It is refreshing that recent orders apparently from the Bangladesh Cricket Board, had the blessing of the highest political office of the country but have been revoked. Edict was aimed at banning domestic fans from carrying the flags of foreign countries in stadiums during the ongoing World T20 Championship. Bangladesh invoked the law after Bangladeshi Cricket fans carried Pakistani flags during Pakistan’s matches with India and Australia. It reminds one of an earlier event when Pakistan won the thrilling final of the 2012 Asia Cup, also played in Bangladesh. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina stormed out of the stadium without applauding the winning team or giving away the winner’s trophy. A similar, childish attitude seems to be on display these days.
Bangladesh’s political party, Awami League (AL), carries the legacy of trumping up anti-Pakistan frenzy for political expediency. When in government, it employs the State apparatus toward this end. Being the founding party of Bangladesh, it made a negative start by putting forward fictional figures about war atrocities and disallowing old wounds and memories to heal.
Right from the beginning, there has been a powerful counter narrative to official figures related to war atrocities; interestingly it emerged from within Bangladesh as much as from the international community. Bangladesh’s public at large does not subscribe to the AL version of the ’71 war. Frustration mounts when the AL government insists its narrative is the only authentic version of history. This strategy helps the AL in two ways: it justifies its policy of appeasement towards India, and provides it a handle over public sentiment for political expediency. AL conveniently ignores the atrocities committed by ethnic Bengalis against non-Bengalis that lead to the military operation on March 26, 1971; though heaps of literature is available on this count.
The latest step to malign Pakistan is an upcoming play in the UK called “Birangona” enacted by Komola Collective, a London-based theatre. The play is based on the AL version of atrocities committed by Pakistani troops during 1971 war. The theme of the play has been refuted by independent analysts including those from Bengalis and Hindu communities.
Bangladesh’s ruling party is targeting Bangladeshis who were against the dismemberment of Pakistan. After targeting the Jamaat-e-Islami and sentencing its leaders to death, Jamaat-e-Islami is now to stand trial, as an entity. The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) set up in 2009, has been under severe criticism since its inception, both from within and outside Bangladesh. By 2012, nine leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami, and two of the Bangladesh National Party, had been indicted and convicted. The Four-Party Alliance, including the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami, have several alleged war criminals among their top-ranking politicians. Bangladeshi opposition political parties have demanded the release of those held, claiming the arrests are politically motivated.
Time and again, the international community has voiced concerns that these trials are neither transparent nor impartial. Human Rights Watch, for example, which initially supported the establishment of the tribunal, has severely condemned it for issues of fairness and transparency, as well as reported harassment of lawyers and witnesses representing the accused. The European Parliament has expressed its strong opposition against the use of the death penalty. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has said that the refusal by the government to grant bail violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These are only a few cases of rampant condemnation.
In December 2012, the Economist published contents of leaked communications between the then chief justice of the tribunal, Mohammed Nizamul Huq, and Ahmed Ziauddin, a Bangladeshi attorney in Brussels. After this, Huq resigned from the tribunal. He had been revealed to have had “prohibited contact” with the “prosecution, government officials, and an external adviser.” According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), correspondence showed that Ziauddin was playing an important part in the proceedings, although he had no legal standing. In March 2013, the Economist again criticized the tribunal, mentioning government interference, restrictions on public discussion, not enough time allocated for the defense, the kidnapping of a defense witness and the judge resigning due to controversy over his neutrality.
Human Rights Watch and defence lawyers acting for Ghulam Azam and Delawar Hossain Sayeedi, requested retrials for the two because of the controversy during their trials. Because of changes amongst all the judges in the course of the trial, none of the three judges in Sayeedi’s case had heard the entirety of the testimony before reaching a verdict. On 28 February 2013, Delawar Hossain Sayeedi, the deputy of Jamaat, was found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging. His defence lawyer had earlier complained about a witness abduction. In May 2013, the witness was found in an Indian prison, allegedly handed over by state abduction and said officials had told him that both he and Sayeedi would be killed.
No one forced Bangladesh to abandon the war trials after independence. It was a well thought out decision by Sheikh Mujib to call them off. He was aware that his version of atrocities won’t stand judicial scrutiny and would only make society divisive and polarized. Sheikh Hasina needs to pick up cues from her father and act rationally. Pakistan-bashing will bring not bring much good to her country and its people.

The writer is a freelance columnist.

Email:kiqbal1234@yahoo.com

Tweets at:@kiqbal1234