The British magazine The Economist recently published a detailed report about the self-styled International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh, which was set up by Sheikh Hasina's ruling Awami League party in 2009. The main purpose of the tribunal was the trial of the Jamaat-e-Islami leaders for war crimes allegedly committed by them during the country's war of secession from Pakistan in 1971. The Economist report described as bizarre the tribunal's act of awarding a death sentence two times to Motiur Rahman Nizami, the current president of the Jamaat-e-Islami party of Bangladesh. The report also shed light on Ghulam Azam, former president of the party, saying that Nizami's verdict came a week after the death in custody of his predecessor - the 92-year-old Azam, whose funeral in Dhaka drew tens of thousands of people. Ghulam Azam's last wish had been for either Nizami or a third war-crimes convict Delwar Hossain Sayedee to lead funeral prayers, but this wish was unfulfilled. Sayedee is regarded as one of the great Islamic preachers not only in Bangladesh but in the entire South Asian region. The country's Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of Sayedee in September and instead ruled that he must remain in prison for the "rest of his natural life". The British magazine report pointed out that the political usefulness of war crimes trials is now diminishing for the Awami League government and it is afraid that awarding a death sentence to the accused may lead to political instability. The government assumes that some of the older prisoners before the tribunal may not live long enough to be executed, given the lengthy appeals process. Therefore, the government is keen to ensure that the convicts remain behind bars for the remainder of their lives. I received many comments on my article in this newspaper on Ghulam Azam whom I described as an honest and trustworthy person. I received a large number of e-mail messages in support of my viewpoints while some criticized me for what I wrote about the deceased leader. They accused me of ignorance and of being biased against Bangladeshis. Some of them went to the extent of using inappropriate, indecent and unfair words and phrases to abuse Azam. It is not right to use such words against a pious man who is no more and whose funeral was attended by tens of thousands of people. What The Economist wrote about Azam is a testimony that refutes the arguments of those who opposed my viewpoints. Azam was well known for his piety and honesty not only in Bangladesh but in the entire Islamic world. In my previous article, I pointed out that a prominent Arab ambassador said that Azam was “the most honest person that I ever met in Bangladesh.” Similarly, a number of politicians who belonged to political parties that had differences of opinion with Azam told me that they used to offer Friday prayers at the mosque where Azam delivered the sermon and led the prayers. When I asked them how they could offer prayers together with him, their reply was that his sermon reminded them of the greatness, sublimity and tolerance of Islam and that they had a feeling of being much closer to Allah when listening to him. I have also heard that when Gen. Hussain Mohammad Ershad ousted the government of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party in a military coup and established the Janadal Party (later Jatiya Party), he tried to form a coalition of some political parties. He tried to tempt some politicians from other parties to join his party and he was successful in this to a certain extent. Ershad used some Muslim diplomats to mediate with Azam and his party, but Azam refused to cooperate with the government of Ershad because it had come to power through a coup. The mediators tempted Azam with the promise of restoring his nationality. When Azam refused to cooperate, they threatened him with detention as in their viewpoint, he was living in the country illegally. However, all these threats failed as Azam was not ready to change his position or to compromise in this respect. All those who are now behind bars and are under trial for the alleged war crimes opposed the military rule of Ershad. These people also took part in demonstrations against the government of the Nationalist Party following allegations of large-scale rigging during the election of 1996. This forced the Nationalist Party to agree to the demands of the opposition to hold reelection under a caretaker government. The Awami League party won the election and ruled the country for five years during which there was no attempt to revive the war crimes tribunal. It is also worth noting that no charges were framed against even a single Bengali when the International War Crimes Tribunal was first constituted by the government of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the father of the nation, in 1972. All the 195 accused military personnel were Pakistani soldiers, to whom Sheikh Mujibur Rahman gave amnesty as per an agreement signed between Bangladesh, Pakistan and India.
— Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi is a former Saudi diplomat who specializes in Southeast Asian affairs. He can be reached at [email protected]
