Anatomy of a Film along with an Obituary to a Critic of its Critics

Anyone who is familiar with War Crime Trial knows that media plays an important role in molding international opinion. In a large way ICT functioning has been found to be influenced by global opinions. From this perspective, it is significant that Al Jazeera made a 3 minute film on Gulam Azam. Golam Azam the former chief of the Islamist party Jamaat –e-Islami is now on trial in Bangladesh with charges of crimes against humanity. He is accused of collaborating with the Pakistani army, and ordering the killing of millions during the country’s 1971 war of independence.

What did the film try to convey? Let us not get into any preset opinion; rather I will place the sequences in order so that one may form an independent opinion:

1.  On commentary we hear the charges against Gulam Azam.
2. The commentator introduced Gulam Azam as a person who once led Jamat-e-Islami and now “he can’t walk, he can’t really see nor can he really hear. Yet he has 10 armed police officers watching him at all times. 
3.  The son of Gulam Azam denies any involvement of his father with war crimes and claims that his father had logic for supporting Pakistan.
4. News clippings showing Gulam Azam’s call to support Pakistani Army –while on commentary jamat-e-Islami is termed as a “small” party during 1971.
5. After Independence,  Jamat-e-Islami was banned and then found to become the 3^rd largest party in 8 years.
6. Interview of the defence lawyer claiming that all the 8 who were indicted by ICT were leading “political leaders” of opposition.
7. Commentary on a UN working group claiming that the arrest of these men were “arbitrary and in breach of international law”.
8. Interview of Minister of law (without context) leading to a statement demanding that the tribunal was not international but a domestic one so the detention was not illegal.
9. Commentary informs that the present government’s election manifesto had the agenda of holding trial of the war crime offenders. And the government is determined to fulfill its pledge.
10.  With Gulam Azam’s picture the commentator informs that, if found guilty he will face death penalty.
11. “Whatever the decision this court comes to, It will have dramatic consequences. It may bring justice to many but at the price of throwing Bangladesh into further political instability”- concludes the reporter.

Now let us discuss! I for one end up concluding that the film gives an edge to the 89-year old former leader of Jamat-e-Islami (the 3^rd largest political party of Bangladesh) who is presently “detained” (that’s what the commentary informs us no matter what the Minister claimed)- a man who is now so feeble that he can’t walk, talk or see. The defence lawyers make us believe that Gulam Azam, along with 7 other top opposition political leaders, is arrested by the government to undermine opposition (nothing to do with justice). For the Western ear (not for the Middle East viewers who are habituated with Shariah law-based practice of beheading) the commentator leaves the message that this man is facing death sentence in a tribunal which is formed as a part of the government’s commitment to punish the alleged war criminals! The conclusion tells us that Bangladesh government (although in the election it had received more than two-third majority) does not know what’s best for the country. Justice is not the key concern- the reporter educates; the key concern is to prevent political instability (well it keeps us guessing when will someone from the international community gets this message across to Bangladesh).

This is what anyone who does not even know Bangladesh and its history will probably make out of the film. Well someone who knows Bangladesh wrote so on a daily. This brings us to another critic. Let’s call him the “critic of the critic”. What he does in criticizing the Bangladeshi critic of the film is extraordinary:

1. He regrets that media is trying to be a friend of the government – as otherwise there will be negative implications. This is why the piece was written (the film and its content has got nothing to do with it). Now how good do you know Bangladesh? Probably you have not ever read a single line before on the country. Learn from the expert who dwells in this third world autocracy- that what he tells us! 
2. He finds that the film was not biased – it had the victim’s perspective and he makes us believe that it is obvious around the world to hold such a perspective for the sake of neutral. Now that’s some logic! 
3.   After writing the 3,771 words long post on his blog- he realizes that his own bias can become obvious. So he explains, “Why spend so much time on this, you may be asking. This is because it is important to stop the harmful and dangerous misrepresentation of journalism and journalists which is playing into the hands of those who want the ICT to be spoken about using a one dimensional script”. So he was on a benevolent mission towards Bangladesh (after all someone has to tie the bell)!

So you can very well see- what Bangladesh is facing in its pursuit to bring those who had been accused of committing crimes against humanity during 1971? It’s not just being attacked by international media (such as this Al Jazeera film) for conducting the trial (which pushes old feeble politicians at the risk of being sentenced to death!!) but also being criticized by international media’s self-claimed monitor for criticizing such negative media campaign (as it makes us the harmful and dangerous misrepresentation of journalism and journalists)!!! Where do we get these critics? Beats me!! But let me share a hunch – war crimes are highly political and it draws global attention- may be too many “journalists” with too much idle time in hand are aware of this!

Court room Drama of Defence and the Baffled Armatures on Blogs

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012, the defence of war crimes accused Jamaat-e-Islami leader Delawar Hossain Sayedee boycotted International Crimes Tribunal-1 as the prosecution began arguments in the case. The day was fixed for the start of the prosecution's arguments in the case. Before that, the defence in the morning alleged before the tribunal "plainclothes police abducted" their witness from the road near the High Court shrine. According to news report, the defence demanded direction from the tribunal in this regard. Interestingly, while the tribunal wanted to take a little break to enquire about the allegation, the defence did not want to give any time for and in everyone’s dismay boycotted the courtroom around 1:15pm and did not return after lunch break.

This was another show staged by the defence. The local sources informed that Mr. Shukharanjan Bali was from the very beginning an element of drama that Jamat-e-Islam Bangladesh managed through some form of miracle. Being Hindu by religion and a key witness regarding one of the charges brought against Sayedee (a prominent leader of Jamat-e-Islami), Mr. Shukharanjan Bali was a trophy that defence wanted to present at any cost. In Bangladesh, it is in general not at all common for any Hindu to affiliate with Jamat-e-Islami- more so in case of any form of testimony concerning genocide and atrocities conducted during the War of Independence. Jamat-e-Islami does not allow anyone but Muslims to be its members (this is a violation of the registration law of the country under the present Election Council law) and the party does not find any fault in its position during 1971 when it functioned as auxiliary forces of invading Pakistani military.

Nevertheless, on the blogs- many “experts” conducted analysis on the issue. Although, these discussions died out soon as - no concrete evidence in favor of the alleged abduction could be found and no reliable witness could be produced by the defence. The defence lawyers and journalists with close political affiliations with Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh were the only witnesses.

On the blog, few photos from CC camera were posted (while claims were made that the images of the CC camera remained unexplored) -which showed no evidence regarding the validity of the alleged abduction. The photos were circulated to establish a visual confusion – as in many occasion people do not read the fine prints below the photographs. Let us have a look at few of these photos:

1. White vehicle coming parked outside one of the tribunal gates. The journalist Golam Azam is said to be the person in the foreground. At this point, Bali is said to have already been put in the car.

2. Close up of vehicle. Man on outside is claimed to be from  detective branch. The unclear figure in the car is said to be that of Bali who was wearing a white shirt on the day. The face on the other side of the car, outside, is said to be that of Advocate Sohag

3. Police vehicle leaving the tribunal with Bali inside. The man in the foreground of the picture is said to be that of  the journalist Shahidul Islam

It can be seen that none of these images can be treated as visual proof. One of the “self-designated monitor”, of ICT Bangladesh, used quotes of one of his source in his post and then changed it by saying, “The original post said that Tajul Islam had said that the witness stayed at the house of Masud Sayedee, the son of Delwar Hossain Sayedee. Whist that was what Islam had said to me, this is apparently not what happened. In fact he stayed at the house of a relative.” These reflect how unprofessional these web-posts are even though they are broadly circulated.

None of these posts and analyses stopped to question- why would the police choose to “abduct” the defence witness from within the premise of the Tribunal? or Why is there not a single witness beyond the defence lawyers and pro-Jamat journalist? More importantly - why the witness at the first place choose to cooperate with Jamat-e-Islam (a political party which is notorious for its anti Hindu campaign not just during 1971- it continues the same culture of spreading hate and carrying out rampage against the religious minorities in Bangladesh till date)?? Let us close the case by informing on Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh and its relation with people like Mr. Shukharanjan Bali. Recently the cloud of confusion over Jamat’s democratic practices was cleared at least for Amnesty. Recently at the outburst of violent campaign of Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh, the Amnesty report provided context to the violence against the Hindus in the backdrop of Bangladesh's war crimes trials. “The Hindu community in Bangladesh is at extreme risk, in particular at such a tense time in the country. It is shocking that they appear to be targeted simply for their religion. The authorities must ensure that they receive the protection they need,” said Abbas Faiz, Amnesty’s Bangladesh Researcher. Victims told Amnesty that the attackers were taking part in rallies organised by Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and its student group Islami Chhatra Shibir.

Conclusion:

1.  The blog-based journalists and web-based news media have reflected unprofessional attitude (by using unreliable sources and making strong comments without any support of evidence) regarding ICT Bangladesh. This raises a caution- as the world media and global human rights organizations are often depended upon these forms of reporting- a reality and reliability check should be made before citing any such reports.

2.    The approach of using visuals in blog-reporting can confuse unsuspecting readers who often tend to ignore the fine prints below the photos (sometimes these images are left without any title). 

3.    Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh is keeping no stone unturned in its attempt to discredit the charges brought against its leaders on the count of crimes against humanity- this may involve dramatic events. Wise heads must prevail to question reliability of any such event as Jamat is only depending on forceful presentation of its case- not on accuracy or legality of their means.

The baffled armatures on the blogs are not the only campaigners who are spreading confusions over the ICT Bangladesh process. There are obviously pro-Jamat-motivated web campaigners who are also undermining the trial to free the imprisoned leaders of their alleged Islamic outfit of communal, undemocratic and violent war criminals.

Getting over BBC: What is the Nature of Conflict in Bangladesh?

The way Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh and its student wing is reacting to the judgment and on going process of ICT in Bangladesh, conflict is escalating in which Jamat is becoming increasingly violent against common people (as it is attempting to derail the train etc.) and the law enforcing agencies (as it is attacking police and killing individual law enforcers etc.). Is this anything new? Not at all! These have been carried out over the years sporadically (e.g. on 21^st August, 2005 public gathering was attacked with grenades etc.). But Jamat is attempting to push their efforts to a climax. At the same time they are, attacking the Hindu and Buddhist temples and households of Hindu minority communities- this is what can be termed as the true contents of politics of Jamat-e-Islami. It should be noted, that this new round of violence against minorities was triggered by the verdict of DelwarHossainSayedee, who himself was accused of involvement in looting and burning villages, raping women and forcing members of religious minorities to convert to Islam during the war. Thus, the present conflict is not introduced by the government or Shahbag uprising, it is Jamt-e-Islami Bangladesh who is pursuing the politics of violence to bring the process of trial of crimes against humanity to a halt. Let us not be fooled or intimidated while Bangladesh stands firmly on the ground to defend democracy, religious harmony and human rights.
 

It is extremely important to note that Jamt-e-Islami Bangladesh targets the religious minorities to initiate its campaign to protest the death sentence of its leader Delwar Hossain Sayedee. This is significant as the global media is reflecting to recognize that Bangladesh (the present Government and Youth uprising in Shahbag) is attempting to bring those to justice for war crimes who are radical Islamist, undemocratic and anti-humanist communal opposition to the secular state of People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

What BBC wrote on the aftermath of the first wave of recent violence against the minority population in Bangladesh requires a closer scrutiny. BBC reports, “The attack started hours after a senior hardline Islamist leader was sentenced to death by a special tribunal in late February.  Jamaat-e-Islami party Vice President Delwar Hossain Sayedee was given a death sentence for crimes committed during the war of independence from Pakistan in 1971. The sentencing triggered a wave of angry protests from the Islamist party's supporters. In many districts, buildings and vehicles were damaged. More than 60 people were killed in clashes with the security forces….. While people like Mrs Das witnessed communal violence for the first time, Hindu businessmen like Subash Chandra Ghosh in southern Satkhira district say it was similar to what happened to them in 1971, when Bangladesh fought a bloody nine-month war against Pakistan to gain independence. "In 1971, our house was damaged and our neighbour's house was set on fire by anti-liberation forces. We are being targeted again. What should we do?" laments Mr Ghosh, who fought for independence. Some say the minorities are attacked because they mostly support the governing Awami League party and are a soft target.” The first part of this report is clear in noting that-

1.      Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh initiated the violence against religious minorities in Bangladesh to counter the verdict against its leaders in ICT.

2.      This is not the first time Jamat-e-Islami (i.e. “the anti-liberation forces” as mentioned in the report) has launched such campaign. In fact the leaders in questions, among other issues, are accused of committing violence against religious minorities (murder, looting and raping etc.) during 1971.

Before we proceed further, for those who are not too familiar with the history of Bangladesh, it should be clarified that Awami League, the current governing party, led the War of Independence against Pakistan and its auxiliary forces (including Jamat-e-Islami). On the other hand, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has played a key role in dismantling the legal process of bringing the war criminals to justice; right after it ceased power as an outcome of a military coup that had toppled Awami League and killed the leader of the War of Independence – Shiek Mujibur Rahman, the first Prime Minister of the newly independent Bangladesh. BNP also released the war criminals under trial at that time. It brought back the key leader of Jamat-e-Islami (Gulam Azam) whose nationality was revoked. BNP also allowed Jamat-e-Islami back to politics by lifting its ban. In the last national election BNP and Jamat-e-Islami formed an alliance to form a government in which the leaders of Jamat did not only became law-makers but also took-up few Ministries. Jamat-e-Islami made it a point to keep its leaders accused of war crimes in the key leadership position as it never found any fault in collaborating with the Pakistani army during 1971. Presently, BNP and Jamat-e-Islami are in an alliance against the present government which is an alliance of liberal and mainstream left parties with a priority (as a part of its election pledge) of bringing the war criminals to justice.

Now this being clear, the report informs us, without giving any notion of who are these community leaders of the minorities it was citing, (as we will have a look at the statement issued by the forum of the minorities contradicting this statement right after this) something truly amazing. It says, “Hindu community leaders say the attacks are systematic and have been going on for years. They say they are not only carried out by hardline Islamists but also by supporters of other mainstream political parties, including the Awami League and the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party.” This is an attempt to portray a scenario of communal violence in which the war crime tribunal and its verdict against the leaders of Jamat-e-Islami play no role. However, what in reality the minority leaders of Bangladesh Hindu-Buddha-Christian Oikya Parishad are stating is not difficult to track on media. 

One such report informs, “The country's minorities have been the target of attack of the reactionary forces after Jamaat-e-Islami leader Delawar Hossain Sayedee was sentenced to death Thursday for war crimes in the Liberation War, minority leaders said yesterday.” Mentioning its source, the report continues, “Following the trend of the 1971 atrocities, nearly a thousand minority houses and around 50 worship centres were attacked in the last two days, said Advocate Rana Das Gupta, general secretary of Bangladesh Hindu-Buddha-Christian Oikya Parishad….Rana accused Jamaat and Islami Chhatra Shibir of the atrocities. He mentioned that Rejaul Karim, chairman of Choroti Union Parishad, was involved in the attacks in Satkania and municipality councillors Abu and Amir in Banshkhali”. 

Therefore, why BBC tries to implicate Awami League by passing the comments of minority leaders; needs to be explored. Let us see what this type of allegation implicates:

1.      This undermines the exclusive and anti-humanist role of Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh in bringing death and devastation against the minorities in Bangladesh.

2.      This decouples recent eruption of violence against the minorities with the verdicts of the ICT- as if the Muslim majority in general (regardless of political affiliation) is wedging a riot against the minorities.

3.      As a consequence, the significance of ICT process in Bangladesh is undermined. ICT process in true sense is attempting to re-establish the secular spirit of secularism based on which the nation won its independence.

Thus BBC’s angle in reporting the recent cases of violence against the minority communities in Bangladesh can be viewed as an attempt of imposing a stereo-type image of a communally violent “Islamic Nation” upon Bangladesh- while the truth is just the reverse. History of emergence of Bangladesh is unique. India and Pakistan won its independence from Britain based on the religious divisions between Hindus and Muslims. Bangladesh on the other hand, emerged through the cultural identity of Bengalis and opposed the Pakistani nationalism based on the concept of “Islamic Brotherhood”. This does not however imply that there is no space of Islamists in Bangladesh politics. In fact Jamat-e-Islami represents the Islamists in Bangladesh which opposes this secular construction of nationalism and constitutional premise of secularism as a principle of the People Republic of Bangladesh. 

In Bangladesh the demand of bringing those who committed crimes against humanity in 1971 therefore merges with the struggle for a secular-democratic state. When this is ignored in media reporting, the true content of Shahbag uprising is missed. At the same time reporting angle such as BBC helps to mask the undemocratic and anti-humanist position of Jamate-Islami-Bangladesh vis-à-vis the secular democratic spirit of the movement that shaped the Bengali nationalism and eventually gave Birth to the nation state of Bangladesh. It is high time that we recognize that Jamat-e-Islami is not the main opposition to the present government- it is primarily the main opposition to the nation state of Bangladesh and its secular-democratic spirit of independence.

Why the demand is for the Highest Punishment?

 The Nuremberg trials, organized in the German city of Nuremberg, were carried out shortly after the end of the Second World War, in May 1945, when the allied governments jointly agreed that those responsible for wartime atrocities must be held accountable and punished for their crimes. Some 5,000 Nazi’s were charged with war crimes. However, the Nuremberg trials were designed specifically to prosecute high-ranking Nazi officials with whom authority over heinous atrocities rested. The four counts of the indictment were: 1- Conspiracy to commit crimes alleged in other counts; 2- Crimes against peace; 3- War crimes; 4- Crimes against humanity. The Nuremburg trials were one of the first organized attempts to apply principles of international law, and established new precedents for the international community. It is to be noted in Bangladesh, the Tribunal for Crimes against Humanity has been established which largely deals with the fourth count (i.e. the crimes against humanity) of the Nuremburg trials. Similar to the Nuremburg trials, in Bangladesh the first batch of the criminals presently tried by the Tribunals are the high-ranking leaders and decision makers of the auxiliary paramilitary and political forces responsible for conducting crimes against humanity (genocide, rape, arson and robbery etc.) during the War of Independence (1971).

To realize the practical implications of this trial let us explore further into the judgments of the Nuremberg trials. We will primarily review judgments of the trials of Kaltenbrunner, Ernst.Kaltenbrunner was chief of the Security Police, SD, and head of the RSHA, which meant he was also in charge of the Gestapo, the SD and the Criminal Police. RSHA, at the time, engaged in widespread crimes against humanity as well as war crimes, including mistreatment and murder of POWs, and concentration camp workers, namely Jews, commissars, and others. Under RSHA, about 6 million Jews were murdered, which established Kaltenbrunner in a leading role in the ‘final solution’ of the Jewish question. This included the order to have prisoners of Dachau and other camps liquidated just before camps would have been liberated by the Allies. The verdict reads “guilty on counts 3 & 4” and the sentence was “death by hanging”.

We have taken the above case to demonstrate that, on the ground of being guilty of committing crimes against humanity, the international legal standards do have precedence of setting and making judgment of “death by hanging” as the highest level of punishment.

It is also relevant to look into the roles of some of the nations in relation to the Nuremberg trials as the same nations are opposing the process of trail in Bangladesh under the present tribunal on crimes against humanity during 1971. As for example, the British government opposed the establishment of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals at the end of the Second World War because it wanted selected Nazi leaders to be summarily executed and others to be imprisoned without trial, according to a contemporary account that is declassified.

Interestingly, a visiting British minister recently chose to forget that her own nation wanted to hang some of the Nazi leaders without proper trial and sentence others to imprisonment without any form of trial!! This is alarming as it reveals that the present debate raised by one of the most vocal international actorsis carried out to make the Bangladesh’s Tribunal controversy- not on legal or moral grounds but purely on political grounds.

Another contradictory position regarding Bangladesh’s Tribunal is displayed by the Amnesty International. Regarding acquittal of some of the defendants in Kosovo-trial, the organization has taken a strong position to ensure punishment. The acquittal of three high-ranking members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) after a retrial on war crimes charges has prompted Amnesty International to reiterate its call for justice for all of the victims in the 1998-9 Kosovo war, and their relatives. Interestingly, the Shahbag uprising of people is similarly raising the question over the judgment of life imprisonment of Kader Mollah (a key decision maker of 1971 genocide) and demanding justice through appeal but Amnesty International is attempting to silence such protests.

It is further important to note that the establishment of a Tribunal for war time atrocities is not an event but a process and this has been experience all over the globe. As for example in Cambodia laws and agreements have been amended several times before the tribunal could finally be established. In June 1997, the Cambodian government requested help from the UN in prosecuting former leaders of the Khmer Rouge for crimes committed between 1975 and 1979. Initially, the UN wished to establish a third ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal such as for the former Yugoslavia or for Rwanda. However, the Cambodian government refused to countenance the establishment of such a mechanism, which led the parties to draft a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning “significant international co-operation” in trials before Extraordinary Chambers of the Cambodian Courts. In August 2001, Cambodia finally promulgated a law which was not entirely consistent with the terms of the MOU, for which reason the Secretary-General decided to pull the UN out of the negotiations in February 2002. However, the UN General Assembly requested him to pursue negotiations. This resulted in an amended bi-lateral agreement on 6 June 2003, following the adoption by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 May 2003, of a resolution, approving a proposed agreement between the UN and Cambodia on the prosecution of crimes committed between 1975 and 1979 in Cambodia (A/RES/57/228 B). Nevertheless, the agreement signed on 6 June 2003 could only come into force in April 2005, when a donors’ conference received promises covering the quasi-totality of the necessary international contributions. In Cambodia the 2001 Law was then amended on 27 October 2004 to bring it into conformity with the International Agreement. The similar process of legal amendments are carried out in Bangladesh to make the tribunal just and fair in line with international standards and people’s aspiration for justice (such as both the defendant and plaintive can appeal against preliminary judgments). Nevertheless, Bangladesh is experiencing global oppositions as if, legal and administrative amendments are unacceptable once the tribunal is set on motion. This is in fact once again a reflection of biased-political opposition that defies international standards and historical precedents.

Now let’s talk about the demand of highest punishment to the defendants accused of crime against humanity during the war of 1971. According to the laws of Bangladesh death sentence is considered as a “just” judgment for “grave” offences. Different laws bear such sentencing. From this perspective the law that established the Tribunal for crimes against humanity contains the provision of death sentence as the highest punishment. The international pressure in recent years have often molded many nations to bring in softer punishments in general to ensure that such softer punishment is also incorporated within the tribunals for war time atrocities. One such example is the case of Rwanda. Rwanda dropped Death Penalty  as the process of war crime trial progressed.

TheFrench media reported(January 19, 2007) that Rwandan government approved a law that – pending parliamentary ratification – would abolish capital punishment in the country. The report indicated that this “landmark decision” might encourage Western countries that oppose the death penalty to extradite genocide suspects caught within their jurisdictions for trial in Rwanda. This reveals two aspects: firstly, if the national law allows, such as in case of Bangladesh, the provision of death sentence can very well be a part of the Tribunal for trials on war time atrocities. Secondly, only if the general law of the land changes, this provision can be expected to be dropped from such a tribunal. In case of Bangladesh as discussed earlier, the laws of the land do support death sentencing (in general). Secondly, the public emotion is not against death sentencing, in fact the Shahbag Uprising is urging the government to appeal against the preliminary verdict of one such accused who has been found guilty for directing mass killing. Thirdly, those who are mostly opposing the popular demand voiced in Shahbag, are not against death sentencing in general (they are in fact in favor of Islamic Sharia Law).The supporters of Jamat-e-Islami are simply against any form of trial of the crimes against humanity committed during the War of Liberation (1971). These should not be overlooked while we are considering the demand of highest punishment as raised by the Shahbag Uprising of people. Those who are opposing death sentence need to wait till Bangladesh in general begins to oppose and legally abolishes death penalty in general before it is expected that cry for justice for crimes against humanity will drop the chanting of death penalty for Kamruzzaman and other such accused.