Implicit Causes of the Shahbag Rallies

Many people, who are not acquainted with the history and sociopolitical aspects of Bangladesh, are becoming bewildered by hearing the news of the protesters of the Shahbag rally, who are demanding capital punishment for people convicted of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed during the 1971 war of independence from Pakistan.

They are asking,

1. Why are protesters asking to hang a convict when he already has got life imprisonment as punishment?
2. Why are protesters demanding for death sentence for other accused when their cases sub judice?

Life imprisonment is the most stringent sentence for any types of crime in some countries. To their perspective, demands of the protesters are too harsh and somewhat detrimental to the judicial system.

Background

The crimes committed by the accused were indubitably one of the most heinous act of the last century vie with the genocides of Germany, Cambodia or Rwanda. It was on simple sense a crime against humanity. Pakistani authorities were so insolent that it didn’t even bother to keep their real intentions in camera. West Pakistanis, especially Punjabis had racial aversions towards the Bangalis. Bangalis were being deprived of every aspects of life. In the war of 1971 a senior leader of Pakistani government bragged that, it needed only land but not necessary its people.

Liberation of the Bangladesh was not merely instigated by a group of separatist but the aspiration of its mass. Very few people were disinclined to support the causes of the liberation of this land. Pakistani military government picked some of them. This group called themselves Rajakar. Razakars were in effect the auxiliary of the Pakistani forces created by the gubernatorial ordinance and later became a part of the Pakistan Army. Along with Razakar Forces, there were other two unofficial but much more malevolently efficient paramilitary forces called Al Badr and Al Shams. Technically, they were not part of the government forces but worked closely with them. Their reputations were much more iniquitous than larger Razakar Forces. Apart from these three parties, there were two other groups called “Peace Committee” consisted of influential senior citizen and intellectuals, sympathetic to Pakistani junta and “Al Mujahid” consisted of non-Bengali Biharis. Most of the members of the “Peace Committee” and Razakar and nearly all of the members of Al Badr and Al Shams worked under the umbrella of Jamaat-e-Islami or simply Jamaat, who itself was the member of the provincial government of East Pakistan then a part opposing forces of the Bangladesh. Some of Jammat’s leaders hold several posts of the East Pakistan’s provincial cabinet. However, anyone collaborated with the Pakistani authority or opposed the causes of war of the independence are now popularly known as simply “Razakar”, irrespective of their affiliation.

It had planned systematically with the Pakistani military forces for ethnic cleansing of Bangali, ransacked all over the country, murdered and raped innocent people including minors and supplied women to the Pakistani forces for pleasure during the war. During the twilight of the demise of Pakistani authorities in Bangladesh, members of the Jammat had killed thousands of civilian intellectuals with the help of Pakistani forces.

Bangladesh had achieved victory in December 16, 1971 after nine month of the declaration of independence. After the war, most of the common sympathizer or supporters among the Razakars (excluding the war criminals) of Pakistan had been granted a general amnesty in an effort of reconciliation. Jamaat-e-Islami as a party, had been banned by the government of the newly independent country due to their institutionalize genocide during the war and conspiracy against the nation and country by collaborating with the enemy forces. Some of its top brasses who were also war criminals had been disenfranchised and brought to the justice. Some of them simply fled the country right after or before the war, apprehending the imminent defeat. Somehow, most of the convict had succeeded to elude the justice during the unprecedented political turmoil after the fall of BAL.

Jammat began to enter in the political arena slowly but steadfastly in the middle of the 1970s. Some of its leaders who had fled the country returned within this time. It had taken every opportunity to manipulate the political vendetta among the national parties like BAL (Bangladesh Awami League), BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party) or JP (Jatiya Party) and other lesser leftist and religious parties. By the end of the political turmoil, during the dawn of the democracy in the country for the first time in 1991 since February 24, 1975, Jammat had succeeded to establish themselves as the fourth largest party in the nation. Never in the history of modern nation-state has a party who opposes its very birth managed to function freely even without changing its original motto, let alone taking part in the national election.

It had planned meticulously to breed new generation of supporters by sponsoring and coach young students to enroll on the colleges or graduate school in the home and abroad. Jammat does not have large scale general or floating supportive base but a group of hardcore followers and their family members. Indeed, it’s a grim reality that the Jammat is relatively much more democratic within itself than the major parties like BAL, BNP or JP. As in these days, it seems it has managed to manipulate the small religious based parties on the ground of religious derogatory remark said to be (by the Jammat supporter) commented by some protesters from the Shahbag. Ironically, these religious parties are among the staunch opponent of Jammat on the issues of religious school and function.

Jammat also had patronized business enterprises, which are among the most richest and efficient in the Bangladesh. It would not be an overestimation that there would be some sorts of pecuniary influence to create new supporter.

TIME LINE - MATTER of WAR CRIME

(1971-1975)

In 1973 Bangladesh government took an initial step for the first time to try the Pakistani war criminals by passing International Crimes (Tribunals) Act (ICT Act 1973).

195 personal (initially 1100 personal) of Pakistani military had been accused of war crime with nearly thousands of their Bengali collaborators. In response, Pakistani government took a mean retaliatory action and detained about 203 person among the hundreds of thousands trapped Bengali in the West Pakistan. This 203 person had nothing to do with the war or any other illegal activity but they were falsely charged to make just a bargaining stuff. Later, 195 Pakistani had been handed over to the Pakistani government on the ground that it themselves would bring them to justice for war crime. Though Pakistan had consented with the condition during the exchange but never acted accordingly. It seems Pakistani government itself acted like a typical “hostage taker” and Bangladesh had to negotiate release of its innocent citizen which was unprecedented in the international arena.

However, several months before passing ICT act, in 1972, BAL government set up a special tribunal (Bangladesh Collaborators Orders, 1972) to try local war criminals of the 1971 war of independence. For the ease of Trial, First amendment had been incorporated with the constitution in 1973.

In total, initially, nearly 37 thousand Bangladeshi collaborators of Pakistan had been brought to justice under the Special Tribunal. But later most of them (about 26 thousand) had been pardoned except the serious criminals (accused of genocide, rape, ransacking, homicide, molestation etc). By the 1973-74, 773 people were convicted and begun to serve various prison sentences; some of them sentenced to death. Nearly 11 thousand people were still facing trials. But in late 1975, after the changing of the national political scene, the law had been abolished altogether by the new President. Special Tribunal itself became void including all of its past judgments. All of the accused including the convicts of serious crimes who were already been sentenced to prison for days had been acquitted overnight. In that turbulent year, a new president had come to the power for the third time.

(1976-1991)

Abolition of war crime tribunal was a political decision. Nevertheless, this controversial decision was always under scrutiny. The demand to bring the war criminal to the justice had never died among the people. Though there were no national scale movements at that time, nevertheless, this matter was frequently discussed in print media in home and abroad. In 1979 BNP had been elected for the first time to form government but in 1982 BNP government had been toppled and a new government (loosely precursor of the JP) took office. BAL and BNP worked with Jammat in various ways to except JP. JP lost power in 1990 and handed over it to a caretaker government who facilitated a democratic election in 1991; BNP won in the election.

(1992-1994)

In 1991 Jammat took a very controversial decision. May be it was a sheer silliness or an inordinate hubris but obviously a political faux pas. It had officially selected the epitome of the war criminal and a former member of the “Peace Committee” of 1971 war of independence as their Amir (leader/chairman). He was disenfranchised after the war and one of the ring leader of Jammat and accused of war crime. However, He had succeeded to flee the country before the ending of the war and came back after the cessation of the BAL government in the 1978 and got his citizenship back in 1994. Even after the independence of Bangladesh, he had appealed several foreign countries not to recognize Bangladesh. Jammat’s decision had seriously offended the majority of citizen. However he retired in 2000, passing his post to another accused of war crime, a former leader of Al-Badr.

In 1992, for the first time since 1972-73, question on the war crime tribunal had been raised nationally. It was raised by a group of people led by a mother of a freedom fighter and supported by intellectuals, former freedom fighters and hundreds of thousands of people. They (hosts and initiators) collected petition signatures and presented memorandum to BNP (elected in 1991) government to facilitate war crime trial. However, though the primary aim was not achieved at that time, it had created a far reaching notion of awareness of justice.

(1995-2008)

By this time a strong general consensus had been developed in the mind of the people. Both BAL and BNP government had not initiated anything to prosecute the war criminal for their political gain. Since 1992, demand to facilitate war crime tribunal had got a new ebullience. Several groups of people like former freedom fighters and their descendants and conscious people had supported it. BAL and BNP used Jammat politically and Jammat took this opportunity to their favor. In 1996 BAL and Jammat worked together to defeat BNP. The elected BAL government in 1996 didn’t conform to the demands to set tribunal. On the other hand, in 2001 BNP and Jammat worked together to defeat BAL during the national election. During the 2001 BNP led government it had managed to secure two cabinet portfolios for the first time. In the meantime Jammat became a permanent strategic partner of BNP. Before the election of 2008, BAL declared the regeneration of war crime tribunal as a mandate. Ironically from 2008 JP became a strategic partner of BAL. BAL-JP and BNP-Jammat alliances also have numerous
small parties.

(2009-2013 and on…)

Processing and Trialing -

In 2008 “The War Crimes Fact Finding Committee” has been established to find the war criminal with evidence. It has listed 369 former members of Pakistan military, 852 former members of Razakar Forces, 64 members from al-Badars and Al Shams, 78 members of the Bihari community an Al mujahir. It also include several hundreds other political collaborators and members of the Peace Committee. In total it had submitted 1597 names as war criminal in 2010.
In 2009, a bill had been passed in the House of the Nation to set up The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT). It had been set up in 2010, in accordance with international law. After passing the Law, it had been amended for two times, in the same year of 2009 and 2013.
In total, initially 10 people (9 current leader of Jammat and 1 former leader) had been indicted and three of them have been sentenced so far. Other cases sub judice till now.

Shahbag -

The rallies at the Shahbag in Dhaka were sparked on February 5, 2013 after Jamaat’s assistant secretary general was sentenced to life in prison for genocide and other atrocities. Comparing to another verdict, announced in the January 21, in which the convict had been sentenced to death in absentia who is guilty of numerically (not by degree) much less atrocities. It creates somewhat riddle among the general population. Most of them think that there is a subtle irregularity. Capital punishment is the highest penalty in the Bangladesh. Protesters considered life imprisonment is too mild for a convicted war criminal.
However verdict of another accused has been given today, February 28 and he is sentenced to death.

Concurrent Situation

Controversy towards the Judicial Systems itself -

Lots of first degree murderers have been granted presidential pardon for the political reasons during the both BAL and BNP government, without the consent of the victim’s family member. Members of the rich families often evade justice after committing crimes by bribing authorities and political leaders. Many people also evade justice for political consideration. There is a strong possibility of pardoning some of the influential and financially savvy war criminals and making fun of the “rule of law” in near future if they were sentenced to life imprisonment instead of capital punishment. Two judges of the ICT (Bangladesh) resigned from the post so far for different controversy.

Controversy of shunning some individuals -

Though, no one has wrongly been listed by the War Crimes Fact Finding Committee. However, there are also some allegations that some war criminals have not been listed by the committee, let alone recommending to bring them to the justice by this tribunal because of their present political, financial relation or family relationship with the top leadership with the ruling party.

Criticism of ICT by the main opposition Party -

Main opposition party BNP accused BAL uses this tribunal for its political gain or motivation. It is acting with suspicion. They also questioned why BAL didn’t initiate this trial in the 1996 when they had been elected to govern Bangladesh for the first time after 1975. BNP thinks the Shahbag rally itself is backed by BAL to divert the conscientious of general population from the question of caretaker government.

Criticism of ICT by Jamaat-e-Islami -

Jammat rejects the tribunal altogether. It claims that it is being unjustly tried and, indeed, a victim of BAL’s master plan to retain power. It is also arguing that their seven accused leader and two convicted leaders are innocent. It is saying that there are not enough evidences of their “said” crimes. It is also claiming that accusations of the plaintiffs and witnesses have no viable bases after forty years of the war.

Criticism of ICT abroad -

International organizations seem to be reproachful for the retroactive second amendment of laws passed in 2013, after the Shahbag protest. They think it undermines the legitimacy of the trial itself. Some people also criticize the absence of foreign judge among the judges of ICT, Bangladesh. Nevertheless, foreign countries have not officially commented anything about this till now. Some says that ICT itself is deeply problematic, riddled with questions about the independence and impartiality of the judges and fairness of the process.

Cogitation of the ruling party -

The ruling party BAL claims that, the tribunal is taking place in accordance with the international law. It thinks that defendants are getting somewhat much more than the international standard privilege in some legal matters. It also thinks that it is in fact exempting the nation from forty years of liabilities by facilitating International War Crime Tribunal to bring the accused before justice.

Overall causes of supporting openly for capital punishment

public scrutiny

1. The seriousness of crime of the accused.
2. De facto influences on judicial system in the Bangladesh from outside (politically or financially)
3. Apparently ambiguous and somewhat contradictory verdict between two separate cases.
4. Injudicious and partisan mentalities of the political leaders, even in the matters of national interest.
5. Rightful suspicion towards the political parties by the people.
6. General disbelief towards the group of individuals who hold the important designation of all branches of the state.

Criticism of Shahbag Rallies -

Shabagh rally itself is not out of criticism. Some argue that it is not completely non-partisan and backed by the ruling party as mentioned above. Some people think that the demand of capital punishment is not enough, other issues must be added like “corruption” or “banning of politics in the name of religion”. On the other hand some sees the rally as a hardcore right wing protest. Some even think that the slogan to demand of capital punishment is violent. Some think that some of rallies demand is impediments to religious freedom and religion is offended seriously from there.

Prime Aspiration of the People

Nevertheless, protesters of the really want to see justice. They want to ascertain the justice. Principal causes of the Shahbag rally have spread across the country and gets widespread support of the citizen. The aspiration of seeing the capital punishment of the war criminals comes out of the long cherished hope to see the rightful imposition of justice. The primary concern is the “prevailing of justice” not the “death sentence” itself.