A Response To Dr. Chandra Muzaffar On His Article
On The Hanging Of The War Criminal Nizami In Bangladesh

By Students of Dhaka University

30 May, 2016
Countercurrents.org

The response by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar on 19th May, 2016 to our comment on his article “The Hanging of Nizami and the Grip on Political Power” has been very insightful! However we could not but resist from publishing a formal response; it seemed to be high time for the response especially taking into account recent events.

We would like to point out some major flaws in Dr. Muzaffar’s argument despite them posing to be deceptively ‘enlightening’.

1. Could you please mention the names of those NGOs, individuals that you have mentioned about again and again in your article and response? It would be really enlightening for us if you could cite specifically the names of these NGOs and “prominent individuals”. The one important Muslim government you have mentioned is Turkey. The country itself has a history of denying its brutal genocide of Armenians that claimed innocent lives and horrified the world with public crucifixion of women. Turkey itself is a now run by conservative, reactionary and fundamentalist forces. Is not it just too much coincidental that Turkey with such allegations will take a stand against the trial of War Criminals in Bangladesh and side with Pakistan?

2. The incident with the witness that you have mentioned without any validating reference has contradictory versions. Unless you mention both versions of the story, it can be easily concluded that you are being biased in your opinion, which is of course evident in your former writing. Moreover, that incident is only one case and can not statistically be taken as an example that can prove your allegations against the Tribunal process. More importantly, even if for argument’s sake that one incident can be exemplified as a flaw, others were flawless which you have certainly forgotten to mention or refer to. In the case of Nizami was there any such incident that you can refer to? As far as we are concerned you were speaking for Nizami.

3. The same can be said about the Skype incident. It also has contradictory versions. And even if that is taken as a flaw, then certainly other cases without any such incident are flawless, won’t you agree? You have also forgotten to mention that in the case of the Skype incident, the judge was withdrawn and judgment was not passed according to the Skype conversation. Then how is the case flawed, we fail to understand?

4. You do not mention that the Turkish parliament members visited the trial court and spoke with the convicts, so how can you justify their views and comments? Could you also please mention which countries could provide observers that can validate the trial process? Bangladesh is a sovereign country and how can you justify other countries’ right of doing so? Will this be allowed in Malaysia, Pakistan, United States of America, Saudi Arabia (infamous for recent public beheading of an opposition leader)? Have you demanded the same in the case of these countries? You have specifically mentioned that US or the west could provide observers and just may be to mingle your tone down a bit you mention Latin America and other countries in Asia. We are curious to know why you would put stress on the US and the West?

5. Could you please mention which international judicial norms and evidences were set aside? This is only a statement without any reference that does not actually validate anything.

6. In your defense of Nizami you said there have been other incidents though by far we have only come across two kinds of incident in your response.

7. It is evident that you think Nuremberg trial had shortcomings. Won’t you agree that the War Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh is following far better methods that we mentioned earlier in our comment in your article? You have failed to present any argument about that. So should we understand that you invariably agree that the WCT in Bangladesh is better and flawless with respect to the historically famous Nuremberg trial?

8. In your claims of the WCT being flawed you have not mentioned any article, clause, sub-clause, ruling, judgment or part of judgment which is flawed, which is not up to the standard. Could you provide us with any such example? We would also like you to know that the International Criminal Court in Hague has ruled out and rejected any allegation against Bangladesh of ‘committing crimes against humanity’ in a recent ruling in 26th May. The claims were made by Jamaat. We are looking forward to Mr. Muzaffar’s views about this. The reference can be found in this link (http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/intl-court-hague-rejects-allegations-1229575).

9. For further reading you have mentioned Sharmi Bose’s book. It is a controversial one; could you mention other books that portray the atrocities committed in Bangldesh in 1971?

10. It has been more and more evident in your writing that you have not mentioned the killings committed by the Nizami led militia in the names of Islam in Bangladesh during 1971. We are really curious to know that whom you are defending. What is their way of politics and ideology? You are writing about Nizami, the leader of a killer and rapist group of goons organized by the then Pakistani junta, but do not mention any incident of his crimes and any incidents of the genocide in Bangladesh. Can you justify your position as a just one? We think your position in this matter is fairly obvious and you are explicitly or implicitly supporting these killers and rapists.

We do hope Mr. Muzaffar will enlighten us further with his response. As general students of Dhaka University we demand that this type of propaganda and falsehoods based only on deceptive statements and misinformation is checked. These propagandas are in their true sense against the masses of Bangladesh who paid with lives, honor, and home to defend their beloved motherland against fundamentalist occupying forces of Pakistan in 1971. We strongly denounce these acts and stand for the people of Bangladesh as we have always.

(We are general students of Dhaka University of Bangladesh and online followers of Countercurrents.)