Taj Hashmi 1975: The Crime and Verdict in Retrospection

Taj Hashmi

1975: The Crime and Verdict in Retrospection

November 25, 2009

Since fact is stranger than fiction and eye-witness accounts at times are more unbelievable than Ripley's "Believe It or Not", any narrative of what this writer experienced first hand as a young university lecturer in Dhaka during the tumultuous, uncertain and bloody days of 1975 is bound to evoke controversy, doubts and even anger, among sections of the Bangladeshis at home and abroad. Then again, nothing could be more immoral than not telling the truth for the sake of it.
This is an attempt to appraise the following: a) the killing of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, one of the founding fathers of Bangladesh by his own troops in 1975 and the belated trial and the final verdict of the Supreme Court on 19th November 2009; b) some ardent Awami League followers and supporters' argument that some "misguided soldiers" who killed Mujib had nothing to do with a mutiny; c) some Awami Leaguers' contention that people at large and Mujib's followers could not publicly condemn let alone resist the killers as they were overpowered by a military takeover; and d) if the Verdict is going to usher in the rule of law in the country paving the way for good governance and protection of human rights.
As by 1969 I had been somehow convinced about the veracity of the "Two Economy Theory" sold by our teachers and leaders, to me, the emergence of Bangladesh signalled the advent of the "promised land", free from corruption, bad governance and exploitation; or at least this is what we believed for quite sometime up to early 1972. While 1971 was very traumatic and uncertain for almost everyone who lived in what was then East Pakistan, a land under an occupation army; a nation besieged by the state of Pakistan; most of us who survived 1971, paradoxically turned crestfallen not long after the Liberation.
For many including this writer, the declaration of the one-party government by Mujib "the democrat" was the last straw. Most University teachers felt their employers' asking them to join the ruling party (BKSAL) was frightful and humiliating. By mid-1975 from military generals to top bureaucrats had joined the BKSAL, while all other political partiers had been proscribed. The situation was not that different from what prevailed in the Soviet Union. Clenched-fisted BKSAL workers' orchestrated shouting in public places in 1975—"One-Leader, One-Country; Bangabandhu-Bangladesh" (Ek Neta, Ek Desh; Bangabandhu-Bangladesh)—sounded quite ominous for many non-Awami Leaguers, which may be likened with how fascist workers used to intimidate their opponents in Europe in the 1930s-1940s.
In spite of this, what took our breath away was the brutal killing of Mujib and most of his family members – including his ten-year-old son and pregnant daughter-in-law – by a handful of Bangladeshi soldiers in August 1975. What was even more startling – and sickening to the extreme – was the way all his cabinet ministers barring a few and most of his close associates and party-men either joined hands with Mushtaq, the new President, and / or publicly rejoicing defended the killing as "necessary" and "unavoidable". Newspaper editorials glorifying the killers demonized Mujib and his rule in justification of the killing and the new regime under Mushtaq. Among others, Mujib's close associate, Abdul Malek Ukil, the speaker of the parliament, within weeks after the killing publicly stated at Heathrow Airport: "The country has been relieved of the Pharaoh". While the military-backed Mushtaq regime glorified the killers as "brave sons of the liberation war", the successive governments kept most of them employed at Bangladeshi missions overseas until the election of Sheikh Hasina, Mujib's daughter, as the new Prime Minister in 1996.
Signalling the death-knell for the killers of 1975, the new government brought murder charges against the killers cancelling their immunities granted by the Mushtaq regime, and upheld by Gen Zia.  Finally, after 34 years of the killing, on 19th November 2009, the Supreme Court in its judgment sentenced the killers to death for their dreadful crime. Meanwhile, people across the board are congratulating the judiciary and the government for upholding justice for the sake of ushering in the badly needed rule of law in Bangladesh. So far so good. Nevertheless, the question that bugs me a lot is that if this belated judgment is really going to bring about the elusive rule of law in this land of misrule, infested with crime, corruption and impunity.
Without having any reservations whatsoever about the fairness of the judgment, despite some loopholes in the method of trying military officers at a civilian court (as pointed out by some attorneys and legal experts), I am skeptical if the trial process could be ever initiated had Mujib's daughter not been the Prime Minister. I am equally skeptical about the possibility of trying all those state and non-state actors who have been killing their adversaries with impunity since the 1970s. They include members of the law-enforcers who have been killing suspects and innocent people in the name of "encounters" (crossfire); and influential godfathers who have been killing and expropriating people, often their political and business rivals, with impunity. As it is almost impossible to find out a BNP-supporter who would favour the posthumous trial of President Ziaur Rahman for his alleged extra-judicial killing of thousands of people; so is it almost out of the question to get an Awami-supporter in favour of trying those who killed Siraj Sikdar in the most gruesome manner. Similarly JP supporters would go up against any suggestion to try the killers of those killed during General Ershad's military rule; and nothing is more unpalatable to the Jamaat-i-Islami than the brewing demand for the trial of its leaders and supporters for committing "War Crimes", including murder, in 1971.
Now we hear from many Awami leaders/followers that the 1975 takeover in the wake of the brutal killings was not a mutiny but a "sporadic criminal act" by a handful of "misguided soldiers". One wonders as to why people and thousands of soldiers, BDR, Rakkhi Bahini and police did not come out on the street to punish those "handful of misguided soldiers"! These are quite enigmatic facts a) as to why General Osmani, the Commander of the Liberation War, went to Dhaka Radio Station in the morning of 15th August 1975 and was seen together with some of the killers; and b) as to why the army and air force chiefs paid allegiance to the "handful misguided soldiers" publicly through the media. Had the 15th August episode been simply a crime not a mutiny (or revolution), as to why all but four top Awami League leaders took oath of allegiance to Mushtaq as his cabinet members?  As mentioned above, some Awami Leaguers assert that people at large were too afraid to condemn, let alone resist, the killers as they had been overpowered by a military takeover. Only one of the above versions may be acceptable to us.
Hardly anybody is telling the truth that not Mujib alone but the entire nation collectively created Bangladesh; so it is not fair to blame him for whatever went wrong in the country till his tragic death. Bangladeshis should learn from the Americans who believe their country was liberated by their "founding fathers", not by Washington alone. They share the credit and blames together. Sycophants ("Chatar Dal" to paraphrase Mujib) who had convinced Mujib that Bangladesh would become Sonar Bangla (Golden Bengal) through "socialism" or state-capitalism (a gold mine for corrupt politicians and bureaucrats) or through friendship with India, USSR and Cuba, not by bridging support from the rest of the world, must have been collectively guilty for the misery of Bangladesh.
Conversely, soon after his killing, Mujib's sycophants condoned and even celebrated the carnage to appease Mushtaq, the new patron at the Bangabhaban. With a view to currying favour with Sheikh Hasina, making fools of themselves, they are now singing an altogether different song. Most analysts believe that Mujib's alienation from the urban middle classes and intellectuals finally led to his tragic end. In sum, one may welcome the verdict as a major positive step towards justice; a bold departure from the path of condoning extra-judicial killing is nevertheless an auspicious beginning. Bangladesh has reasons to be happy about the verdict. However, nothing could be more hackneyed than assuming that without addressing the issue of extra-judicial killings in the past and the ongoing Draconian "cross-firing", the verdict alone is going to bring peace and progress in Bangladesh.