-5. Why need “gono adalot” when there was legitimate justice system in BD?
- Coz existing rule couldn’t prosecute them. that is why Mujib formulated the Collaborators Act. Under this, prosecution of 11,000 arrested collaborators began. The government of Sayem and Zia scrapped the Collaboration Act on December 31, 1975. As a result, the 11,000 war criminals appealed and were released.
Hope this helped.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:04 am
Dear Shuvro
You know very well that I am not confused.
1.
Actually what I’ll tell here will be repeatations.
Col Taher organized the coup that killed Khaled Mosharrah/Haider. Soldiers were incited by Taher to kill officers killed Khaled. The soldiers who killed Khaled were very close aide of Taher in his Gana bahini.
And that is why Taher is responsible for Khaled’s killing. It is like how Faruq/Rashid were responsible for Bangabandhu’s killing.
2. The reason Taher were tried in Martial law court is because it was martial law period and the offence were attempts to break down army and killing army generals. Be it civil court, be it matial law court, if the accused don’t deny crimes like mutiny against the army and killing generals, the punishment is death sentence.
3. No. The logic was the double standard. You all shed tear for justice to Bangabandhu’s killers. But at the same time you don’t support trial of killing of war heros like Khaled Mosharraf. As Mohiuddin is convicted of Bangabandhu killing, Taher is convicted of Khaled Killing.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:22 am
Shuvro (48),
Faruque-Rashid told a British TV programme that they told Zia about their plans to ‘kill the President (Sheikh Mujib)’ - this is pretty well known.
However, they also published a book in the 1980s, when they flouted their Freedom Party and ‘contested’ against Ershad in elections. In this book, titled ‘Muktir pothe’, they claim that Zia was the ultimate traitor. That when they confided on Zia about ‘killing the President’, Zia ran straight to the President and informed all senior officers. Apparently they were saved by Khaled Musharraf, who in this version of the event appears as a hero of ‘Muslim Bangali progotishil jatiyotabad’.
Then, in 1996-97, during the trial, Faruque’s defence was this: they tried to arrest Sheikh Sahib and enact a peaceful change in government, but they were fired upon by Sheikh Kamal and the entire massacre happened in self-defence! So killing anyone was apparently never part of the plan, so there was nothing to tell Zia beforehand.
So we have three public versions of the event by Faruque, who is the self-confessed and widely acknowledged architect of the 15 August massacre.
There is much we don’t know about the events of 1975. But those of us who claim to know better because we have done the research, or think of ourselves as objective - re: your 22 comment above - we should try to be more careful in our argument.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:15 am
Rumi
You are right regarding the mutiny case. Taher’s was a case of straight forward mutiny that led the soldiers against the Army Leadership as a whole. There was no other way but to hand over the highest punishment for the offence.
More so, I was surprised to know (I did not read his case thoroughly before) how he took control of soldiers and seemingly led the movement. No way it will be accepted.
I also did not understand how he blamed Zia for his trial. He said that he betrayed. But was it because Zia was in power that time! It might have been his emotional outburst. I thought may be he expected Zia to save him having the power. But then, I also did not understand how could he boast that he made such and such president. After all it is not his mandate to make someone president.
Anyway I am just learning the case. But, once again you hit the bull.
Thanks LTT
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:40 am
A question always comes, why Taher idn’t take the power himself, rather put Zia in power.
This was apparently a smart move by Taher. Taher knew he didn’t have the popularity to gain the allegiance of whole of Bangladesh army. He would definitely face a strong counter coup soon. Taher read it righly that there was only one person in the army at that time, i.e Gen Zia who was respected by almost all the soldiers and officers in the army.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:48 am
Today col taher is one of the most respected leaders in AL circles.
This is a deliberate attempt to keep up the image of Zia as a betrayer and killer.
In fact it was col Taher who harmed AL most. He didn’t let Bangabandhu rest in peace one single day. 9 AL MPs, thousands of AL activists were killed by Taher’s Ganabahini. Rakhkhi Bahini was formed only to fight Ganabahini.
If you ask me one reason why Bangabandu’s govt failed or became unpopular, I’ll tell it was Col Taher’s ganabahini. There were constant violence. Taher’s ganabahini even attempted to kill Indian high Commissioner Mr samar Sen by bombing his house. Samar sen was miraculously saved.
Now he is your hero!!
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:12 am
Taher was meted out the exact punishment based on the merit of his crime. If he had been successful in his evil scheme using Zia to establish the so called people’s army killing all officers and so called Boigganic Samajtontra, he would have turned out to be a revolunist like Stalin and the likes. But with what authority he had tried to experiment his audacious eutopean politico-millitary philosophy killing army officers and gallant freedom fighters.
It’s maybe a natural law the killers don’t go unpunished. Late Taher killed some of the most heroic freedom fighters like Khaled Musharraf, Haider, Huda and others. Finally he wouldn’t have even spared Zia.
Taher was executed after trial in martial-law court. Zia was astute enough not to put him on CROSS-FIRE as Sheik Mujib ushered the First Cross-fire in Bangldesh by killing Seraj Sikder making up the story that he was killed in police-encounter while he was trying to flee.
Taher was a liberation-Hero-turned-Criminal and got the proportionate punishement and ended up with Hero to Zero.
Thanks.
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:09 am
It was absolutely a foolish move, I would say, rather, Rumi, on the part of Taher to have installed Zia in power, as Zia was never known to be a believer in socialism or communism or classless Army. Zia had actually no way, but to send Taher to the gallows to save his life as well as to save Bangladesh from further chaos and bloodshed.
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:13 am
”Now he is your hero!!” said Rumi. Who is being referred as ”your’ in the sentence. The AL circle. Isn’t it?
I posted a comment saying Major Ziaur Rahman as a Hero of Rumi. But he did not publish the post.
Replying my post without publishing is not good enough for a good debate.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:54 am
Dear Jyoti (#51),
I am not a researcher, rather a learner of Bangladesh’s political history. And you know that the text of history re late 70s is as mush confusing and disputed as the history itself. So I can only learn by questioning the coherence of the info.
Now Faruque-Rashid’s confess in the British TV programme was not only straight forward, but also a fresh report soon after the ‘event’. But the book was written during a time when they tried to rehabilitate themselves in BD and tried to reformulate the history as it suits. Note how they first claimed (in the book) that Zia was told but he betrayed, and later (in trial) said that there was nothing to tell Zia beforehand (not to mention that we could have a different history if the President was told the plan by Zia. Rumor has, even some current AL leaders also knew it… but didn’t tell it).
Also, who would believe that a “self-defense” would kill even the children and pregnant women on that night? Specially, when the killing also happened in places other than house 32?
But anyway, this does not portray that Zia was directly involved. In #48, I intended to ask “does it make Zia the murderer of Mujib?” but it appears that it was mistyped as “doesN’T it”.
The argument was, only knowing or inactively supporting may not prove you guilty all the time.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Sushanta
Not a single comment was deleted in this thread. I don’t believe in what you are accusing me of. I will never gag your voice while I take a freestyle session of my freedom of speech.
And on a second note, talking good about Zia should not make me a BNP supporter. I respect Bangabandhu as much as you do. Does it make me AL supporter? It’s about time we leave behind the obsolet idea of dividing the nation on the basis of Zia and Mujib.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
The comment that you deleted was saved in my txt file. It was as:
[[''I don’t support killing of army officers by different court martial rulings over the years.'' said Mr. Rumi.
I love to hear this sentence from you which lies on your hero Major Ziaur Rahman too.]]
However thanks for your clarification.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Rumi bhai, the net of all these argumements seems to be that in between all the killings, coups, courtmartials, betrayals, confessions, removals and restorations of power, etc….one man stands innocent of any knowlege, complicity, involvement, inaction, choreography, and benefit (direct or otherwise)….and he is Gen. Zia. While the debate wages about many of the foot soldiers of this particular moment of history, it would be more interesting to look at the motivations, beliefs, loyalties and actions of one of the true generals, Ziaur Rahman.
For all the testimony, facts, references, quotes on these pages, it boils to, as it always does, whatever you want to believe. It was hard to follow all the rumours and claims/counter-claims at that time, but I do know when the rashid/farooq/dalims started talking, first in private and many years later, in public. So much of this won’t come out as no one will talk about it, and even if someone puts it in a book we will quesation their intentions and authority. So all we are left with, as always, seems to be opinions. In mine, Zia was a master chess player, a fascinating man.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:52 pm
To me, when a lucid debate turns into “accusing each other as AL/BNP”, it means the sentiment is overriding rationality and it’s a “STOP” sign for me.
[anyway, the last line of #59 already expressed my concluding opinion]
June 2nd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Personal attacks, meaningless one liners, one blogger’s personal opinion about other bloggers are deleted in all threads in the interest of having a good discussion.
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Rumi bhai,
I’ve already done so on your blog, so let me do it again on this DP: Congratulations for taking on the most thankless tasks any historian of Bangladesh could undertake. The only consensus that seems to have been reached in this section is that the time between Aug. 15th ‘75-’81 is one of the least understood, most controversial and most divisive time of our history. I think someone compared it to what the 60s decade was to the US.
Revisionist history is one of the inevitable processes of civilization. We all see things differently from the “official version” and from each other. Even two people alive on August of ‘75 probably don’t have the same version of events.
By revisionist history, I do not mean the BNP’s ludicrous attempt to write Sheikh Mujib out of our history. That is fabrication of history. Unfortunately, it has given revisionist history a bad name.
Let me give you all an example to distinguish the two: when Stalin died, Khurshchev pretty much smeared his name (whether rightly or wrongly is irrelevant here). No one could contradict Khurshchev’s account of Stalin in the USSR while he was alive. That is fabrication of history, when your government stops you from writing your version of history. At the same time, after Kennedy died, there was a initially a host of writing praising his presidency and then in the 70s a critical re-assessment of his presidency. At no time did the US govt. try to supress either version. THAT is revisionist history. And those who did it, were imputed the same motives that many have imputed to Rumi bhai over the last couple of days.
Yet, that “revisionist” history is what most people see as the truest version of Kennedy’s presidency right now. So hang in there Rumi bhai. And thanks again for taking on this essential and very difficult task. I look forward to reading you on Sheikh Shaheb as well when the time comes.
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:09 am
I echo AsifY(64), and also unfortunately Shuvro (62). This has been one of the most intelligent historical debate I’ve had on the late 1970s Bangladesh, thanks Rumi Bhai.
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Some random comments
- The war criminals were not pardoned. Many people supported Pakistan in 1971, that does not mean they all killed/raped people. Some pople did. They cannot be pardoned. Golam Azam and Nizami cannot avoid the charges against them, as they were the head of Piece Committee and Albadar bahini.
- I am ALMOST positive the law for trial of war criminals were cancelled by Zia.
- There were a lot of honest anti AL politicians. but an anti Bangladesh Politican was made PM.
- Col Taher was not killed for killing Khaled, Huda, Haider. Rather media always reffered (during nov 7 discussion) khaled group as pro India Anti Bangladesh, anti liberation. Their was no investigation on these murders. The investigation started in 1996.
- To compare Mujib murder trial (which was done in traditional court with given fulll defence for accused in different stages) with trials in Martial law court (no minmum defence for accused) does not make sense from legal point of view.
- BAKSAL was bad, undemocratic, but not unconstitutional. more than 2/3rd MPs of the parliamnt supported it. Martial law is bad, undemocratic, and unconstitutional.
- If M K Alamgirs (He was a govt employee) going to “Janatar Mancha” in 1996 was bad, Zia’s taking part in election in 1977, 1978 (he was a govt employee) is really, really, really, really, really, really, really bad. Online intelectuals, it is time to be fair to all.
- I do not like Mujib. But i think he did not deserve to be killed. Same goes for Zia.
- I do not understand the conecpt of father of nation. But if we have to define someone as the father/founder of the country Mujib will be the one. We can define Zia as that if only we are really really dumb. One question to online intellectuals, if Zia had the so big role in 1971, why Pak army did not accuse him ever for breaking Paksitan? Why they were so mad against Mujib, AL and communists?
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:25 pm
#66
All your points have been discussed and replied to in this forum in the past.
Just to enlighten you further about Taher trial, accusition against him and scope of his self defence lets re-read Taher’s statement in this link.
http://www.col-taher.com/statment.html
Remember this is Taher Shangshad website and there are certain possibilities that this statement was editied to remove remarks made by Taher that may incriminate him negatively. Still after reading this you will not have any doubt left in your mind about Taher’s role in 7th Nov coup that Killed kahled/ Haider/Huda. It also shows how Col Taher continuously harassed the judge of the court.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:13 am
To all who hate or hug SHAHEED GEN. ZIA:
Why do I love and respect Zia and why is he my hero?
First of all, I was never in active politics as student or in professional life but I was and am very keen observer of Bangladeshi politics and supported couple of parties very ardently at different times and worked for them secretly even without letting anybody to know I worked for them. Whatever involvement I had, it was based on and directed to best interest of people, humanity, social justice and loyalty to Lord.
1) I had seen Zia as I can recap, 3-4 times. One time very closely. I was amazed to see his personality and integrity. I had also seen late Sheik Mujib couple of times and one time very closely. Based on my observation, Sheik Mujib lacked the personality and integrity as Zia had. I’m here giving one example, the day I had seen
Mujib very closely with a group he with his hot-tempered off-mood, cursed us “Shourer Dal”. Whatever the context of the meeting he being the leader of such stature and respect, shouldn’t have uttered that that damnable word.
2. Before 1971 at my late teens, I was so passionate supporter of Sheik Mujib and did so much of sincere work for Sheik Mujib, Awami League and Chatra league it’s beyond belief, unregistered activist though. In 1971 I was a Dhaka College student. After 1st March 1971, when scheduled National Assembly was called off by Gen. Yahya and the country turned into erupting volcano of anti-Yahya movement under the unambiguous leadership of Sheik Mujib, I had to leave Dacca city possibly on 4 or 5th March because college as well as college hostel were closed.
At my home in village the days between 6th to 25th March was most anxious days in my life and on 26th March after Pakistani crack down on the 25th black night I was almost a dead individual failing to figure out what had happened and what would happen.
At that doomed-day like period and at the hellish hour when I heard the Declaration of Independence by ZIA by my own ears as if I couldn’t believe it and seemed something, great miracle. From deadness came back to life as if the declaration worked like a CARDIO-VERSION. And that was feeling, I believe, of millions at that time.
3. Zia didn’t stop there. He started the all out war against the Pak Army. He was just not one of the sector commanders, he was the head of Z-force named after him. He just not only took the risk of his own life he even put his family, wife and two little kids at the gravest life-danger.
4. He in November 1975, once again, at another critical moment of the nation he played the formidable nation-saving role. His leadership not solved the grave administrative crisis, also dismantled conspiracy to taking-over state power through blood-bath and more importantly secured sovereignty of the country.
5. He had revived the rule of democracy which was guillotined by Sheik Mujib. Baksal was buried, multiparty democracy was introduced. Awami league which was throttled by his founder Sheik Mujib, was able to reincarnate itself along with other banned parties. Sheik Hasina, came back to her home-land from her exile in India.
6. While reintroduced multiparty democracy, he formed a new party where he had opened the door of his party to all from leftists to rightists, from freedom fighters to collaborators, the centrists, etc, with a great vision comparable to that of Nelson Mandela to consolidate the national unity, to rule through consensus for reconstructing the country as a modern state of the world.
5. He could well feel the pulse of the nation and what they wanted. That’s why he had to sacrifice the so called wobbly pillars of socialism and secularism. People didn’t fight against the Pakistani Army for being religiously oppressed or discriminated. The fight was economic injustice and denial of democratic rights of the people. He was a firm believer in his faith. He believed in democracy, social justice and religious harmony and freedom, not encouraging non-religiousness and hurting the religious sentiment of any religion in the name of secularism and communism.
6. He was the most visionary leader the country had ever been gifted. He corrected the grammatically wrong concept of Banglee nation. Being the independent sovereign country Bangladesh can’t have Bangalee national identity. It was a misnomer and if
it had existed we had been in perpetual identify crisis because there are almost the same number of Bengali-speaking people living in West Bengal province of India. Language can’t be the basis of national or citizenship identity. If that had then, we didn’t have seen so many English speaking countries or Arabic speaking countries. Per contra, India that have more that 30 different linguistic populations would have been > 30 countries, not one state. Moreover, in our geographical boundaries we have some non-Bengali-speaking [Aadibashi] population like ghaaro, chakma, Khasia etc. Bangalee nationalism is not inclusive of those ethnic minority population. It would have been utter injustice to them.
Bangladeshi Nationalism is the handy-work of Zia’s great vision. In fact Bangladeshi is new national identity. And for that Zia can be called the father of Bangladeshi nationalism, I do personally hate the FON term, though.
7. Zia was the real leader of people. He had no prior political experience but how he earned the love and respect of people is one of the wonders of his life. From great intuition he could understand the people’s
hopes and aspiration. He had touched the hearts of people. He ushered a new unique style of politics traveling whole Bangladesh
reaching out to almost every walks of people to their houses, their fields, their factories, their fishing boats and where not. This was not a mere gimmick of his self-style politics. It is amazing endeavor to get to people and know about their problems. He surpassed the tradition and really made politics difficult for the city-centered politicians. He can be called a divine-made politician. And that’s why he was the leader of extreme jealousy and envy of the many contemporary politicians.
8. He was a real statesman. His foreign policy was the most appropriate for the context of his time. He, in his short-lived political life, earned the best honor from the international community. And that’s why he could be the leader of highly dignified 3-member Al-Quddus Committee chartered to work out Cease-fire between Iraq-Iran war.
Once our only source of earning foreign currency was the jute. But after the advent of artificial fibers, our foreign currency source gradually became extinct. And that very economic grave time exporting our man-power force started to kick off and due to Zia we got the best market of middle-east. Now remittance money is the number one source fueling our economy and we owes our gratitude to Zia for ushering the new field.
9. There was or is no leader like Zia
who did really think to understand the basic or burning problems of the nation. He duly identified the problem and tried to solve them radically and forever. He didn’t try to solve our main problem in piece-meal. Canal digging program to solve the problem of every-year devastating flood was one of them.
Zia started a Carpash/Cotton growing project in the north-west part Dhaka. I was too much intrigued by hearing the story how
he started it. He once was touring some remote part of the country as his routine. On his entourage, he asked one of the agro-expert planners how many total crores of square-yards of cloth would be needed to solve the clothing problem of the entire nation. Then he asked how much cotton would be needed to weave that amount of cloth and then he wanted to know how many acres of land of carpash-cultivation would be needed to get that amount of cotton. And on that very entourage day he ordered the expert to do everything to get the project ready and work. There are so many examples of his unique way of thinking and working for solving the nation’s problem.
9. The other prominent area of his work was centered around the kids, the nation’s
future. Shishu academy and other projects were testimony of his intense effort to give our children best opportunity to develop and arm themselves with education and technology to take formidable challenge of future.
10. Best of visionary ideas we see in
his pioneering work for SAARC. After his death, the SAARC didn’t progress as it was envisaged by late ZIA. Yet, SAARC has some positive role in reducing the animosity
of the member countries. And hopefully one day this organization will pave the way for greater cooperation between the member countries and may turn to USAC [Union of South Asian Countries] like the EU.
10. Zia was an exemplary leader of honesty and integrity. He was free from greed of wealth and nepotism. One of his brothers, Mr. Mizanur Rahman, a banker in London died there a couple years back and just last year, his another brother, one other Rahman, an engineer died. I doubt, how many people heard their names. They were educated and had the qualifications to be MPs or ministers but we don’t even know
their names. This is the beauty of Zia’s character and Zia’s rule.
11. Finally, I never compare Zia with Sheik Mujib. Both are most respectful but have distinct places in our history. Zia was not inimical to MUJIB, rather he did complementary politics of Mujib. We should adore them, not worship them. Worshiping people demeans one’s self-esteem and a man without self-esteem can do nothing for
himself and the society.
Thanks.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Bitterboy (#68),
I don’t see any room for ‘discussion” as these are just some personal opinions.
However, please read the following two lines quoted from your own post:
“Based on my observation, Sheik Mujib lacked the personality and integrity as Zia had”
“Finally, I NEVER compare Zia with Sheik Mujib”
No more comments.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
BTW, can anybody tell me who was Zia’s father and mother? Or how many brothers or sisters did he have?
And then compare, how many of us do not know who is Khaleda’s brother or who is her mother?
What a shame on Khaleda who is doing politics on Zia’s legacy.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Zia had three brothers.They come from financial hardship family but honest like anything.The Zia’s immediate family I mean his siblings are never involved with any type of nepotisn.One of his brother died last year and Tareq Zia didn’t even go to see his uncle. So that says their characters.
Zia’s family is very honest and educated at the same time. I do know his brother’s son as many of us from the blogging world know him too.Those guys are completely opposit than Tareq and Coco.
But I would say that Saeed Iskandar is the man for corrupting the mind of the young Zia’s but yes young Zia’s wasn’t not kid that any body can corrupt them.They are at fault too.
My question to the thread, If you were the son of Zia would you do what Tareq has done?
Would you do the corruption?
Would you do the nepotism?
Would you do all the bad things that Tareq did?
Or would you be different? or would you make the difference in peoples life in Bangladesh and earn respect ?
Anybody?
I do respect Zia as an individual. It takes a lot of courage and boldness for being a husband to accept Khaledah Zia again in his life on the advice of Sheikh Mujib.It shows two things here his intregity and respect to elders like Mujib.
His personal honesty and hard work and simplicity is an art for the young generation to follow. I know he had been involved in lots of killing and secret murders and jail killing but that was part of politics and dirty conspiracy, as we all know there were 20 coup attmepted in his life from the day of independence where the last one succeeded.
Man of honesty and simplicity should be respected for Zia. May I not agree with all his policy but he had done a lot for the country than, holding the country for long years to the parth of development.
thanks
Kawser Jamal
http://www.changeBangladesh.com
June 10th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Cool it guys, we must respect both of leaders, because Bangabandhu give us the nation and Zia give the identity (Bangladeshi),
Case dismiss amen