From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: The question of justice...
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:15:32 GMT



I have been asked by email to publicly express my opinion on the
Ghulam Azam issue.  I was initially hesitant to do so since it is such
a highly sensitive issue.  There are many very rational people who
have extremely painful memories and hence display strongly emotional
reactions where rational ones are the norm.  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.  The question which has been bothering me
lately concerns a certain petition which has been making the rounds
recently and has found almost unanimous support on the net.

The petition in question demands the "fashi" of Ghulam Azam.  If I
were to sign it, I would be demanding the hanging of an accused
criminal.  What amazes me about the almost universal support for the
petition is that people are guilty of the same short-sighted reasoning
that leads to certain groups blindly demanding Ghula Azam's freedom.
The petition is not demanding Ghulam Azam's *trial*.  Indeed, that would
be redundant since a trial is planned in the near future anyway.  The
petition is demanding his "fashi!"  Who are we to decide on his
punishment?  Have we become a court of justice?  What are we basing
our decision on?  Have we investigated the evidence at length and
reached a judgement based on it?  Or are we basing our decision merely
on hearsay?  In a fair trial, the court will examine the evidence in
detail and will be in a legitimate position to make a judgement.
Presumably, there is enough evidence against Ghulam Azam that the
proper decision will be reached.

Demanding someone's "fashi" on emotional grounds is a classic example
of lynch-mob justice.  What is the petition intended to accomplish?  I
sense people will argue that it democratically represents the opinions
of the majority, a reflection of mass mentality, if you will.  But we
all know how easily public opinion can be swayed based on a few
"facts" or even rumors.  Witness the recent Gulf War where someone
turned into a universal scapegoat overnight.  We don't want someone to
be punished for the wrong reasons!  We want him to be punished for the
*right* reasons.  There may be many crimes he committed that we are
not even aware of.  This is particularly important from a historical
perspective -- we would like the historical accounts to be able to
present an accurate pictures of the actual crimes committed and the
proof thereof.  Can we really allow ourselves to demand someone's
hanging without extensive investigation of the evidence?  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?

There was recently a huge mock trial of Ghulam Azam in Bangladesh.
What was that supposed to accomplish?  All it succeeded in doing is in
stirring public sentiment at a very large gathering, a very dangerous
move in our country.  When a real trial is scheduled to take place
soon, what is the purpose of a mock trial?  Do people have so little
faith in the legal system?  A mock trial is equivalent to making fun
of the court, ridiculing the authorities, while stirring mob
mentality.  The Supreme Court was well within its jurisdiction in
ordering the arrest of the rabble-rousers who staged this unnecessary and
dangerous mock trial.  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.

It is very disturbing for me to note that so many fellow netters have
immediately jumped on the "let's HANG him!" bandwagon without
realizing the lynch-mob nature of their act.  Surely, there is enough
evidence against Ghulam Azam for him to be found guilty?  I don't
think any of us is in a position to take the law into our own hands
and reach a judgement on an accused criminal's fate.  I, for one, will
rely on the court, and will not sign a petition that demands a
"fashi."  I think that would violate all that we would like our
country to stand for, indeed all that three million fellow countrymen
gave their lives for.

-- 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
=======================================================================

Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh