From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: The question of justice...
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 00:20:29 GMT


In article <14637@vela.acs.oakland.edu>, mkaziz@vela.acs.oakland.edu
(KHALED AZIZ) writes:

the expected emotional outburst that misses the point of my request
for reason.  Let me repeat once more that I firmly believe that Ghulam
Azam should be tried, and I do not wish to downplay anything that
happened in 1971.  Indeed, I think my past articles on that topic
reflect my standpoint on that adequately.  

>  (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:
> > 
>   Let me begin by stating  that I have never supported Jamaat and do not
>   have any intention to.
> > I believe that Ghulam Azam should be tried, and presumably he will be
> > found guilty and punished.
> 
> You think so? Why wasn't he tried before? Why the government had to wait
> for  21 years before arresting him?

Clearly, the current administration has a somewhat different outlook
on the situation than the past ones had.  Ghulam Azam could not have
been arrested if that were not so.

> We are not diciding anything here. We are demanding the punishment we think
> he deserves. 

I understand the deep emotional pain that many people went through in
1971.  But that does not excuse contradictions like the above.  How
can you not claim to decide anything when in the next statement you
clearly demand his "fashi?"  You have already decided that he needs to
be hanged.  You state it as a fact, as if it is the most natural thing
in the world.  Perhaps it is.  But what gives you the right to make
that decision?  Are you a court of law?  

> It wouldn't have beed necessary if the legal system functioned
> properly in our country. We have to remind our government that we, the
> people, want to see Golum Azam punished. And "fushi" is the proper punishment
> under Bangaldeshi Law for a murderer.

If you merely wish to remind the government that he needs to be tried
and that his crimes need to be investigated and punished, that is one
thing.  But you are taking it well beyond that: you are demanding his
"fashi," i.e you have already made the judgement and are advocating
his execution.

> Since we (at least many of us who grew up in Bangladesh) have 

This is an unnecessary personal jab.  I may have mainly grown up
outside of Bangladesh, but it doesn't in any way imply anything about
how often I have had to deal with the Bangladeshi legal system or how
much I know about it.

> some idea about how the legal system works there, we feel it is necessary
> for us to create pressure on the government to let the legal system
> work smoothly. How do you know the trial would be fair? Remember, our
> president himself visited Golam Azam to seek his blessing before he was 
> elected.Keeping this in mind, can we rely on the government in this
> perticular issue? Also remember, without Jamaats support, it would have
> been impossible for BNP to come to power. We cannot be sure that the
> government would not create pressure on the Legal system to save Golam
> Azam.

and then:

> You are absolutely right. We want him to be punished for the *right* reasons:
>  for killing thousands of intellectuals, for supporting Pakistan
> during the war, for staying in Bangladesh without a visa and for leading
> a political party in Bangladesh without being a citizen.

I did not want it to come to this, but you leave me no option.  Please
consider these questions:

1.) Have *you* investigated any of the evidence in question?
2.) Have you looked at his visa and passport?
3.) Have you personally had access to any of the evidence relating to
deaths of intellectuals?
4.) Have you personally conversed with eyewitnesses who saw Azam
involved in any of the crimes in *person*?
5.) Have you personally had access to documents that show he is the
leader of any political party?  

If your answers to the above questions are "no," then who are you to
make any kind of rational decision on what his punishment should be?
I'm certain that all the evidence in question above is available, but
I cannot imagine that it is accessible to many of us.  Furthermore, of
the offenses you list above, neither "staying in Bangladesh without a
visa," nor "leading a political party in Bangladesh without being a
citizen" is punishable by "fashi."  Simply put, you have no right to
equate yourself with a court of law, and hence have no right to demand
that anyone be hanged.


> > There may be many crimes he committed that we are
> > not even aware of.
> 
> We are not interested in the other crimes he might have commited. The
> crimes listed above should be sufficient for a death penalty. 

This is precisely the short-sightedness I am worried about.  From a
historical perspective, it is very important that we identify *all*
his crimes, particularly those relating to the independence of
Bangladesh.  Passionate cries for "fashi" are representative of an
irrational quest for revenge, one that is unlikely to lead to anything
constructive.  

> > Do we want
> > Ghulam Azam's punishment to be an outcome of mob hysteria for outher
> > countries to look at and ridicule?  Or do we want it to be a shining
> > example of how war crimes should be dealt with in court and punished
> > through the proper legal channels?
> 
> You make me laugh. 

I am glad you find amusement in this.  I don't.

> I think we created the ground for other countries to
> look at us and ridicule us by not punishing the war criminals right away.
> What do you mean by "proper legal channels". Do you realize that you are
> talking about "BANGLADESH" here?

Yes, very much so.  Are you trying to imply that we have no "proper
legal channels?"

> I think the mock trial is a golden example of how intellectuals can play
> their role and make the legal system work properly. 

Excuse me?  Once again, I can understand the emotional nature of your
article, but statements like the above appear to make little sense --
it is yet another paradox.

> >  The Supreme Court was well within its jurisdiction in
> > ordering the arrest of the rabble-rousers who staged this unnecessary and
> > dangerous mock trial.
> 
> Please don't try to confuse the readers with false information. The Supreme
> Court never ordered the arrest of the brave  intellectuals
> (rabble-rousers in your language). It was ordered by some low level court.
> For your information the Supreme Court overruled the arrest order recently
> (Does that break your heart?). The Attorny General of Bangladesh also 
> submitted his letter of resignation in protest of the arrest order which
> was not accepted by the prime minister.

If this is true, than I stand corrected.  I was under the impression
that the Supreme Court ordered the arrest and that that is why the
lawyers demonstrated.

> >  It is indescribably embarrassing for me as a
> > Bangladeshi that hundreds of lawyers, the very representatives of law
> > in our country, chose to protest this decision with violence.  These
> > lawyers were hurling chairs in the Supreme Court, protesting for
> > something that had no legal basis in the first place.  How can
> > *lawyers* believe in a mock trial?  Shame.
> 
> I feel  proud of these lawers. I think they have the potential to
> make the legal system in our country work properly and make it ignore external
> pressures.

You are proud of these lawyers?  The same lawyers who went and hurled
chairs at Supreme Court judges?  The same lawyers who failed to see
that a mock trial does not stand on any legal basis and counts as
public trouble instigation?  These are your heroes on whom you depend
to make the legal system in our country work?  If you make arguments
like this, I don't even think I need to point out the logical
fallacies -- they're clearly evident.  It's just sad to see that my
call for reason completely missed its mark.

> Finally let me ask you a question. The mock trial, as you know, was
> arranged by "Ghatok Dalal Nirmul Committee" led by Jahanara Imam. She
> lost everything for our freedom ,her husband , her son. I  still remember
> these lines from her diary "Ekattur er Din Guli" -"Ja. Toke desh-er
> jonno korbani dilam." She said this to  Rumi, her son, who deicided
> to join the Mukti Bahini. This bengali mother sacrifised everything she had
> for the country. Can how imagine how does she feel when she sees all these
> criminals, responsible for her sons death, roaming about free without
> suffering any punishment?

Like every other Bangladeshi, I feel for her.  But how does this
justify *your* demanding someone's "fashi" on hearsay?  If you have
evidence against someone, you should present it to the court, not
stage a mock trial.  Again, I am reasonably confident that there is
enough evidence against Ghulam Azam for a court to sentence him.  If
there isn't, then we have no right to reach any decisions either.

>  These crimanals have the nerve to say "What we
> did in '71 was right." We should be ashamed of ourselves for not doing
> anything about these butchers before. We should be ashamed to see that
> Jahanara Imam, inspite of having millions of sons (us, the young generation)
> has been forced to do this herself. It was our duty and we failed to do
> it. We should atleast have the courtesy to express our support.

Sorry, but while I sympathize with her completely, and am in support of
Ghulam Azam and other war criminals being tried, I will never put down
my signature on anything demanding someone else's "fashi" unless I am
part of a legal body that has extensively investigated *all* the
evidence first-hand.  As things stand, I am not a judge, and I have no
right to make decisions on anyone else's life.  Hence, I will not sign
your petition. 


-- Shakil Ahmed
=======================================================================
Dept. of Computer Science     INTERNET: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu
P.O. Box 2158, Yale Station   BITNET  : ahmed-shakil@yalecs.bitnet
New Haven, CT 06520-2158      UUCP    : {ucbvax,harvard,...}!yale!ahmed
=======================================================================