Following my article last week about the unjust verdict handed down by a Bangladesh Crimes Tribunal against 90-year-old Prof. Ghulam Azam, former president of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, I received many calls and emails. Most of them, including readers' comments on the Saudi Gazette website, praised the article. Some, on the other hand, attacked me and accused me of ignorance and of not knowing what really transpired during the civil war in East Pakistan 42 years ago, a war which brought about the creation of Bangladesh. One reader in particular asked me the following questions, saying that I should answer them in good conscience. (1) Do you support the genocide committed by the Pakistani army and their collaborators in Bangladesh? (2) Where were the Saudi government and Saudi intellectuals when their Bangladeshi brothers were being killed? (3) Was the US not against the independence of Bangladesh? Although these questions are not related in any way to my article, and although apart from being silly, their answers can be found in the questions themselves, I have decided write on the same topic again and shed light on the questions. First, I am against hurting any human beings, let alone killing them. What happened in East Pakistan in 1971was a civil war and in such wars violations and crimes are bound to occur and international tribunals are held by international judges. Those who commit atrocities stand trial and lawyers defend their clients according to the provisions of international law. Second, what happened in Bangladesh was that the government issued a law to set up a local court and put a number of Pakistani officers – I think there were 194 Pakistani captives arrested in India – on trial. No single Bangladeshi civilian was subject to the law; besides, all captives were set free including those whom the Bangladeshi government accused of committing atrocities. At the time, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman made the well-known statement: "Let the world know how Bengalis can forgive", which I mentioned in my previous article. He was talking about the pardon granted to Pakistanis accused of war crimes. Third, a law was issued by which those Bengalis who collaborated with the Pakistani army must stand trial. Scores of those who were serving in the East Pakistan government were arrested but none of them ever stood trial. On the contrary, they were all released except for some 700 who were handed sentences while the rest were pardoned by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who decided that it was best for the country to let bygones be bygones and focus on the future. Moreover, if Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had decided to make everyone who had opposed the creation of Bangladesh stand trial, that would have meant that he would have had to hold the militia members of his party similarly responsible for the crimes they had committed against Biharis. The latter opposed the division of Pakistan and they have been living in miserable conditions inside camps in Bangladesh ever since. Fourth, reviving the law related to war crimes committed by Pakistani officers and enforcing it on political rivals 42 years later does not make any sense. No one has been charged with anything throughout this long period and no arrest warrant has been issued against anyone. Additionally, raising the issue at this time is tantamount to indirectly insulting Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founder of Bangladesh. It is as if the pardon he granted to the Pakistani officers and their collaborators had come at the expense of the rights of the Bangladeshi citizens who were killed in the war. Fifth, the revival of this law has made it obvious that all trials were politically-oriented and their aim was to get rid of political opponents. The trials did not even meet the minimum international standards. I am not the only one who says this. All of the international rights organizations, which I mentioned in last week's article, have lambasted these trials, the way they were established and how their sessions were run. Moreover, there are the scandals that took place while the trials were being held, such as the Skype scandal and the abduction of a prosecution witness who had become a defense witness. Sixth, I would like to assure the reader who asked the questions with reference to my conscience that it was my conscience which made me write about this issue along with the personal relationship I have with most of those who have stood trial or are standing trial before this court, especially with Professor Ghulam Azam, who is well known for his righteousness and piety all over the Muslim world. Furthermore, Sheikh Sayedee and Salah-ul-Deen Qadri Chowdary have been parliamentary members for 30 years without ever losing an election. How could two members with such enormous popularity who have won landslide victories in the country's elections be regarded as war criminals? It does not make any sense. – Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi is a former Saudi diplomat who specializes in Southeast Asian affairs. He can be reached at [email protected]
