3rd Bangla blog day

Blogging has revolutionized the life and politics of Bengalis around the globe in general and in Bangladesh in particular. During the last BNP-Jamaat regime when media licenses were handed out to the business elites in power and when militancy started rearing its ugly head, and after 1/11 when the magic phantom of minus 2 formula was being raised on online media, blogging became the only medium of communication amongst global Bangladeshis. When Shaikh Hasina was stopped from coming back to Bangladesh by the military supported 1/11 government, blogs were the ones to revolt against the undemocratic decision.

Since then bloggers have been actively combating information terrorism. This A-team of first-generation blog freedom fighters rejuvenated the spirit of 1971 and demanded war criminals’ trials. Although, the Awami League-led grand alliance is at present trying them but it is the bloggers who are minutely monitoring the proceedings to ensure closure.

Corporate online media are also inspiring young bloggers to develop netizen journalism, because bloggers now have the power to break news. Mainstream TV channels don’t have the kind of outreach which the blog network has. Daily Prothom Alo, bdnews24.com, the editor.net andbanglnews24.com are all flying the kites of citizen journalism with moderated blogs.

Muktomona gave the first invitation to freedom and liberal thoughts in the Bengali blogosphere. Somewhereinblog.net came next, with a bigger platform. Subsequently, the A-team, after facing virtual abuse, created platforms like Sachalayatan, amarblog, nagorikblog and unmochonblog that emerged with the spirit of secular and free thoughts. This very A-team is now fighting a second liberation war against groups of fanatic bloggers who are trying to make our history controversial with their distortion of facts in places like somewherein. The same fanatics have now created sonablog where they continue their support of war criminals and infuse religious intolerance amongst the youth. That’s why muktomona is highly criticized by such Muslim and Hindi bigots whose sole aim is to maintain social & political divisions in order to further their religion trade.

Bangla bloggers also enjoy freedom through venues like facebook: a kind of timeout cigar balcony. By signing Rousseau’s social contract individuals entered the spider net of institutions, giving ivory society the contract to write the history of our world. But blogs and social networking sites are attempts at breaking away from the spider nets; a counter hegemony of Tim Berners-Lee who is the inventor of the World Wide Web. Now, freedom is just clicks away, an emancipated world away from the subjugation of institution. In due time, blogs will become un-moderated. Unless bloggers achieve self censorship and a sense of proportion, corporate and/or voluntary blogs will not allow for un-moderated freedom. The process has, however, started taking baby steps. Gradually, bloggers are reflecting maturity and authenticity in their reports, analysis and socio-cultural discourse. The day when blog journalists will break news and produce exclusive multi-media electronic blogs, we may even not need television anymore.

In Bangladesh everyone wants to flaunt some authority, so has happened in the blogosphere. Somewherein unilaterally decided to hold Bangla Blog Day in the month of December. But as February marks the month of language martyrs with 21st February having earned the glory of being the International Mother Language Day and the prestigious Dhaka Ekushe Book Fair also takes place in this same month, voluntary bloggers have quite logically chosen the 1st of February as their Bangla Blog Day. Amarblog has taken the lead to rejoin the Bangla speaking netizens around the world by offering un-moderated freedom. Luckily enough, amarblog has succeeded in maintaining a secular, artistic and tolerant atmosphere where any Bengali can speak out and speak up. So, join amarblog: let’s write and let’s fly an un-moderated kite.

Now stop India

The over-enthusiastic body language of our political leaders in front of New Delhi bureaucrats compromises the position of accompanying Bangladeshi diplomats. Let me give an example. When westernized political advisor Gowhar Rizvi makes Indian foreign secretary his ‘buddy’, the South Asian rural bureaucrat of New Delhi questions the point of calling up his Bangladeshi counterpart Mizarul Kayes. Instead, he calls up Gowhar da, and Mizarul remains in the dark about consequent diplomatic proceedings.

Another curious case is that of our Foreign Minister Dipu Moni, who is trying to be a frequent world traveler like Ibn-e-Batuta, and the entire ministry is kept busy typing up her travel itineraries and arranging air tickets. Dipu Moni is intelligent and skilled but she perhaps doesn’t know how to play chess. So, India has assessed Gowhar and Dipu Moni to be same old simple Bengalis, and not as complicated as Mamata Banerjee of West Bengal.

Whenever a non-Bengali Indian encounters a Bangladeshi, they spend the first ten minutes in assessing the education and intellectual level of that person. Indian non-Bengalis also do the same thing with Indian Bengalis, because at the back of its mind New Delhi is aware of the infinitive creativity and soul-bondage between Dhaka- Kolkata Bengalis. So using the Mamata unpredictability card, Delhi south block bureaucrats are actively trying to create chasms between Dhaka and Kolkata.

Indian foreign secretary calls up Pakistani foreign secretary whenever necessary or urgent. The bureaucrats of both these countries have consistently worked towards developing bilateral ties. Hindi and Urdu languages so similar when spoken that senior diplomats start their conversation and negotiation in English but quickly switch over to Hindi and Urdu. Deep inside both India and Pakistan hope for good relations. Also, their nuclear status convinces them to respect each other. Washington, too, wants them to maintain good ties so that it can keep China in stress by using India and use Pakistan to further the peace process with the Taliban. That’s why Bangladesh stands nowhere in Indian foreign ministry’s preference list. There is only USA and Pakistan.

Rural South Asian diplomatic grapevine has it that Delhi bureaucrats make fun of West Bengal just as Islamabad bureaucrats make fun of Baluchistan. But, for an indefinable heart ache, they can’t say much about Bangladesh. In the readymade garments sector Bangladesh has defeated both India and Pakistan, in achieving the United Nation’s millennium development goals Bangladesh is also in a better position than both of them, and is now among the top investment destinations of the world. Bangladesh’s tourism sector is quite unexplored but at least Delhi and Islamabad are well-versed with the best of the sea beaches and mangrove forests offered by Bangladesh. If Dhaka can materialize the ‘Digital Bangladesh’ program, we will also snatch away Indian monopoly in the Information Technology outsourcing sector. Recently, Nobel laureate Amartya Sen praised Bangladesh as a role model on the social index, ahead of India and Pakistan, and since that announcement all’s gone quite on the western front.

Now, Bangladesh career diplomats should be given a free hand to polish their skills. Indian foreign secretary will have to call up Bangladesh foreign secretary and not the foreign advisor. In rural South Asia every individual is genetically wired to be status conscious, so even Hasina should offer only a measured smile to a measured Manmohan Singh in order to tackle Delhi dadagiri. If you look at the photographs of Bangobandhu and Indra Gandhi you will see the required degree of diplomatic smile: friends not masters. This should be a part of our diplomatic training, especially in this rural South Asia where Barack Obama’s de-classed smile is quite useless. In interactions with Delhi the simple Bengali smiles of Sheikh Hasina, Gowhar Rizvi and Dipu Moni have, indeed, cost us a lot.

Having said that, whatever water or trade facilities Bangladesh got from India came via Sheikh Hasina’s smile diplomacy. Khaleda Zia has with a serious face only written four letters to Delhi while her water resource advisor merely follows her around like a funny paper tiger. That means whatever Ganges water we got or the freedom that Bangladeshis living in the Indian corridors recently received are a net result of Sheikh Hasina’s diplomacy. In lieu of that Hasina has offered trans-shipment to India. Khaleda Zia, who is now shedding crocodile tears on the Tipai Mukh dam issue, conveniently forgot to talk about the Tista river water dispute when she visited Delhi as a prime minister. On her way back when journalists asked her about the Tista issue she smiled and said she had forgotten to raise it with her Indian counterpart.

Being trapped in partisan politics we have not been able to utilize our talents in negotiations with India. We have failed to use the diplomatic talent of Debo Priyo Bhattachariya, Shahriar Kabir, Suronjit Sen Gupta and Shafiq Rehman. Gowhar is definitely good as a US lobbyist but his western neo-liberal behavior holds no water in rural Delhi where doctrines of Chanakya and go-getter Koutilya are in vogue. Once during a bilateral meeting, Indian diplomats found themselves stunned by Debo Priyo Bhattacharyya’s arguments. Shahriar Kabir is so familiar with the anti-dam activist leaders of India that he doesn’t need a joint review commission to find out facts about the Tipai dam issue. Suronjit Sen Gupta is himself a Koutilya but with wisdom, and the most complicated intellectual of Bangladesh Shafiq Rehman can be just like a pinch of salt on the face of an Indian leech.

Outwardly Gowhar Rizvi and Dipu Moni can continue with their smile diplomacy but for on- table negotiations with India we must utilize the above mentioned Bengali intellectuals. Bangladesh doesn’t have a nuclear bomb to counteract the demon desires of India, but we do have the strength of intelligence. We once became united against the hegemony of Pakistan, fought and achieved freedom and ensured our right to food. It’s now time to unite again to wrest back our right to water. This is another freedom struggle, not of arms but of unity and intelligence. The hammer of unity amongst 160 million people can demolish Tipai Mukh dam. India will have to understand that it needs the help of Bangladesh to combat separatist movement in its Seven Sister states. And such help cannot be one way. If you give water, we will help you. If not, there’s no transit for you.

Pakistan’s occupying army killed 3 million Bangladeshis during the genocide of 1971. We are now facing another genocide. We cannot afford to lose any time. We must win this water war against India before our death toll reaches the same number. In the black & white photographs of 1971, we see the cruelty of Pakistan army. In the colored photographs of 2011 we see Bangladeshis dying of arsenic poisoning, dead bodies floating in flood-swept marshes, drought-dead peasants, hungry faces of monga, and the dead body of Falani hanging from the barbed wire along the Indian border: all signs of a demon’s thirst for water. India is systematic cleansing out our resources through blatant human rights violations. But we need to remember that we are not as weak or vulnerable as we were in 1971. We must control our political itching and unite against these abuses. Our leaders need to be firm in diplomatic negotiations with New Delhi: that is the great expectation of an ordinary Bangladeshi.

Sharmila Bose: The return of Goebbels

But now, with the Awami League government determined to bring closure to the families affected by the horrific crimes of ’71, war criminals associated with Jamaat have resorted to hiring western lobbyists to fight their case, not in courts, rather by trying to influence globalgame-changers. There is documented evidence of the Jamaat investing huge amounts of money to run concerted campaigns against the trials in Dhaka: the campaign includes co-opting western media through indirect means and hence we see a stream of articles even in respected western newspapers and magazines questioning the neutrality of the trial courts. This is nothing but an attempt to destroy the credibility of both the Awami league government and the tribunal.

Ironically, even a few human right organizations are expressing concern about the fairness of these trials when the war crimes are clearly documented in Jamaat’s own partisan newspapers of 1971.

Not sure of the impact of their media on slaught, western lobbyists also turned to hiring an academician with enough worth (!) to turn the trials into a controversy. In Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War, Sarmila Bose has tried to undermine the genocide of 1971. With a sugarcoat of academic research she has distorted the history of the Liberation War of Bangladesh, not realizing that events that took place 40 years ago merely register as having happened yesterday on the timeline of world’s history. Witnesses of that genocide are still alive. Bose’s arguments resound those of Khaleda Zia & her followers who are desperately trying to rewrite the history of ‘71 just to achieve political edge over Awami League.

Almost 34 years after the Liberation War,Ms Bose visited Bangladesh to gather evidence against the genocide and in favour of her argument. She saw what see wanted to see, learnt what she wanted to learn. Bose carries the genetic influence of Netaji Subhash Bose who joined Hitler to fight back the British Raj. I have yet to ascertain who Ms Bose is trying to fight by joining the anti-trial campaign. In 1971, she was only twelve, too young to cash in on the political wisdom which she now propagates. But better late than never, as she has now made her interviews of the 30 Pakistan army officers, involved in the 1971 carnage, as the basis of her book. Those interviews must have been quite something as they were apparently enough to convince Ms Bose that the Liberation War was just a Civil War and that the Biharis were the main victims of Bengali nationalism.

Let’s recap ’71. The Awami League led by Bongobondhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman won the general elections of 1970 and according to the constitution he was supposed to form a government as prime minister. But Zulfikar Ali Bhutto couldn’t accept defeat and was not ready to hand overpower to anyone else. President Yahya Khan sided with Bhutto by delaying the process of power-transfer. Mujib in good faith took part in the negotiation process and continued his non-violent movement for the acceptance of his six-point demand.

During his historical address of March 7,1971, Mujib had urged the Pakistani military junta to show respect to the will of majority voters and requested the people of Bangladesh to get ready for freedom struggle in case the election mandate was violated.

Yahya Khan discontinued the dialogue process with Mujib and left Dhaka on the evening of March 25, 1971. By midnight his army, under the command of General Tikka Khan, launched Bengali genocide. That led Mujib to declare Independence on March 26, 1971, just before his arrest.

Mujib’s followers formed an interim government on April 17 to fight back the occupying forces of Yahya Khan, and soon the freedom struggle turned into War of Independence. The fight between a civilian Bangladesh interim government and the entire army of Pakistan was in no way just a civil war, a reality which Ms Bose has failed to identify.Bangladesh lost almost 3 million people and almost 2 to 4 lakhs of women were brutally raped and tortured by the Pakistan Army and its native collaborators.

Ms Bose has tried to create another controversy by challenging the number of death and rape victims, just like Nazi-sympathetic researchers dispute the number of Jews killed in Holocaust. There is no area of Bangladesh that did not face the brutality of Pakistani Army and its Bangladeshi collaborators. If Ms Bose was sincere she would have stayed in Bangladesh long enough to seek the truth and not just be satisfied with the accounts of the selected few she chose as her research sample.

How could she not realize that Bangladesh itself is a mass graveyard as almost every family lost their beloved ones in 1971? Her field research is heavily biased because the 30 war criminals she interviewed in Pakistan would obviously never confess to their crimes. So instead she has highlighted the killing of pro-Yahia Biharis while overlooking the massacre of Bengali Muslims and Hindus.

Ms Bose has tried to distort history under the disguise of academic neutrality. Her biased research sampling in fact is a beacon of some hidden agenda clearly favouring the war criminals of ‘71.

Lobbyists have organized book readings of Dead Reckoning (The return of Goebbels) at reputed western universities to buy recognition for Ms Bose’s em-bedded version of history. Influential dailies are raving about her book and sugar-daddy columnists are patting her back, conveniently forgetting that this is no longer an era of government controls over media and/or censored journalism. Truth is now just a click away. Ms Bose needs to keep herself more updated in this age of internet, when social media is enough to unleash every truth distorted by interest groups. She should also be ashamed of her colonial hangover and Goebbels syndrome.

The people of Bangladesh have neither forgotten their relatives killed in 1971, nor are they ignorant of the fact that justice has been denied to them for so long because of the machinations of the pro-Jamaat cult. That’s why they voted Awami League into power in 2008; to get justice and closure.

If Ms Bose continues to take her 15 minutes of fame seriously, she might end up making a fool of herself and in the process lose her credibility. She reminds me of a blind woman trying to understand what an elephant looks like….

Arab brutality in the name of Islam

The brutal Friday beheading was carried out according to the Shariah law of Arab kingdom but the accused Bangladeshis were denied the right of their defense.

Ironically, this same Shariah law has been seen to be flexible in case of allegations against US, UK or Canadian citizens, in which case such capital offences are usually settled with blood money, connection or diplomacy. Many such reported and recorded incidents prove that the so-called Shariah law is not exercised in a neutral manner and is quite susceptible to nepotism. In the name of Islam the Saudi royal elite enjoys this kind of cannibalism even in the 21st century, while the rest of the world turns a blind eye to it. This also explains why the wave of Arab Spring has not been able to hit the (In) Justice square of Riyadh.

Such human slaughtering can be seen replicated by Islamic radicals in other countries. When the western society is shifting from capital to humane punishment, the Muslim holy land continues with its biased justice system that denies the poor their right to legal defense.

Conservative Muslim elites of Arab justify this primitive behavior as a necessary deterrence against rampant crime. But statistics in Arab countries show no decline in the rate of crimes; and all this while citizens of rich countries easily circumvent the Arab law by means of wealth and influence. Any interpretation of the Shariah law that presents itself as biased and capitalist must be challenged as a crime against humanity.

The weakness of Bangladeshi diplomats has once again been exposed for they failed to defend the case of their eight beheaded countrymen. The ambassador should be asked to clarify this failure.

Almost two million workers are earning remittance for Bangladesh with their hard work in Arab countries. Our embassy is there to look after the welfare of our workers. If they fail to perform, then why should we sign their salary cheques with the blood of eight ordinary citizens of Bangladesh?

Riyadh has appeared hostile towards Dhaka ever since the liberation war of ‘71. It only recognized Dhaka after the killing of Bangabandhu, and has been providing refuge to our war criminals till date. UAE is known to sponsor Moududi and Wahabi radicals in Bangladesh, only so that it can retain its free-port crown.

In these countries themselves, domestic violence against women is kept hidden under the garb of male chauvinistic interpretation of religion. Workers from poor countries are treated as slaves, while female migrant workers are often abused by the rich natives. The sanctity of Arab land has been repeatedly abused by its feudal rulers and their crimes against humanity have come to over-shadow the glory of Islam. They are nothing but a bunch of exploiters who run private harems, but try to teach ethics to the world by beheading the poor.

Which Islam would approve of such uncouth discrimination between a rich Canadian and eight poor Bangladeshis? Beheading poor people publicly and releasing rich people secretly, portrays double standards even in the practice of religion. That too in a country of the Holy Kaaba, where Muslims from across the world go for Hajj. This is the very state that earns millions from religious pilgrimages every year.

Senior Jamaat leaders were also involved in the 21st August grenade attack on Awami League rally, and their role as mentors of militancy in Bangladesh is an open secret. Top Jamaat leader Nijami even supported militancy on camera when he denied the existence of Bangla Bhai and accused the media of creating the boogey of this executed militant. It is also a matter of record that most of high-level militants arrested during operations confessed to their Jamaat links; their confessions offer substantial evidence that almost all banned militant outfits, like Harkatul Jihad BD, Jamayetul Mujahedeen BD and Hizbut Tehrir, were produced from the radical factory of Jamaat-Shibir.

Jamaat-e-Islami is operating on the open agenda that it wants to destroy the secular fabrics of democracy and replace it with Shariah through a militant uprise. The BNP-Jamaat coalition government (2001-06) offered militancy a safe haven in Bangladesh. It even tried to create links between Islamic radicals and separatist groups of North-East India. Some coalition leaders were also allegedly involved in offering a weapons transit to ULFA.

BNP continues its strong support to Jamaat by calling for an unruly strike on Sept 22 against the Awami League which came into power one of the promises of war criminals’ trials. The radical duo also appears quite infuriated at the recent peaceful advances between Dhaka and New Delhi: Harkatul Jihad bombed Delhi High Court when the Indian Prime Minister was visiting Dhaka earlier this month, while ULFA continues to get support from this very outfit in its fight against the Indian government. The doctrine that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ is apparently the connection between all terror groups of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

It is about time that Jamaat be banned as a political party in Bangladesh. Its attempt to hold the capital hostage on Sept 19 should not go unpunished. BNP strikes should also be tackled firmly so that the country does not sink into chaos. Bangladeshis have long been victims of political violence and hartals. The BNP-Jamaat anarchism to obtain power should no longer be allowed to continue. BNP should especially understand that it has lost public faith for its conspiratory marriage with Jamaat and for giving BNP leader Tareq Rahman a free hand to mentor militants in the name of jihad. Also, the party’s stand against war criminal trials rightly raises the question: is BNP against providing justice and closure to the 30 lakh Bengalis killed and 4 lakh women tortured in ’71?

The performance of BNP-Jamaat government during its 2001-06 tenure offers no excuse or reason for the duo to ask Awami League to step down for its failure in running public office. Democracy requires that the mandate of the people of Bangladesh be respected and disagreements be channeled through parliament, media and social platforms. Voters have chosen BNP as the opposition party to keep an eye on government performance and voice concerns in parliamentary sessions. This wild wild east terrorism in the name of politics carries no mass appeal what so ever. Following the letter of law, strikes should be banned to safeguard public security and economy. BNP should wait for next elections.

Embraceable You

The latest edition of The Economist carries a comprehensive yet questionable report on India-Bangladesh ties. There are a couple of serious allegations in the report that just cannot be allowed to go unanswered. The opening paragraph alleges that India helped Awami League with cash and advice in winning 2008 general elections. The publication has not even bothered to substantiate this open allegation with evidence. I take the “cash” part more seriously. There is no harm in taking advice from a rising democracy, especially when the whole world is set on this particular set of governance. But accepting “cash” is another story altogether: it not only undermines the credibility of a democratically elected government but also colors the objectivity of the report.

The Awami League has historically had good ties with India, and is now logically trying to cement those ties with various agreements on sensitive matters that have been a stumbling block to the peace of eastern South Asia. So by alleging that the current government took “cash” support from India to come to power, the report is in effect trying to undermine peace efforts in the region. The Economist has chosen to publish this report at a time when both countries are finalizing treaties to resolve long-standing problems and expand the horizon of co-operation. The sensitive deals concern the resolution of matters like border disputes, water-sharing, electricity procurement for Bangladesh, transit routes and proportionally balanced trade. These deals will equally benefit Bangladesh economy, and should be taken as initial steps toward a South Asian Union.

As for transit routes, the report has quoted the fears of “military types” that such facility to India might provoke reprisals from separatist outfits. First of all, what are “military types”? Are they people with military background or simply a handful of people with a military mindset? And second, allowing India transit routes to the Seven Sisters will in fact help Bangladesh outsource the tackling of its militancy problem,because separatist groups in north eastern India have deep links with underground movements in Bangladesh. Such links have repeatedly played into the hands of Islamic militants by becoming a conduit for arms and safe havens.

Coming back to The Economist, the sweeping comment regarding lack of transparency in the upcoming 1971 war-crimes trials clears the purpose of this report. It is evident that the report was prepared with the intention of highlighting this issue only. For a western magazine to side with an Islamic party, Jamaat-e-Islami, should be an eye-opener. This is the very party that has proven links with religious militants in the country, this is the very party that has hired lobbyists through third-party contacts in the west to fight its cause, and this is the very party that is supporting known war criminals. Hardly ever were questions or allegations raised about the impartiality of war-crimes tribunals in Cambodia or Rwanda. Even in the matter of the Armenian massacre, western media sided with the victims, not EU-aspiring Turkey. But in case of Bangladesh, sympathies seem to be surprisingly shifting toward the perpetrators of 1971 crimes against humanity.

Jamaat-e-Islami is a coalition partner of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party of Khaleda Zia. So, the BNP will quite naturally never pursue these trials. That leaves only the Awami League to bring closure to the victims of those heinous crimes. Yet, The Economist had no qualms about stating without evidence that “the
(upcoming) war-crimes trials over the events of 1971 are being used less as a path to justice than to crush an opposition Islamic party, Jamaat-e-Islami”. The publication also showed lack of journalistic sensitivity by using the word “events” for the 1971 holocaust. While it’s true that trials of mass atrocities have rarely been free of political controversies, they have still produced meaningful results, both in term of providing closure to the victims and bringing the perpetrators to justice like in former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and Cambodia etc. Besides, I agree with international experts that “ultimately, the quality of the evidence placed before the court would determine the success or failure of the Bangladesh tribunal”. And also “based on comparative experiences, a trial that is not considered legitimate is likely to produce weak results that are susceptible to challenge further down the line.”

So, the focus has to remain on the crimes and the victims, and not on the political affiliations of the suspects. Not the trials themselves but the suggestion of The Economist that these trials are a witch-hunt in reality compromises the validity and effectiveness of the rule of law and justice. Despite the politics surrounding this issue, the fact that there is widespread desire to bring the war criminals to justice simply cannot be ignored. This was one of the major election commitments of the Awami League before the 2008 elections for which the party secured massive public votes.

But as The Economist alleged right at the beginning of its report that Awami League won the polls by questionable means, it only goes to prove what many in Bangladesh consider western conspiracy to keep the region destabilized. There can be no doubt that the trials will close a painful episode of the country’s history, and also that reversing the process would only worsen the situation.

The Economist report is nothing but a bland effort to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty ahead of events that carry momentous value for the future of Bangladesh. In journalistic terms, the said report is mere media propaganda in an attempt to bottle-neck peace efforts in South Asia.

“We want these trials to succeed in bringing the people responsible for the horrific crimes of 1971 to justice,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “While the amendments are a significant improvement, key problems still need to be fixed to ensure fair trials and avoid unnecessarily lengthy appeals.”

Human Rights Watch said that further amendments to the rules, law and constitution are necessary to ensure fair trials, including:

• Allowing an accused to question the impartiality of the tribunal. At present, the law prohibits this.
• Amending Article 3 of the act regarding the enumeration of crimes to ensure that the definitions of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide conform to international standards.
• Ensuring that the defense is given adequate time to prepare, instead of the current three weeks.
• Providing the accused the right to make appeals during the trial (interlocutory appeals) instead of only at the end. The amendments attempt to address this issue by allowing the tribunal to review any of its orders, either on its own motion or on application by either party. This amendment, while a step in the right direction, does not address whether a different appellate bench would then rule on the order’s merits. For an appellate review to meet international standards, an independent panel of judges must be appointed to conduct the review.
• Establishing a defense office, as has been done when dealing with similar crimes in other countries.

Based on the above-mentioned legalities, the Human Rights Watch appears quite concerned with the personal well-being of the ‘71 Holocaust criminals. Ironically such concerns echo the voices of interests groups that are working successfully to delay the long-awaited justice for the genocide victims of 1971. It’s worthy for the HRW to note that these very war criminals have hired lobbyists in the US for their cause.

Most of these ‘alleged’ war criminals continue to additionally enjoy indemnity for the killing of the father of the nation, Bongobondhu Shekh Mujibur Rahman in 1975. Charges & evidence against them are so definitive that the bureaucratic appeal of HRW to ensure the rights of the defense sounds ironical, if not outright hypocritical.

Charges against them include abetting the killers of Mujib, torturing minorities, August 21, 2004 grenade attack on Awami League leader Shekh Hasina and supporting militancy during the 2001 BNP-Jamayat regime. The 40-year-old history of Bangladesh shows them to be as active in ’75 as they were in ’71.

The ongoing effort for war criminals’ trial is a popular demand of the Bangladeshi youth who voted the Awami League into power in 2008. They want closure for the families of those killed and tortured by Pakistan army and their then East Pakistani collaborators. Imagine the torment of the bereaved relatives of martyred freedom fighters who stood witness to the blatant awarding of state power to those collaborators by the BNP regime and were allowed to share in the rule of a country that they opposed during its birth.

Bangladesh is a country of soft Islam where these very war criminals and collaborators seeded Jihad and communal hatred. They tried to Talibanize Bangladesh by promoting terror groups and Al-Qaeda philosophy with money and muscle. Because of tacit international support these seasoned criminals and religion traders are still conspiring against the peace and development of Bangladesh.

These are no ordinary criminals for the HRW to allow them soft corners; just as Washington allowed no softness in bringing Saddam Hussain and Osama Bin Laden to justice. The US obviously hasn’t forgotten the trauma of 9/11 and the loss of over 3,000 innocent lives.

Then, we have also witnessed the criminal defense system, or lack thereof, at Guantanamo or Abu Ghuraib detention centers. Compared to them the Bangladesh-ICT is sufficiently ensuring international standards in the ongoing trials of these war criminal plus militants. HRW should have something to say about that too.

We are after all trying these war criminals for the killings of 3 million people and the barbaric torture suffered by 400,000 women in ‘71. If Obama was justified in raiding Abbotabad for the 3,000 lives lost on 9/11, where do we stand wrong in our attempt to bring to justice the killers of 3 million lives?

This is also a part of our war against terror.

I hope HRW will rather try to support Bangladesh-ICT so that justice is delayed no more. If we are pressured with demands to allow bails for marked killers, we will have no other option but to ignore this hegemonic business of human rights.

The ‘91 Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed and the ‘96 Justice Muhammad Habibur Rahman caretaker governments were quite successful in holding fair elections, perhaps as a necessity of law. But the 2001 Justice Latifur Rahman and the 2006 Prof Iazuddin Ahmed caretaker administrations unleashed the darkness inherent in such a system.

Prof Ahmed’s partisan approach resulted in an army backed 1/11 caretaker administration which interrupted the flow of democracy for two years. By the time elections were held in December 2008, the realization was driven home that unless we learn to institutionalize democracy the uncertainty of caretakers will remain a threat to the evolution of democracy. When the entire western world is run on the spirit of the Westminster system, why does Bangladesh at all have to nurture the caretaker concept? Rather, we should strengthen our Election Commission so that it can hold fair elections. The existing Election Commission has already demonstrated the strength of its neutrality during recent local body polls in which the opposition BNP got reasonable wins. We still have more than two years in hand before the next parliamentary elections to further equip and give autonomy to the Election Commission.

After ridiculing the caretaker concept in the past, the BNP has now started accusing the Awami League of election engineering by abolishing the caretaker system. Interestingly, this very BNP was noticeably absent from the parliament where it would have been within its rights to voice concerns about the said abolishment. Even though, top AL leaders have requested BNP parliamentarians to offer a formula for free and fair elections, BNP is unfortunately preparing for a showdown on the streets, which is nothing short of an attempt to assassin whatever little peace and economic growth we have left.

The role of opposition in the parliament has consistently remained absent, whereas all the while these opposition parliamentarians have never once refused their salaries and/or foreign tours. The Awami League may have failed to deliver all that it promised in its election manifesto, but really how responsible have we seen the BNP as a shadow government or party in opposition.

The 2001-06 BNP-Jamaat government turned a blind eye to the rise of militancy and corruption. Bangladesh became comparable to Pakistan in terms of grenade attacks and politics of religion. We even had to suffer the wrath of western Islamophobic blacklists. The Awami League has, at least, reestablished secular order in which minorities are safe like before and socio-cultural activities are free from the threats of religious traders and militants. The moment foreign investors, even from the militancy-torn Muslim world, started eyeing Bangladesh as a safe place for investment, the BNP-Jamaat duo has once again resorted to public strikes in a visible attempt to bottleneck the feel-good atmosphere for investment and business.

We have yet to see the opposition shoulder any pro-people agenda. All they are doing is showing concern about an election that will take place after two and a half years. This election- and power- politics has become boringly repetitive and out-dated. Having said this, one would also like to see the party in power address urgent issues like inflation, power shortage, security, stock-exchange dacoity, corruption and abuse of power by partisan cadres. To top it off, the unnecessarily totalitarianesque attitude of some of the sitting ministers and members of parliament are tarnishing whatever little good this government wants to achieve.

We ordinary people expect a higher level of tolerance and maturity from the party in power, not loose talk and disregard for public sentiment. The Awami League leaders should welcome criticism from every corner to show who the bigger person is, and they should, on priority basis, work towards strengthening the Election Commission as a means of upholding their promise for fair elections in 2014.

I fervently hope the ruling upper brass has learnt from the experience of 2001 and 2006 caretakers that any level of election engineering is destined to backfire. And the BNP should stop getting paranoid about election-rigging. Based on the lessons drawn from the trials and errors of democracy, it’s a safe bet that winning the hearts of powerless marginal people alone will decide the fate of 2014 polls.

However, we failed to see Hindi spread its wings in the past decade even across the rural areas of Bangladesh. Taking advantage of the television boom, Bollywood has made inroads through channels like Star Plus and Sony. Even the masala on Indian news channels has started to influence Bangla news presentation. Media power is becoming stronger than political power, hence we see an ever-increasing crowd using Hindi words and expressions in Dhaka.

Rural folks along the common border areas watch Bollywood movies at tea-stalls, while housewives hooked to Hindi soaps find themselves relating to the characters that dazzle their minds. They have also actively started to mimic Delhi-Mumbai costume, make up and mannerism. Where a small but significant English-medium group tries to live the American dream, the others in Dhaka now follow dreams set by Hindi cinema and soaps.

Can Bangla survive this media colonization?

Dhaka film industry almost died in the ‘80s. Bangladesh television drama serials snatched away a large number of cinema goers. Audiences in West Bengal also developed taste for Dhaka drama serials and magazine programs. Then came video cassettes, which quickly infiltrated homes and popularized Hindi cinema. Although private TV channels played their part in absorbing news audience, freelance telefilm- and soap-makers failed to compete with Indian channels. We have to agree that in this age of expanding illusions, media reality is proving to be more influential than ground reality. Also, in hindsight the fall of Soviet Union can be attributed on some level to the fact that it didn’t develop its own Hollywood or CNN.

As Hindi and Urdu sound similar, Indian films and soap are quite popular in Pakistan as well. Most singers and actors desire and await a call from Mumbai, Pakistani singers and composers are active as a backward linkage to Bollywood for gathering fame and recognition. It’s a win-win situation when Times of India and Jang Group partner up for a liberal media market.

But the situation in Dhaka is different: Hindi and Benglish are eating away at the roots of Bangla, while we ourselves seem less interested in efforts to restore the spirit of the 1952 Language Movement. As rules of war change so do the ways and limits of cultural invasion. Now the colonizer enters from open skies to infuse Bollywood Dhamaka into our airwaves. The language and culture war is openly and defiantly being fought on the media front with the sole aim to expand products market. When I see Bangladeshi sponsors more interested in running their commercials on Sony Entertainment, I wonder about the end game. I also wonder who to blame. After all, Indian media’s global and glocal approach is to portray Hindi as a colorful language and their country a dazzling culture.

What should we do now?

Globalization has toughened media competition and we can no longer stop anyone from watching what they want. There’s also the matter of freedom of choice. So, unless we can offer better alternatives, people will watch whatever attracts them. In our collective conscience, nationalism and conservatism are being forced to make room for a more glocalized approach to life. There is no time to lose. Bangla has to enter the competition by delivering better media products. The world is celebrating the spring of internet media revolution where it’s all about catching back the audience that has the habit to browse away to anything that glitters.

Bengali is the fourth biggest language in the world and hence it has the potential to create waves in the media market. Bangladesh, West Bengal and the rest of the global Non-Resident Bengalis still look for entertainment in their own language, but if they are disappointed they will be easily hijacked by Hindi entertainment. To the Bengali audience Hindi is a more familiar language than English.

Bengali speaking journalists, singers and film-makers need to build a viewers stronghold or we will lose audience everyday. Artistes are better placed to overcome geographical barriers, and Dhaka-Kolkata joint media ventures can certainly fight back this Hindi onslaught. War of the waves can no longer be fought with hatred and old-fashioned negative nationalism. Survival demands unity of thought and purpose in crossing over the narrow Radcliff line between Bangladesh and West Bengal.

Sony Entertainment