.gif)
By trivialising and politicising the War Crime Trial, the Awami League regime blew the historic opportunity to punish the 1971 War Criminals through an internationally accepted procedure, says Saurabh Kumar Shahi
After the sentencing of a senior Jamaat e Islami (JI) leader to life in prison last week for crimes against humanity during the 1971 war, Bangladesh is witnessing probably the biggest political turmoil since the 80s and 90s. Abdul Quader Molla, one of the top rung leaders of the JI, is the first political figure to be sentenced by the International Crimes Tribunal, following the verdict against a runaway televangelist who was awarded death penalty in absentia.
The verdict was followed by protests by the mass of urban liberal Bangladeshis who gathered at the Shahbagh More locality demanding more stringent punishment for the war criminals. The latter only intensified their protest after one of the bloggers and organisers of the protest was brutally killed outside his home. On the other hand, sensing the government's mood of altogether banning them, strengthened by the adoption of the required amendment by the parliament, the JI and its student union has stated a nationwide protest that will make or break its future.
The issue of war crimes is a complex one and it was but natural that the trials would evoke dramatically opposite reactions. However, the way the process has been politicised has taken the lustre out of it.
It can be historically substantiated that JI and its Razakars helped the Pakistani army suppress the revolt in 1971, leading to horrendous crimes. It can also be proved without a reasonable doubt that many of its leaders were aligning against the popular national mood. However, the regime in power as well as other supporters of the trial have singularly failed to parade enough eye witnesses to testify against them. Also, the tribunal will have to ascertain whether these Razakars and JI leaders committed crimes against humanity by organising genocides of the unarmed population or merely targeting armed Bengali freedom fighters.
Sheikh Hasina's Awami League came to power last time promising a tribunal that would try the war criminals of 1971. However, following her accent, she kept dithering before it became impossible for her, because of persistent pressure from civil rights groups, to further delay the tribunal. Hasina understands that if the tribunal completes its duty and gets international recognition, it will effectively rob her of her most dependable election plank. The fact that her party came to power several times following independence and yet failed to try the war criminals, speaks volume about her commitment.
Naturally, her government flouted several norms while constituting the tribunal, attracting damning criticism from world bodies. The United Nations through its Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, expressed dismay at the trial and maintained: “Capital punishment may be imposed only following proceedings that give all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial and due process, at least equal to those stipulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bangladesh is a State party.”
Says, Mohammad Nakibur Rahman, a Bangladesh expert based with Tulane University, “Indeed The Economist recently uncovered collusion between the government-prosecution side of the trial and the judiciary. In addition, the unrelenting media campaign has meant that Shahbag protesters have made up their minds regarding the guilt of those in the dock, regardless of the evidence of a doctored trial.”
Others including the US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, Stephen J Rapp, and Human Rights Watch expressed concerned over “glaring violations of fair trial standards”. The criticism has not only emboldened the accused, all of whom are members of either JI or the opposition Bangladesh National Party (BNP); but has also given them an excuse to say that they were victims of a political vendetta.
Even longtime supporters of the cause, for example journalist David Bergman, have criticised the entire process. “The government has unjustifiably prevented their international lawyers from coming to Bangladesh and assisting them in the court room. Also, even though the substantive matters of guilt and innocence are currently before for the tribunal, some of the most influential printed media continue to talk about the men as though they were guilty and their convictions a foregone conclusion. Moreover, on the other side of the coin, the possibilities of journalists here in Bangladesh being able to write critical commentary about the tribunal are decreasing. The attacks on Al Jazeera and myself are tantamount to that,” he maintained.
Experts also believe that Hasina's gambit might not find traction in the coming elections. Banning JI, although desirable, will only send the signal to the poor rural masses – where JI has its hold – that only family run parties like AL and BNP have a place in the democracy. Also, even if the party is banned, its members can always constitute a new party or merge with BNP.
After the sentencing of a senior Jamaat e Islami (JI) leader to life in prison last week for crimes against humanity during the 1971 war, Bangladesh is witnessing probably the biggest political turmoil since the 80s and 90s. Abdul Quader Molla, one of the top rung leaders of the JI, is the first political figure to be sentenced by the International Crimes Tribunal, following the verdict against a runaway televangelist who was awarded death penalty in absentia.
The verdict was followed by protests by the mass of urban liberal Bangladeshis who gathered at the Shahbagh More locality demanding more stringent punishment for the war criminals. The latter only intensified their protest after one of the bloggers and organisers of the protest was brutally killed outside his home. On the other hand, sensing the government's mood of altogether banning them, strengthened by the adoption of the required amendment by the parliament, the JI and its student union has stated a nationwide protest that will make or break its future.
The issue of war crimes is a complex one and it was but natural that the trials would evoke dramatically opposite reactions. However, the way the process has been politicised has taken the lustre out of it.
It can be historically substantiated that JI and its Razakars helped the Pakistani army suppress the revolt in 1971, leading to horrendous crimes. It can also be proved without a reasonable doubt that many of its leaders were aligning against the popular national mood. However, the regime in power as well as other supporters of the trial have singularly failed to parade enough eye witnesses to testify against them. Also, the tribunal will have to ascertain whether these Razakars and JI leaders committed crimes against humanity by organising genocides of the unarmed population or merely targeting armed Bengali freedom fighters.
Sheikh Hasina's Awami League came to power last time promising a tribunal that would try the war criminals of 1971. However, following her accent, she kept dithering before it became impossible for her, because of persistent pressure from civil rights groups, to further delay the tribunal. Hasina understands that if the tribunal completes its duty and gets international recognition, it will effectively rob her of her most dependable election plank. The fact that her party came to power several times following independence and yet failed to try the war criminals, speaks volume about her commitment.
Naturally, her government flouted several norms while constituting the tribunal, attracting damning criticism from world bodies. The United Nations through its Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, expressed dismay at the trial and maintained: “Capital punishment may be imposed only following proceedings that give all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial and due process, at least equal to those stipulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bangladesh is a State party.”
Says, Mohammad Nakibur Rahman, a Bangladesh expert based with Tulane University, “Indeed The Economist recently uncovered collusion between the government-prosecution side of the trial and the judiciary. In addition, the unrelenting media campaign has meant that Shahbag protesters have made up their minds regarding the guilt of those in the dock, regardless of the evidence of a doctored trial.”
Others including the US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, Stephen J Rapp, and Human Rights Watch expressed concerned over “glaring violations of fair trial standards”. The criticism has not only emboldened the accused, all of whom are members of either JI or the opposition Bangladesh National Party (BNP); but has also given them an excuse to say that they were victims of a political vendetta.
Even longtime supporters of the cause, for example journalist David Bergman, have criticised the entire process. “The government has unjustifiably prevented their international lawyers from coming to Bangladesh and assisting them in the court room. Also, even though the substantive matters of guilt and innocence are currently before for the tribunal, some of the most influential printed media continue to talk about the men as though they were guilty and their convictions a foregone conclusion. Moreover, on the other side of the coin, the possibilities of journalists here in Bangladesh being able to write critical commentary about the tribunal are decreasing. The attacks on Al Jazeera and myself are tantamount to that,” he maintained.
Experts also believe that Hasina's gambit might not find traction in the coming elections. Banning JI, although desirable, will only send the signal to the poor rural masses – where JI has its hold – that only family run parties like AL and BNP have a place in the democracy. Also, even if the party is banned, its members can always constitute a new party or merge with BNP.
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles
