Banner Advertise

Monday, February 15, 2010

[chottala.com] Fw: My Comments (Taj Hashmi) onRaman's Article



TAJ HASHMI's COMMENTS onRaman's Article
2/14/2010 2:27:44 AM Taj Hashmi

I think this is a sketchy pedestrian piece by an ill-informed analyst who does not know how Islamized the polity of Bangladesh, including the so-called liberal democratic politicians, has turned into since the 1970s. He has possibly no clues as to why "secular-socialist" Awami League (AL) for more than two decades now has been promoting political Islam by proclaiming "Allah is all powerful" in its banner. He possibly does not know that in October 2006 top AL leaders, including its Secretary General Abdul Jalil, signed an MOU with obscurantist Islamist group like the Khilafat Majlis (one of its leaders issued the infamous "fatwa to kill" against Taslima Nasrin in 1994). The Awami-Khilafat MOU was a pre-Election understanding stipulating Awami League's commitment to introduce Shariah law in Bangladesh. This smacks of AL's opportunism or a clever bid to gain some support among Islamists in desperation to counterpoise the Jamaat-i-Islami, a coalition partner of AL's arch rival BNP.
 
The analysts is definitely unaware of the fact that the judiciary in Bangladesh, including the Supreme Court, has been compliant, corrupt and politicized, mostly reflecting the wish and viewpoint of the ruling party. Now the ruling party wants to destroy its arch rival the BNP-Jamaat coalition. Hence the tirade against Islamism and demand for the trial of the "war criminals". The "war criminals" or collaborators of the Pakistani occupation army in 1971, again mostly represent the Jamaat-i-Islami and other Islamist groups. We need to discuss the demand for the trial of the "war criminals" together with the issue of proscribing religion-based (mainly political Islam-oriented) political parties in Bangladesh.

Since a large number of Islam-oriented and "Islam-loving" East Pakistanis collaborated with the Pakistani occupation army during the Liberation War of 1971, soon after the emergence of Bangladesh the new Government put behind bars thousand of Pakistani collaborators. Formal charges of rape and killing brought against many and the rest were tried for active collaboration with the enemy. Due to the dearth of solid evidence only a few got extended jail terms; only one "Razakar" (a para-military soldier raised by the Pakistani occupation army) was sentenced to death for war crime. Within two years after the emergence of Bangladesh, Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman pardoned the rest of the collaborators by publicly declaring a general amnesty in 1973. Meanwhile, the Government had proscribed all religion-based political parties and adopted the four-pronged state ideology for the country: a)Nationalism; b)Democracy; c) Socialism and d) Secularism.

In view of this, the demand for proscribing Islam-oriented politics cannot be understood in isolation without linking it with the latest demand for the trial of the "war criminals". However, the demand for the trial needs elaboration of the following questions:  

a) Can an individual be tried twice for committing the same crime?
 
b) Isn't one considered innocent after nothing was found/proven against one?
 
c) Can any successive government revoke a general amnesty declared by a previous government, a legitimately elected one?
 
d) Can someone be considered a "war criminal" just for lending support to an illegitimate regime, verbally or through written statements?
 
e) Don't we need solid evidence -- say eye-witness accounts, photos and videos showing someone engaged in killing (rape is hardly ever committed in front of cameras -- although it happened in some places) to implicate one in war crime?
 
f) Finally, shouldn't the Bangladesh Government try people from "the other side of the fence", the victors, who also committed war crimes? The whole world saw the infamous Time magazine photos, reproduced so many times, portraying the killing of two Biahri "Razakars" in broad daylight at Dhaka Stadium on 18th) December 1971? Thousands of "pro-Pakistan" elements, mostly non-Bengalis got killed both during and after the Liberation War. Should not these crimes be also considered "war crimes"? 

As we know people say and do things to save one's skin. And we also know that during a civil war or even a war of liberation people remain divided. Those Americans who opposed independence in the 1770s and those who wanted to secede from the Union in the 1860s were never tried as "war criminals" after the USA came into being or after the end of the Civil War. Same thing happened in what was South Vietnam up to 1975. Nobody was tried as "war criminals" in united Vietnam.
 
I think the "trial of war criminals" is more out of political considerations rather than out of genuine love for justice. Family members and friends of innocent victims along with people who are just and upright have never been listened to by any government since 1972. And even worse, people who are likely to be tried this time, especially Matiur Rahman Nizami, till 2001 were very close friends of so many top AL leaders. And we remember AL's Presidential candidate in 1991, Justice Badrul Haider Chowdhury, went to Ghulam Azam's house for "dua" or blessings so that Justice Chowdhury could be elected with the support of 30 Jamaat MPs. Wasn't Ghulam Azam a "war criminal" in 1991? One is sure about one thing: if Jamaat decides to support Awami League once again (as it did in 1994-96 to topple the BNP Government), it would again become a "patriotic party".

Meanwhile Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's signing the controversial "transit deal" with Indian PM Manmohan Singh has strengthened the "Islam-Loving" groups (BNP, Jamaat and others) who know how to successfully play the "India Card" to outwit the Awami League. In sum, it is next to impossible to revert the major changes towards Islamization that have taken place since 1975. No government since the overthrow of General Ershad in 1990 has gathered enough courage to drop Islam as the "state Religion" from the Constitution of Bangladesh. Another General's (Ziaur Rahman) amending the constitution replacing "Secularism" with "Absolute faith in Almighty Allah" and "Socialism" with "Social Justice" are very much "alive". Zia's inserting Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim (In the name of the merciful and benificient God) in the preamble of the Constituion is also there. So, no judiciary or parliament in bangladesh is strong enough to de-Islamicize the polity of Bangladesh.

Half-heartedness, hypocrisy and opportunism of politicians have strengthened political Islam in Bangladesh. Nothing short of a revolution can de-Islamicize Bangladesh. And such revolutions will NOT take place in the foreseeable future. One should realise that the emergence of political Islam is not an isolated case in Bangladesh. All the Muslim-majority countries have been going through this phase; some by default and some by playing with the fire as they promoted, nurtured and nourished the monster of Islamism out of sheer political expediency. Pakistan and Bangladesh may be mentioned in this regard. Nothing short of good governance, economic growth and justice; and universal liberal secular education can revert the growing menace of Islamism in Bangladesh or anywhere else. The judiciary or even the Parliament cannot attain much in this regard.
Cheers.
 
Taj Hashmi
Honolulu



----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Taj Hashmi <taj_hashmi@hotmail.com>
Sent: Mon, February 15, 2010 5:30:51 AM
Subject: My Comments on Raman's Article

Please read my comments at the end of the following article which came out in NewAgeIslam.Com by J. Sri Raman
 
Please keep it to yourself, for the time being.
 
Taj Hashmi
 
Islam and Politics
12 Feb 2010, NewAgeIslam.Com
Blow to Religion-Based Politics in Bangladesh: Lesson for Pakistan

After the Supreme Court's verdict, Law Minister Shafique Ahmed has said that all religion-based parties should "drop the name of Islam from their name and stop using religion during campaigning." He has also announced that religion-based parties are going to be "banned." The government, however, has disavowed any intention to remove the Islamic invocation from the Preamble of the constitution.

All this has already drawn attention in Pakistan, which has continued to suffer from religion-based politics despite its popular rejection in successive elections. Veteran Pakistani columnist Babar Ayaz, in an article captioned "Amendments for a secular constitution" in the Lahore-based Daily Times, talks of the clauses in Pakistan's constitution, introduced by former dictator Zia ul-Haq "who considered himself a kind of religious guardian of the country."

Noting the moves in Bangladesh, Ayaz adds: "Pakistan may not be able to ban religion-based political parties in the near future, but it should move towards expunging the ridiculous constitutional clauses mentioned above ... It would be a long and hard struggle, but it is doable."-- J. Sri Raman

url: http://newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamIslamAndTolerance_1.aspx?ArticleID=2454

----

Blow to Religion-Based Politics in Bangladesh: Lesson for Pakistan

by: J. Sri Raman,

Friday 05 February 2010

Here is some disconcerting news for all disciples of neocon gurus, who had discovered Islam as the enemy of democracy and the successor to the "evil empire" of the cold war era. An Islamic country of 160 million people, under an elected government, is witnessing important but ill-noticed moves to abolish religion-based politics.

On February 2, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh struck down a nearly 11-year-old constitutional amendment that had allowed religion-based political parities to function and flourish in the country. The ruling had the effect of restoring the statutory secularism, which Bangladesh adopted in 1972 after liberation from Pakistan and lost five years later following a series of military coups.

It may also have the effect of inspiring at least a debate on the issues in Pakistan, the other Islamic country of South Asia. It may also have a ripple effect, helping to raise the issues subsequently in sections of the rest of the Islamic world.

This only carries forward an old battle. The logic of Bangladesh's liberation war itself led the nation's founder, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, to place its linguistic identity above the religious. The reverse of the same logic drove religion-based groups in the pre-liberation East Pakistan to side with Islamabad in the war.

The first constitution of Bangladesh, under Article 38, placed a bar on religion-based parties and politics. Mujib, as he was popularly known, and most of his family were assassinated in a coup on August 25, 1975. A series of coups since then culminated in the country's takeover by Maj.-Gen. Ziaur Rahman in 1977. In April 1979, the Zia regime enacted the infamous Fifth Amendment to the constitution, paving the way for the return of religion-based parties and politics.

Article 38 of the original constitution proclaimed: "Every citizen shall have the right to form associations or unions, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of morality or public order." But it clearly added: "Provided that no person shall have the right to form, or be a member or otherwise take part in the activities of, any communal or other association or union which in the name or on the basis of any religion has for its object, or pursues, a political purpose."

As revised under the Fifth Amendment, the Article said: "Every citizen shall have the right to form associations or unions, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of public order or public health." The amendment scrapped the original Article 12, which enshrined "secularism" and "freedom of religion" in the supreme law of the land.

Earlier, by a proclamation, the martial law regime made other major changes in the constitution as well. The Preamble to the constitution was preceded by the religious invocation, "Bismillah-ar-Rahman-ar-Rahim" (in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful). In the text of the Preamble, the words "a historic struggle for national liberation" were replaced with "a historic war for national independence." The phrase mentioning "nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism" as the "high ideals" in the second paragraph was replaced with "absolute trust and faith in Almighty Allah, nationalism, democracy and socialism meaning economic and social justice."

Article 8 of the original constitution - laying down nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism as the four fundamental principles of state policy - was amended to omit "secularism" and replace it with "absolute trust and faith in Almighty Allah." In repeated pronouncements, Zia also substituted "Bangladeshi nationalism" for the "Bengali nationalism" of the Mujib days that stressed a non-religious identity.

Lt.-Gen. Hussain Muhammad Ershad, who staged yet another coup and ruled Bangladesh during 1982-86, carried Zia's initiative forward by making Islam the "state religion" through the Eighth Amendment.

The battle between the secular and anti-secular camps continued through all this, and became more open after the country's return to democracy in 1991. The Awami League (AL), headed by Mujib's daughter Sheikh Hasina Wajed, has always fought for abrogation of the Fifth Amendment. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), founded by Zia and now led by his widow Begum Khaleda Zia, and its allies pursuing religion-based politics have remained uncompromising supporters of the amendment.

The AL and its allies scored a legal victory in August 2005, when the country's High Court held the amendment unconstitutional. The court said: "These changes (made by the Fifth Amendment) were fundamental in nature and changed the very basis of our war for liberation and also defaced the constitution altogether." It added that the amendment transformed secular Bangladesh into a "theocratic state" and "betrayed one of the dominant causes for the war of liberation."

The government in Dhaka, then a coalition of the BNP and the religion-based Jamaat-i-Islami (JeI), moved a petition in the Supreme Court against the ruling. The order was stayed and the issue of the amendment was put on the back burner, where it stayed for four years.

Then came a major political change. A year ago, on January 6, 2009, Hasina returned as prime minister after a landslide electoral victory. In early May 2009, the AL government withdrew the old, official petition for staying the 2005 court ruling. The BNP-JeI alliance was quick to react. BNP Secretary General Khondker Delwar Hossain and three lawyers from the JeI rushed to the Supreme Court with petitions seeking to protect the amendment. Their petitions have been thrown out.

The JeI and other religion-based groups did not endear themselves to the country, as the results of the last general election showed, with their violent activities. The serial bombing they carried out across Bangladesh in 2005, taking a heavy toll of human lives, did not help the BNP return to power through the ballot box. The period 2001-06, when the BNP-led alliance wielded power, witnessed "unprecedented" atrocities against religious and ethnic minorities, according to Bangladeshi rights activist Shahriar Kabir. The victims included Hindus, Ahmediyas and other communities and the atrocities ranged from killings and rapes to destruction and desecration of places of worship.

After the Supreme Court's verdict, Law Minister Shafique Ahmed has said that all religion-based parties should "drop the name of Islam from their name and stop using religion during campaigning." He has also announced that religion-based parties are going to be "banned." The government, however, has disavowed any intention to remove the Islamic invocation from the Preamble of the constitution.

All this has already drawn attention in Pakistan, which has continued to suffer from religion-based politics despite its popular rejection in successive elections. Veteran Pakistani columnist Babar Ayaz, in an article captioned "Amendments for a secular constitution" in the Lahore-based Daily Times, talks of the clauses in Pakistan's constitution, introduced by former dictator Zia ul-Haq "who considered himself a kind of religious guardian of the country."

Noting the moves in Bangladesh, Ayaz adds: "Pakistan may not be able to ban religion-based political parties in the near future, but it should move towards expunging the ridiculous constitutional clauses mentioned above ... It would be a long and hard struggle, but it is doable."

Bangladesh is in for a long and hard struggle, too. The BNP has threatened an agitation against the changes. It is likely to combine this with a campaign against India (under whose pressure Hasina is alleged to be acting), and New Delhi can be counted upon to keep providing grist to Khaleda's political mill with Big Brother-like actions widely resented in Bangladesh.

There are also limits to which a constitution alone can counter religion-based politics. The far right's activities in India, proud of its staunchly secular constitution, furnishes just one example.

The significance of what is happening in Bangladesh, however, cannot be belittled either. It demonstrates the far greater role popular will can play in combating religion-based politics than cluster bombs and drones.

http://www.truthout.org/blow-religion-based-politics-bangladesh56699

url: http://newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamIslamAndTolerance_1.aspx?ArticleID=2454

COMMENTS
2/14/2010 2:27:44 AM Taj Hashmi

I think this is a sketchy pedestrian piece by an ill-informed analyst who does not know how Islamized the polity of Bangladesh, including the so-called liberal democratic politicians, has turned into since the 1970s. He has possibly no clues as to why "secular-socialist" Awami League (AL) for more than two decades now has been promoting political Islam by proclaiming "Allah is all powerful" in its banner. He possibly does not know that in October 2006 top AL leaders, including its Secretary General Abdul Jalil, signed an MOU with obscurantist Islamist group like the Khilafat Majlis (one of its leaders issued the infamous "fatwa to kill" against Taslima Nasrin in 1994). The Awami-Khilafat MOU was a pre-Election understanding stipulating Awami League's commitment to introduce Shariah law in Bangladesh. This smacks of AL's opportunism or a clever bid to gain some support among Islamists in desperation to counterpoise the Jamaat-i-Islami, a coalition partner of AL's arch rival BNP.
 
The analysts is definitely unaware of the fact that the judiciary in Bangladesh, including the Supreme Court, has been compliant, corrupt and politicized, mostly reflecting the wish and viewpoint of the ruling party. Now the ruling party wants to destroy its arch rival the BNP-Jamaat coalition. Hence the tirade against Islamism and demand for the trial of the "war criminals". The "war criminals" or collaborators of the Pakistani occupation army in 1971, again mostly represent the Jamaat-i-Islami and other Islamist groups. We need to discuss the demand for the trial of the "war criminals" together with the issue of proscribing religion-based (mainly political Islam-oriented) political parties in Bangladesh.

Since a large number of Islam-oriented and "Islam-loving" East Pakistanis collaborated with the Pakistani occupation army during the Liberation War of 1971, soon after the emergence of Bangladesh the new Government put behind bars thousand of Pakistani collaborators. Formal charges of rape and killing brought against many and the rest were tried for active collaboration with the enemy. Due to the dearth of solid evidence only a few got extended jail terms; only one "Razakar" (a para-military soldier raised by the Pakistani occupation army) was sentenced to death for war crime. Within two years after the emergence of Bangladesh, Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman pardoned the rest of the collaborators by publicly declaring a general amnesty in 1973. Meanwhile, the Government had proscribed all religion-based political parties and adopted the four-pronged state ideology for the country: a)Nationalism; b)Democracy; c) Socialism and d) Secularism.

In view of this, the demand for proscribing Islam-oriented politics cannot be understood in isolation without linking it with the latest demand for the trial of the "war criminals". However, the demand for the trial needs elaboration of the following questions:  

a) Can an individual be tried twice for committing the same crime?
 
b) Isn't one considered innocent after nothing was found/proven against one?
 
c) Can any successive government revoke a general amnesty declared by a previous government, a legitimately elected one?
 
d) Can someone be considered a "war criminal" just for lending support to an illegitimate regime, verbally or through written statements?
 
e) Don't we need solid evidence -- say eye-witness accounts, photos and videos showing someone engaged in killing (rape is hardly ever committed in front of cameras -- although it happened in some places) to implicate one in war crime?
 
f) Finally, shouldn't the Bangladesh Government try people from "the other side of the fence", the victors, who also committed war crimes? The whole world saw the infamous Time magazine photos, reproduced so many times, portraying the killing of two Biahri "Razakars" in broad daylight at Dhaka Stadium on 18th) December 1971? Thousands of "pro-Pakistan" elements, mostly non-Bengalis got killed both during and after the Liberation War. Should not these crimes be also considered "war crimes"? 

As we know people say and do things to save one's skin. And we also know that during a civil war or even a war of liberation people remain divided. Those Americans who opposed independence in the 1770s and those who wanted to secede from the Union in the 1860s were never tried as "war criminals" after the USA came into being or after the end of the Civil War. Same thing happened in what was South Vietnam up to 1975. Nobody was tried as "war criminals" in united Vietnam.
 
I think the "trial of war criminals" is more out of political considerations rather than out of genuine love for justice. Family members and friends of innocent victims along with people who are just and upright have never been listened to by any government since 1972. And even worse, people who are likely to be tried this time, especially Matiur Rahman Nizami, till 2001 were very close friends of so many top AL leaders. And we remember AL's Presidential candidate in 1991, Justice Badrul Haider Chowdhury, went to Ghulam Azam's house for "dua" or blessings so that Justice Chowdhury could be elected with the support of 30 Jamaat MPs. Wasn't Ghulam Azam a "war criminal" in 1991? One is sure about one thing: if Jamaat decides to support Awami League once again (as it did in 1994-96 to topple the BNP Government), it would again become a "patriotic party".

Meanwhile Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's signing the controversial "transit deal" with Indian PM Manmohan Singh has strengthened the "Islam-Loving" groups (BNP, Jamaat and others) who know how to successfully play the "India Card" to outwit the Awami League. In sum, it is next to impossible to revert the major changes towards Islamization that have taken place since 1975. No government since the overthrow of General Ershad in 1990 has gathered enough courage to drop Islam as the "state Religion" from the Constitution of Bangladesh. Another General's (Ziaur Rahman) amending the constitution replacing "Secularism" with "Absolute faith in Almighty Allah" and "Socialism" with "Social Justice" are very much "alive". Zia's inserting Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim (In the name of the merciful and benificient God) in the preamble of the Constituion is also there. So, no judiciary or parliament in bangladesh is strong enough to de-Islamicize the polity of Bangladesh.

Half-heartedness, hypocrisy and opportunism of politicians have strengthened political Islam in Bangladesh. Nothing short of a revolution can de-Islamicize Bangladesh. And such revolutions will NOT take place in the foreseeable future. One should realise that the emergence of political Islam is not an isolated case in Bangladesh. All the Muslim-majority countries have been going through this phase; some by default and some by playing with the fire as they promoted, nurtured and nourished the monster of Islamism out of sheer political expediency. Pakistan and Bangladesh may be mentioned in this regard. Nothing short of good governance, economic growth and justice; and universal liberal secular education can revert the growing menace of Islamism in Bangladesh or anywhere else. The judiciary or even the Parliament cannot attain much in this regard.
Cheers.
 
Taj Hashmi
Honolulu





Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!



__._,_.___


[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___