Intellectual Collaborators: #2/2 Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman
ifa...@erols.com
<I am posting this for Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman>
(This the 2nd of 2 postings)
The Banality of the "Collaboration" bogey!
First, came Jamal Hasan's absolutely false and ludicrous charge that I
was in Dhaka in 1971 and that I collaborated with the killing by the
Pakistan army then, and he compared me with some of the most despicable
characters of history. All his claims were totally malicious and a bunch
of spiteful falsehood. He proved to be absolutely wrong, but so far he
has not offered me an unconditional apology for such a deliberate
defamation. Whatever disclaimer is made by the Amitech, DEJANEWS, and
SCB, it does not give license to an individual to publicly scorn others
with malicious lies. I have had difficulty in making out what Mr. Farid
Idris wanted to say in his rambling DEJANEWS posting except that he
supported Jaffor Ullah and Jamal Hasan, my villifiers. His repetition and
fragmented sentences got him nowhere! May be in my older years, I cannot
keep up with my youthful foes! His writing style reminded me of what the
Americans call FILIBUSTERING that amounts to talking and talking, zig
zaging, jumping up and down when you have little convincing to say.
Ziauddin Ahmed has the same habit of going in a circle, and bullying
without any substance in his argument, except piling blames after blames.
He wants me to keep on fighting a protracted legal battle no matter what
it costs! I told him that after the political changes in 1975, I made a
representation to the government, which readily restored my citizenship
rescinding the earlier order. I filed a writ against the Dhaka
University, but I did not pursue it, till the end. The University offered
to reinstate me with a full professorship, which I considered the best
vindication I could get under the circumstances. Since I was not planning
to return to Bangladesh permanently, my lawyers also advised me not to
continue the aggravation of a prolonged and costly legal battle. Most of
those teachers who were fired on political grounds during 1972-73 were
reinstated after 1975. And in the meantime, I decided to continue with my
life in the United States. At that time, I did not realize that one day I
have to face the most vindictive Internet inquisitors like Jamal Hasan
,Jaffor Ullah and their supporters! I saw the first edition of the
scurrilous book that is being used by my critics, which had no address. A
friend of mine who knew some of the people behind the publication
promised to talk to them, and I was not aware of the second (Bengali) and
an English edition until most recently. I have given all the information
that I need to do for the awareness of my readers, but my blamers keeping
on badgering me like desperate lawyers with a weak case! Earlier in this
rejoinder, I have already explained the circumstances, which led to my
meeting with Dr. Sajjad Hussein and other colleagues that Farid Idris
has harped upon. Collaboration with the Pakistan military repression, as
one should realistically understand it, had nothing to do with it.
However, I don't expect him and other habitual defamers, with a political
agenda of their own, to be convinced! May be they do not realize that in
life there is something called personal relationship which transcends
politics! Jaffor Ullah, Jamal Hasan, Ziauddin and their accomplices
attribute even a non-activism as a blamable offense. More recently, I
read an Amitech posting which branded such no-action (remaining
non-involved) as a "mental collaboration"! It reminded me of a newspaper
report sometime earlier. An American woman (or British, I don't remember
exactly), having lived in Saudi Arabia for a while, blamed the Saudis of
their many failings, and, she accused the Saudi men, of "visually raping"
her whenever she went out of her home! Ziauddin Ahmed suggests that even
though non-action is not a cognizable offense, it could be held guilty in
the "court" of public opinion. Does he mean a kangaroo court? I presumed
him with a semblance of legal background! Am I mistaken? Collaboration is
a fungible, elastic and implantable discernment, to say the least. In
course of the last two years or so, I came across radical Arab rhetoric
denouncing Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, as the Israeli
collaborator! What a bizarre suggestion! Over the years, about a dozen or
so books/memoirs have been published in Bangladesh on what happened in
1971 and immediately after independence. Two key conceptualizations about
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's (also called Mujib and acclaimed as the
Bangabandhu by millions) role in the liberation struggle emerged: In the
first assumption, Mujib, driven by the Pakistani refusal to transfer
power to his majority party, was categorically in favor of a complete
secession from Pakistan, which he hinted on March 7, and he gave further
directives for declaration of independence subsequently carried out from
the Chittagong Radio station. Contrary to that postulation is the widely
held view that Mujib was indecisive; and, he was overtaken by his radical
student leaders who wanted nothing short of independent Bangladesh.
Unable to decide which way to go, either for united Pakistan with the
six-point autonomy, or for a complete secession, Mujib decided to
surrender to the Pakistan military leaving behind his followers to flee
the country, to get killed by the marauding Pakistani soldiers, and to
carry out the independence movement on their own. (see Oli Ahad, Jatiya
Rajniti 1945-75). Zulfi Bhutto's biographer Stanley Wolpert cites Mujib's
secretly taped conversation (with Bhutto) where the Bangladeshi hero
hinted at some form of connection with Pakistan shortly before he was
freed from the detention in January 1972. The dispassionate historians
have umpired none of those views; and, meanwhile, people argue both ways.
Dhaka newspapers are filled with claims and counter-claims about Mujib's
role in the 1971 liberation struggle. We know that the acrimony between
Prime Minister Hasina and the Opposition Leader Khaleda is also a battle
over who did what in 1971. Will such doubts or intents, if he had any,
inactive or neutral, make Mujib a collaborator of Pakistan or even a
"mental collaborator" of Pakistan? Some of Mujib's best friends were
suspected of collaboration. It was known that Zahiruddin, an outstanding
criminal lawyer, and a life long Awami Leaguer was accused of
collaborating with Pakistani army, possibly because he was Urdu-speaking
( I have seen him speaking excellent Bengali!). I heard that his life was
saved through the kindness of Mrs. Mujib soon after independence. Even in
the present Awami League party and the cabinet there are people who were
suspected of collaboration. According to published reports, some
prominent members of the exiled government in Calcutta, wanted to
compromise with Pakistan with a six-point autonomy barely weeks before
the full-fledged war started in 1971. Indian government quickly crushed
that secret arrangement guessed to be sponsored by Washington. Some of
the Bangladeshi activists working for independence abroad had their
fathers, brothers and close relatives working for Pakistan. Abul Mansoor
Ahmed, one of the founders of the Awami League wrote in Daily Ittefaq
(September 8, 1972) that the government was deliberately violating the
established legal tradition by prosecuting many people without trial. The
veteran Awami Leaguer also pointed out that "the fact that an individual
who worked for the integrity of Pakistan, out of conviction, does not
automatically make that person, a criminal". Rather, it amounted to
working for the opposition, and it was only a matter of political
difference, until Bangladesh was independent, Abul Mansoor Ahmed argued.
In his interview with London-based IMPACT INTERNATIONAL, September 8-21,
1972, Ataur Rahman, another Awami League stalwart, stated that (while
appearing for a so called collaborator's case) he had reminded a
presiding judge the he had also been working (during 1971), described as
the occupation period, when he had received his salary, sent some people
to prison, and so on. Will those activities of the performing judges
(1971) be considered crime? In the same interview, Ataur Rahman Khan also
pointed out that the people being prosecuted as collaborators did not
know that they were violating a law. In fact, the Collaborators Act was a
retroactive statute criminalizing previously unknown offenses. Will
Zaffor Ullah, Jamal Hasan, Ziauddin and their associates respond to Abul
Mansoor Ahmed and Ataur Rahman's views? In their misconstrued vision,
such stalwarts were also probably "collaborators" of Pakistan! Did they
read those materials before, or their minds are eternally sealed?
Ziauddin Ahmed is wrong in his assertion that the "collaborators" had no
sense of remorse or emotions about what happened. With a few exceptions,
no body has supported the genocidal killing by the Pakistani soldiers.
For two decades, it has been the national preoccupation to narrate those
brutalities. Even those who actually collaborated, many were forced to
join the Al-Badars etc. under duress. Many possibly supported the
existence of Pakistan but did not actively help the military. After
December 1971, most of such people were on the run. But the killing,
torture, abduction, extortion and rape continued! Political killings were
institutionalized. Just this week, I read that Opposition Leader Khaleda
wanted trial for nearly 40,000 people killed from 1972 to75. The
"collaborators" did not commit those killings! A definitive history of
Bangladesh in 1971, minus the political hyperbole, is yet to be written.
Doubts, fear, oscillation, vacillation, confusion and uncertainty linger
around the politicians as much as they worry the individuals. Those who
make a mountain out of a molehill, those who contort events and those who
purvey invectives in their narratives are the scavengers of history, not
the dispassionate historiographers! May I ask which international
/national law prescribes neutrality or not coming out with either side of
a conflict [or "remaining equidistant" (trapeze!) as one of my accusers
describe it] as a breach of conduct? Was the Bangladesh movement a
nationalist struggle or a civil war? A nationalist agitation is not a
monolithic movement, since it has many layers, and many expressions, and
many different exponents, and even detractors. Only in a civil war, the
dictum is: "If you are not with us, you are against us"! At the heart of
the confusions of Bangladesh history is the activist conviction that the
1971Bangladesh independence, since it was brought about by a heavy loss
of lives and sacrifices, amounted to revolutionary state. Such radical
imagination contributed to conceptual difficulty that misguided people,
and confounded the historical interpretation. Many Bangladeshi leaders,
intellectuals and their retainers looked upon themselves as the radical
inheritors who lost their sight as constitutional parties working though
liberal democracy, due process and pluralism in a nation state. They
don't seem to understand that bloodshed and countless sacrifice, however
sad and repulsive it is, alone do not necessarily make a state
ideologically monolithic. They are not aware of the analytical
distinction between a nationalist movement and an ideological struggle.
Zafor Ullah and his associates are afflicted by the conceptual
bewilderment that dawned upon Bangladesh soon after independence. They
don't seem to realize that the nationalists cannot persecute others for
their privately held (or even publicly demonstrated) opposing views, or
for not being active in the nationalist movement. Many people who did not
believe in Pakistan, opted for the Muslim state, and made a successful
living there; but, on the other hand, many individuals who worked for a
separate Muslim homeland, stayed back in India. In a nation-state,
citizenship is not ideology-based. In independent Bangladesh, people
should be judged by their present commitment to their state, not by what
they believed in 1971. Until and unless we realize that, Bangladesh will
continue suffering from the quandary of disunity and national bickering.
Millions will feel like pariahs, not the proud citizens of Bangladesh.
What Jaffor Ullah, Jamal Hasan and their associates are doing will
indefinitely stoke the fire of a civil war in the country! Gone are the
days, when the Bangladeshi hyper-nationalists could get away by hijacking
justice in the name of patriotism! Disturbed by the post-independent
revolutionary pomposity, Abul Mansoor Ahmed, an elder statesman, warned
his Awami League not to confuse parliamentary democracy with a
revolutionary leadership. Through his newspaper columns, he cautioned
that any radical posture was dangerous for his party and the nation at
large. (see Abul Mansoor Ahmed, Beshi Dame Kena, Kam Dame Becha: Amader
Shadinata, 1986) The radical rhetoric of the Awami League climaxed as a
single party rule in 1975 when Mujib abrogated the constitution, made
himself the virtual dictator in the name of a "second revolution" (the
first one was in 1971). It's well known that the Indian government was
reluctant to try the Pakistani killers and rapists. Why? According to
most observers and analysts in 1972, India was afraid of an international
tribunal trying the Pakistani soldiers where the legal experts would have
asked why did India militarily intervene in the internal matter of
another sovereign country? The legality of the exiled government (in
Calcutta) inviting India to intervene was not sustainable in the eyes of
the international law. New Delhi was not willing to confront such
questions challenging the legality of their military action that midwifed
the creation of Bangladesh. Under the international law, the Pakistani
soldiers and some of their "collaborators" surrendered to the Indian
military, and New Delhi's decision of not trying them prevailed over the
Bangladeshis. Most countries around the world condemned the Pakistani
military crackdown, but when India declared war over Bangladesh
independence, most countries except the Soviet bloc disapproved of it.
[see a recent book: Craig Baxter, Bangladesh: From Nation to State,
Westview, 1997] Does it make those countries (which opposed Indian
military intervention) collaborators of the Pakistan army? Zaffor Ullah,
Jamal Hassan and Ziauddin Ahmed, I know, will avoid such sensitive but
serious questions! They have no eyes, no ears to listen to such
arguments! Inside Bangladesh, the collaborators' trials could not
continue for the following reasons: (a) lack of enough evidence and (b)
the 1972 Collaborator Act was declared void (Qamrul Hussein's case to the
best of my recollection) by the court. Most of the 37,000 (or more?)
persons held under the Collaborators Act were released, and only a
fraction of those could be legally held. Mujib's amnesty (or Zia's), was
by no means, an act of unadulterated generosity! Few cases could be
upheld even against those who were charged with murder, abatement and
rape. Dr. Sajjad Hussein was released from jail in December 1973, the
same was true of most others accused of collaboration. They were detained
in jail, but few were actually punished for the collaboration. (c) What
inspires people like Zaffor Ullah, Jamal Hassan, Ziauddin Ahmed, and
their accomplices are not so much the legality of collaboration, but a
political motivation and personal ambition (to gain some recognition by
"chasing" the "collaborators" or fantasizing themselves as the Nazi
hunters, Bangladeshi style!). That's why they are on such a shaky ground
for which the readers have denounced them, and Amitech refused to publish
their canard. A related point: Hundreds and thousands of Bangladeshis
continued to work and do business with what was then East Pakistani
government during the entire period of 1971. Many liberal intellectuals
who are now treated like the "godfathers" of Bengali nationalism did not
raise their voice against military (or supported pro-Pakistani press
statements) in 1971; yet "Brutus is an honorable man"! Dhaka newspapers
are flooded by the tales of opportunism by those who enjoy the special
status of the "certified patriots" today while they were acquiescent to
the military action. Were they guilty of collaboration, mental or
circumstantial, and other charges? (d) Bangladesh was under pressure from
the Amnesty International which opposed prosecution of those who might
have cherished pro-Pakistani ideas but did not commit any criminal
offense. Until the Pakistani army surrendered to the Indian military,
Pakistan was a legal entity in the eyes of both international and
domestic laws; so remaining loyal to Pakistani nationalism, without
killing or hurting anyone, was not a crime, no matter whatever the
Collaborators Act specified. Many were opposed to the Pakistani
atrocities and sympathized with the Bangladesh movement but had qualms
about the Indian military involvement. Many more possibly connected their
Muslim identity with Pakistan, and felt a sentimental attachment to it.
It is true that the pro-Islamic right wing groups aligned themselves with
Pakistan, and some of their followers were accused of atrocities and
killings in 1971. Once Bangladesh were accomplished, Islam, collaboration
with Pakistan, perpetration of savagery was all lumped together. Not only
the Islamic parties, which were outlawed, even ordinary orthodox Muslims
were looked upon with suspicion and became victims of the witch-hunt.
Those were the circumstances, which compelled the Amnesty International
and other human rights organizations to take up issues with the
Bangladesh government right from the beginning of independenc. Be that as
it may, Ziauddin Ahmed and his cohorts, at least by their connotation,
imply that Amnesty's objections to indiscriminate punishment of the
perceived collaborators did not really matter! For them, cataloguing
names, rumor, suspicion, fabrications, vendetta are more reliable sources
of accusations than the circumstances of political behavior and actual
commission of crimes! According to one bureaucrat's memoir, many of them
acted on both Pakistani and Bangladeshi sides to save themselves under
the circumstances. Those were the kinds of people who got protection from
the human rights organizations. Aren't Amnesty activities covered by
international law and UN approved Human Rights? When an individual or a
group does not champion a popular issue or a movement, they may be
criticized for "political incorrectness" but that is not a punishable
offense! Dinesh DeSouza, a Christian from India, fought valiantly against
"political correctness" over some of the most popular issues such as the
civil rights, affirmative action and multiculturalism for years in the
United States, and became a right wing celebrity. He has severe critics
for what he does or does not, but no body puts him in jail! He did not
lose his job or his citizenship! He was not thrown out of his house! He
did not have to prove himself to a few vilifiers, as I am being coerced
to do so. Ziauddin Ahmed wants to know about my publications! Zaffor
Ullah wants me to enter into a debate based on my writings on Banlgadesh
history. Well, that's what I, originally, wanted to do! I am not a blind
supporter of Jinnah, but I would allow him the historical space that he
deserves. I did not need the Amitech posting for getting something
published; I just wanted to share what I have known or studied about
Jinnah. What did I get out of it? The Internet readers know the
horrendous outcome that I have been suffering! It is Jamal Hasan and
Zaffor Ullah who started smearing me, and doing it again and again,
sometimes directly and sometimes through their friends, for which they
have been condemned by such readers whom I have never known. Before we
can start an honest historical debate on Bangladesh, the malicious
fabricators must apologize to me, and then we can go back to the Amitech
pages, for a healthy discussion on a variety of subjects without hurling
personal abuses!
My research and publications, since 1965, are open, and frequently quoted
from the well known published sources. Most of them have been abstracted
and reviewed by the professional organizations. However, such
publications are for the academics, not for the vigilante! I cannot
oblige my slanderers by giving a list of my publications; exchange of
scholarly information takes place between friends and peers in the
pursuit of knowledge. Over the years since 1971, I have presented
papers/lectures on Bangladesh at the annual meetings of the AAS, South
Asian Studies Annual meetings, Wisconsin-Madison, Bengal Studies
Conferences, Mid-Atlantic Asian Studies Association meetings, Muslim
Social Scientists Association's meeting, Columbia University, Institute
of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, Sussex University,
Sacandinavian Institute for Asian Studies, International Institute for
Strategic Studies, Harvard, M.I.T., University of Chicago, University of
Michigan, University of Virginia, University of Texas, Syracuse
University, University of Pennsylvania, UNESCAP, The Population Council,
The Bangladesh Institute for Strategic Studies, Bangladesh Public
Administration Training Center, Jahangirnagar University, Benares
University, to mention some of them.
While I am fighting my slander-swinging critics through the Internet, I
feel I am writing the first draft of my own memoirs! You will hear from
me!
<Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman can be reached at rashid...@mars.rowan.edu>
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Saleh Tanveer
>From rashid...@mars.rowan.edu Mon Dec 22 12:55:33 EST 1997
><I am posting this for Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman>
>(This the 2nd of 2 postings)
>The Banality of the "Collaboration" bogey!
Rest deleted for brevity.
Failure to actively support a cause cannot be an indictable offense.
As Dr. Harunuzzaman pointed out a number of weeks back,
we must draw a line between offenses directly related to violation
of human rights and those that have to do merely with political
beliefs, no matter how unpopular.
For those who go overboard on such matters, let me present the following
hypothetical situation (God forbid this never happens):
Sometime in the future, Sylhetis rebel and want a
separate Jalalabad; some demagogue stirs up their passion and points
out their separate identity (at one time having being part of Assam).
He points out to Sylhetis that they are not getting their
due share, given that their land is rich in natural resources.
Suppose, I being a Sylheti, oppose this movement, for I believe that
whatever grievances we have can be settled within the framework of
Bangladesh. To make matters worse, the politicians of Bangladesh sends its
army to quell the restive rebellion, and like most armies
sent out to quash popular uprising, they commit horrendous atrocities,
which the rest of Bangladesh is unaware of.
All reports in the foreign press are
deemed by most Bangladeshis as merely propaganda by an unfriendly neighbor
to destabilize Bangladesh. I am left in a quandary.
As horrified as I am with the army action,
I still cannot actively support an independent
landlocked Jalalabad, realizing that such an entity is bound to be no
more souvereign than Bhutan. I am thinking that sometimes in the future,
the politicians will come to their senses and seek a political settlement.
However, with the help of some foreign
power, Jalalabad gains its independence. Should I be indicted for
collaboration, even though I had nothing to do with the army and its
excesses ? Should I be excluded from the process of rebuilding this
land where my ancestors have lived for centuries,
merely because I happened to be on the wrong side ?
If in the above hypothetical story,
you substitute Bangladesh for Pakistan, and Jalalabad for Bangladesh,
then the "crimes" of the hypothetical "me" in the above will be
equivalent to those like Dr. Rashiduzzaman. There is no inherent
reason to associate a political belief with crimes committed by some
who believe in that idealogy, just as there is no reason to immediately
glorify each and everybody supporting the "right cause". A few of them
fall short, when measured by the yardstick of human rights-- they have
knowingly killed innocent people; do their crimes become less serious,
just because they upheld some preferred idealogy ?
nda...@aol.com
Mr.Saleh Tanveer has raised a valid point. While the present
debate may have started only on 20th November, 1997 with the
publication of Jamal Hasan's article in AMITECH, Rashiduzzaman has
probably been thinking of it at least since 1st of October, 1973
when he was dismissed from the Dhaka University. I would agree with
Mr. Tanveer that there was a gross miscarriage of justice if
Rashiduzzaman was indeed dismissed for no greater sin than holding
an unpopular belief during 1971.
In a recent article titled, "Islam, Muslim Identity and Nationalism
in Bangladesh" [Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies,
Vol. XVIII, No. 1, Fall 1994] Rashiduzzaman must have been thinking
of his own fate when he wrote:
"Those who believed in United Pakistan had the right to do so until
former East Pakistan became independent Bangladesh. Their beliefs
in 1971 could be debated for "political incorrectness" but it was
a serious civil rights violation to persecute and punish people for
their views. Of course, those who were guilty of any cognizable
crimes during the liberation war in 1971 could have been punished
through the due process of law."
He went on to complain:
"Many people suffered horrendous punishments for their deeply
cherished political beliefs without ever committing a crime."
Here we must draw a distinction with professors like Sajjad
Hussein, Kazi Din Mohammad and Mohar Ali. They were sent to America
by the army junta to lobby for Pakistan. These professors were
indeed collaborators. Mr. Jamal Hasan has pointed out, very
appropriately, that writers like Ezra Pound and P.G.Wodehouse had
to pay a heavy price for somewhat similar activities on behalf of
the Nazis during 2nd World War.
I suspect (it is not clear from the material presented so far on
either AMITECH or SCB) that Rashiduzzaman was penalized by the
Dhaka University Syndicate on 1st October, 1973 for his alleged
liaisons with these professors during their lobbying effort in
America during 1971. Rashiduzzaman claims that the liaisons were
nothing more than socializing and having dinners with people he had
known in the past and to whom he was indebted for personal reasons.
If that is true then Dhaka university is indeed guilty of a gross
miscarriage of justice in which case I don't see how the university
can ever compensate Rashiduzzaman for the injustice.
But, to be fair to the Dhaka University Syndicate, it is not yet
clear from the material presented on AMITECH and on SCB between
20th November and 20th December that there was nothing more to these
liaisons then claimed by Rashiduzzaman. It has been reported on SCB
that Dr. Muhith ( a man Rashiduzzaman has known and respected over
the last 40 years) has written a book that hints that
Rashiduzzaman's liaisons with those professors were a little more
than mere social get togethers. I wonder if Dr. Muhith can be
persuaded to post his thoughts on SCB. He owes it to Dr.
Rashiduzzaman if people are reading too much into his book to
wrongfully accuse Rashiduzzaman of collaboration.
(Dr. M.Rashiduzzaman is currently associate professor in Political
Science at Rowan College of New Jersey, Glassboro, New Jersey. He
had been dismissed from the Dhaka University in 1973, presumably
for collaboration.)
==================================================================
Appendix A
Dr. Mozammel H. Khan
Oakville, Ontario, Canada
e-mail: mozamm...@sleeper.sheridan.on.ca
Dr. Mozammel Khan's contribution to the debate was his 10th
December posting titled, "Controversy about the role of Dr.
Rashiduzzaman in 1971" on SCB in the following message:
Subject: Re: Dr. Rashiduzzaman vs Jamal Hassan
Date: 1997/12/10
Message-ID: <19971210041...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh
He reported the following, "I went through a recently published
book written by Mr. A.M.A. Muhith (UPL, 1996, pp499), entitled
"American Response to Bangladesh Liberation War". It is probably
the most authentic and documentary evidence of the heroic deeds of
our great sons who were residing the North America during that
period."
Dr. Mozzammel H. Khan gave at least two quotations from the book
pertaining to Rashiduzzaman. Here are they:
(1) "In July of 1971 three professors of Dhaka University-Mohar
Ali, Kazi Din Mohammed and Sajjad Hussain together with Justice
Nurul Islam arrived in the US on a mission to speak about the
Pakistani position that everything was all quiet on the Eastern
front. Both in New York and in Washington DC the league (Bangladesh
League) took several measures, including demonstration before their
hotel, and passing out information about their true identities to
the individuals and institutions they had scheduled for
appointment. In some instances, the continued vigilance by the
League members forced them to cancel their appointments and at
least on one occasions the city police of New York had to escort
them to the Pakistani mission. It was so unfortunate that these
misguided Bengalis became the willing collaborators of the
oppressive military machine against their own people. Later when
Hamidul Huq Chowdhury and Mahmud Ali came to the US of the four
mentioned above, their movement had to be so restricted that they
could not make any head in their mission. It was rumored that a
Bengali visiting fellow at Columbia University from Dhaka
University, Prof. Rashiduzzaman, took upon himself the shameful
responsibility of providing his visiting colleagues some
appointments and forums" (page 416-417).
(2) "On March 30 a regular conference of South Asia study group was
held at Washington Hotel. It was an opportune moment to focus
attention on Bangladesh Crisis. Professors K B Sayed, Rashid uz
Zaman and Sajjad Yusuf, all teachers in the Dhaka University at one
time or the another, were present in this gathering and their
comments were sought after. The situation was a little unclear then
and most scholars hoped that good sense would dawn on the Pakistani
ruling junta. There, however a few who doubted it and they were
concerned about how the war would be fought by an 'untrained mass
of meek Bengalis'"(page 11).
=================================================================
Appendix B
Mr. Jamal Hasan's original article seems to have relied on a book
titled, Ekattorer Ghatok Dalalra Ke Kothai. Rashiduzzaman has been
identified in Appendix 11 as a person who was dismissed by the
university on 1st October 1973. It quotes Dainik Bangla of 3rd October
as a reference. The book also claims (correctly as it seems) that
Rashiduzzaman is now a resident of USA.
Dr. Rashiduzzaman and at least two other readers have wrongly alleged
that the book does not carry the address of the publishers. I have had
the
opportunity to verify the following (courtesy of a friend):
Ekattorer Ghatok o Dalalra Ke Kothai
Publishers:
Muktijuddho Chetona Bikash Kendro
31E Topkhana, Dhaka - 2
Printers:
Dana Printers Limited
Ga - 16, Mahakhali, Dhaka - 1212
Dhansiri Printing and Publication
8/3 Neelkhet Babupura, Dhaka - 1205
=========================================================
In article <67meia$cl0$1...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
tan...@math.ohio-state.edu (Saleh Tanveer) wrote:
>
> >From rashid...@mars.rowan.edu Mon Dec 22 12:55:33 EST 1997
> ><I am posting this for Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman>
>
> >(This the 2nd of 2 postings)
>
> >The Banality of the "Collaboration" bogey!
>
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
nda...@aol.com
In article <882586109....@dejanews.com>,
rashid...@mars.rowan.edu wrote:
>
> It's well known that the Indian government was
> reluctant to try the Pakistani killers and rapists. Why? According to
> most observers and analysts in 1972, India was afraid of an international
> tribunal trying the Pakistani soldiers where the legal experts would have
> asked why did India militarily intervene in the internal matter of
> another sovereign country? The legality of the exiled government (in
> Calcutta) inviting India to intervene was not sustainable in the eyes of
> the international law. New Delhi was not willing to confront such
> questions challenging the legality of their military action that midwifed
> the creation of Bangladesh. Under the international law, the Pakistani
> soldiers and some of their "collaborators" surrendered to the Indian
> military, and New Delhi's decision of not trying them prevailed over the
> Bangladeshis. Most countries around the world condemned the Pakistani
> military crackdown, but when India declared war over Bangladesh
> independence, most countries except the Soviet bloc disapproved of it.
> [see a recent book: Craig Baxter, Bangladesh: From Nation to State,
> Westview, 1997]
>
>
I do not find much merit in what Rashiduzzaman has referred to as "well
known". I don't think the legality of India's role was the issue.
Firstly, the situation ceased to be an internal affair as soon as the
military junta forced over 10 million Bengalis to seek refuge in India.
It is Pakistan that first invaded India with millions of refugees. It is
Pakistan that on 3rd December launched a massive air attack on India when
Indira Gandhi was away from the capital. I certainly disagree with
Rashiduzzaman's "when India declared war over Bangladesh independence"
statement. India did no such thing. It was Pakistan that drew the first
blood, first with the refugees and then with the massive air attack of
3rd December. It was at this point that India extended formal recognition
to the Bangladeshi government. General Niazi surrendered to the joint
command of the Indian Army and the Mukti Bahini on 16th December now
celebrated as Bijoy Dibosh.
More than 3 million people were murdered in 1971. But no war crimes trial
took place even though there were specific charges against 195 Pak
military officers. Mujib had to retreat in the face of Bhutto's
blackmail. The Pak Premier declared quite bluntly that he would try the
Bengali officials and military personnel stranded in Pakistan for treason
in case Mujib dared to proceed with the war crimes trial. Bhutto was
bolstered by the fact that both USA and China had seen the independence
of Bangladesh as a victory for the Soviet block in the cold war and were
determined to back Bhutto to the hilt. That was the primary reason why
the 195 Pak officers escaped trials.
nda...@aol.com
Mr. Saleh Tanveer has drawn an analogy between Bangladesh of 1971
and a hypothetical situation in Sylhet. For the analogy to hold it
is necessary to make a few more assumptions regarding Sylhet. Here
are some of them:
(1) Sylhet has a population greater than the rest of Bangladesh.
(2) A Sylheti party has won enough seats in the election to form a
national government on their own.
(3) The Martial Law Administrator of Bangladesh refuses to hand
over power to the elected representatives.
(4) It declares war on the people of Sylhet and starts a program of
genocide to cow down the Sylheti majority into submission.
(5) Sylhetis flee to a neighboring country in large numbers to
escape death.
However, Mr. Tanveer Saleh's observation still holds, even with all
these additional assumptions. A Sylheti individual has every right
to continue to believe fervently in a united Bangladesh. It would
be wrong to persecute this individual merely for his private
beliefs howsoever unpopular they might be with his compatriots.
In article <67meia$cl0$1...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
tan...@math.ohio-state.edu (Saleh Tanveer) wrote:
>
> >From rashid...@mars.rowan.edu Mon Dec 22 12:55:33 EST 1997
> ><I am posting this for Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman>
>
> >(This the 2nd of 2 postings)
>
> >The Banality of the "Collaboration" bogey!
>
> just because they upheld some preferred idealogy ?
>
>
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------