March 5, 2008
Then (During 80s military rule), we had one senior journalist turned street sweeper: Anwar Zahid. Now we have at least three, Mahfuz Anam, Motiur Rahmna and Naimul Islam Khan.
Then (during 80s) we had one national clown AKA domesticated opposition leader: ASM Abdur Rab. Now we have at least a dozen. They include Dr Kamal Hossain, Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan, Tofael Ahmed, Amir Hossain Amu, Saifur Rahman, Abdur Razzak, Hasanul Haq Inu etc.
Then the areas sorrounding Dhaka University and Shaheed miner were forbidden zones for ruling and military establishment. The memory of Ershad's half naked PM was very fresh. Now, when the military chief goes to Ekushey BioMela, Dhaka University Students wait in line to buy his autographed book.
Then we had strong voices of dissent in Shafik Rehman, Naimul Islam Khan, Minar Mahmud, Mojammel Babu. Now we have Nurul kabir, Farhad Mozhar, Shameran Abed.
Then we had a poet General's poetry getting undue prominent coverage in west Bengal's Ananda Bazaar potrika. Now we have another Shantiniketoni General getting unusually big horses from his taller counter part.
Then all the good government business deals used to go to all those who had a bracketed "retd" thing. Now all the good government business deals are going to all those who has a bracketed "retd" thing.
Then Jamaat was doing politics, unhindered. Now, Jamaat is doing politics, unhindered.
23 Responses to "Then and Now"
http://rumiahmed.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/then-and-now-2/
khabor..........We Know Bangladesh Better.
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
__,_._,___
Posts
March 5, 2008 at 9:22 am
Rumi Bhai,
The editor of Daily Sangram (i don't remember his name) will get insulted when he won't see his name with Anam, Moti & Naim. He is always indulgent about this government.
March 5, 2008 at 1:33 pm
All too true, Rumi bhai.
March 7, 2008 at 9:55 am
Rumi bhai, is there any parallel with 1979 when a newly formed party won 207 seats out of 300. Also similar to now wasn't there suddenly a rise of a number of smaller parties and a Jatiyotabadi front? There were Enayetullah Khan, Daud Khan Majlish , Shamsul Huq et al to play the role of obedient editors and and intellectuals. Why do we always leave that era of military "democracy" out of our equation? Or was it done out of 'doctrine of necessity'?
March 7, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Response to # 1
Measured write ups by Sangram's reporters on illegal entity's activities were questionable
and in some extents demonstrated cowardishness
but BNP's mumness on RAB's killing on its cadres
warranted similar comdemnation. My farm and decissive assessment inferred that Khaleda's fall started from right there because she or Tariq didn't say a word after Joseph or any other dedicated supporter's killings by infamous CROSS-FIRE. Jamaties being scape goats of BD politics didn't have any room to manuever after 1/11's fake revolution/deception. But any sorts of their complicities with illegal entity would make them even bigger RAZAKARs than they are designated now. Having said that the time of litmas test is knocking at the doors and the following are Sangram's reports–
http://www.dailysangram.com/newsdtls.asp?NID=12183&NDate=3/8/2008
http://www.dailysangram.com/newsdtls.asp?NID=12190&NDate=3/8/2008
March 8, 2008 at 5:04 am
Asif
Interesting point.
First, Should we compare 1/11 to Zia's " Military Democracy" in 1979? In another word can Moeen's attempted ascension be compared to Zia?
When Zia came country was under martial law, which was not imposed by Zia. Zia removed it quickly. He retired from army ( without self promotion) as early as possible before becoming the civilian ruler. When he started his " Military democracy", Bangladesh did not have any democracy to start with. Bangladesh was constitutionally under one party rule and all political parties were disbanned and all were forced to join one party. So which one would have been better, keep the one party rule or open the society for multi party democracy? Zia opened his party, Jagodol, which later became BNP. Unlike current style, he did not do it keeping any politicians in jail. He in fact released all from jail to facilitate a level playing field. He did not try to break Awami League. He attracted merit, technocrates, professionals, politicians, parliamentarians to form his party. Nobody was forced to join. First Secretary General was a leading physician called B Chowdhury. Also top leadership were Col Oli, Saifur Rahman, Justice Sattar. All of them were newbies in politics. He faced Gen Osmany, another war hero, in presidential election. The election was not under SOE. Nobody was under any kind of coersion. I stil remember those graffities against Zia throughout Dhaka walls. In parliament his party won 207 seats and even 12 years later his party bagged the majority seats against a much stronger AL. He did not prevent return of Sheikh Hasina, rather facilitated it by ensuring govt protection. You want me to compare 1/11 to that of Zia's rule?
Yes Zia could have gone back to barrack but was there anyone to take over and control the situation at that time? Who would have been the alternate leader?
Regarding journalists, to be fair, Zia did not come riding the shoulder of some editors. Moeen did. In fact when Zia took over, the country did not have any media. All the print media except 4 government media were closed. All these were done before 15th august. Zia allowed all the media to republish again and most media did not even wait a day after regaining life thanks to Zia, before starting badmouthing Zia. His initial government had Enayetullah Khan, Mizanur Rahman Shelly, prof Shamsul Haq as well as Prof Muzaffar Ahmed ( Current TIB), Dr Md Ibrahim ( BIRDEM) ec. None of them helped him come to power. He also actively recruited people like Majlish to come back from abroad. Fazle Lohani was personally persiaded by Zia to return and to start a talk show in TV. Fazle Lohani did and he changed TV magazie culture in Bangladesh.
Again, when you will complain about that military democracy, please also bring in the "…cracy" in the equation that preceded the military democracy.
March 8, 2008 at 8:11 am
Thanks Rumi bhai. Basically your explanation can be summarized in one phrase which is "doctrine of necessity" of the hour. But the same set of events explained exactly without the benefit of hindsight will not be not so charitable by another person. Your version of the history is very much coloured by your personal respect for Ziaur Rahman which is understandable.
One can find differences in technical details with the current situation.
But actually there are lots of similarities.
See below:
Zia did not impose martial law.
Ershad had to impose martial law because Sattar asked him to.
Moeen did not impose martial law - its just state of emergency.
There was no one else to take the reign on in the middle of chaos and confusion and corruption.
There was an obedient civil society who aided the military government.
There was strict martial law for two years.
Elections happened under martial law and were rigged heavilly with manufactored results
Political leaders WERE arrested after he came to power.
Kangaroo courts did mockery of justice and ruined hundreds and thousands of life.
Various human rights abuse were wrapped under the carpet in the name of greater good of the nation.
Ziaur Rahman attracted members from civil society in his party by making them ministers and by giving them perks which in your blogs you call these days opportunism.
If Moeen forms a party and it is joined by all the stars of civil society today, I am sure it won't look much different from BNP of the late 70s.
Based on your understanding of grassroots politics in Bangladesh — is it possible for a newly formed party to capture 2/3rd majority in Bangladesh elecition? That is without rigging?
Was it possible for him to get a 99 percent Yes vote in a gono vote with out rigging?
What I am trying to say is simple. No matter how much we like Zia as a person, his end justifying means policy did set the precendent for future dictators in Bangladesh. Reengineering the political ground using force and power for own personal ambition started right then.
Definitely would give him credit for starting the multiparty democracy. In reality after 15th August, Bakshal died. So there wasn't really any other alternative than restarting multi-party democracy if you had your own political ambition. Zia had a choice. He could have given a free election in 1979 and walked away without taking the power using his powerbase. But to ensure his safe exit strategy, he had to be in power and also he had to do a lot of unconstitutional, underhanded political dealings that typically are done by miltary dictators. However, I am saying this all with the benefit of hindsight now that I know what happened afterwords. In reality, as you said in a previous post, there were so many uncertainties with an undisciplined army at that time, this was perhaps the only thing he thought would bring stability to the country.
Now, in today's scenario, we don't have the benefit of hindsight.
Do we know if similarities in Bangladesh exist today? Do we know what are the real threats in the military? I don't. Over the next 5/10 years, perhaps it will become clear what was really happening in Bangladesh post 1/11.
In fact, the current post 1/11 scenario is also rationalized by KGazi and Ahbab Aziz the same way Zia supporters explain Zia's strong arm tactics in the 70s. Lack of functional democracy in Bangladesh led to 1/11 etc.
THere is a HUGE conflict in justifying what he tried to do then and criticizing the political engineering that is going on now. May be the there are differences in degree of it but at the core and in principle there is not much difference. There methods are very similar. Only difference being you have the benefit of hindsight — you know how Zia turned out in the end — a hugely popular national leader and Ershad turned out to be a national criminal. But we don't know yet the fate of Gen. Moeen. We are all staying tuned.
March 8, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Asif
OK, we are going back to a discussion I thought we already had in this blog in great details.
First, my humble query, why there will be such an urgency digging out Zia's (perceived) faults 27 years after his death. We always talk about looking forward and be positive. That should mean a national culture that will enable us to respect both Mujib and Zia. Respecting one should never be by kicking the other. Whether you like it or not, Zia already has earned his role in Bangladesh. The more there will be attempt to undermine him as a dictator or a radio announcer only, we will go nowhere but backwards. Why can't we shrug off the culture of criticizing Mujib for 71-75 governance and Zia for being 'military dictator', every time someone pays tribute to them?
Some issues,
1. What's' wrong with the term 'Zia did not impose martial law'? Unlike 1/11 when he took over, martial law was in effect for almost 4 months, there already have been three coups in 3 months, unprecedented massacres of political leaders have taken place. ( And it is not true that Justice Sattar asked Ershad to impose martial law. He was forced out by military establishment).
2. Unlike current regimes ideological hollowness, accept it or not, Zia clearly envisioned and filled in a major gap in Bangladesh's identity. He gave voice to the center right, who have been totally sidelined in Kamal Hossain's 'Cut and paste' constitution. I personally may not belong to that center right group, but I do believe in protecting their political existence. A society must be pluralistic to maintain a check and balance.
3. Again and again the term Zia's "heavy handed technique" is brought up. What heavy handed was he? Yes he was ruthless against military coups and any attempt to play with the armed forces to overthrow a government. Growing up in Pakistani military system, he rightly saw the danger posed by military to civil governance in BD and wanted (unsuccessfully) to uproot any such element. Yes he arrested the self-confessed leaders of 7th November attempted Polpot revolution. To be fair, in the reality of cruel 70s politics ( Massacre of Mujib, Alende, acts of Polpot, Vietkong), the Taher trial was very lenient. Only Taher got capital punishment and the rest got unusually light punishment. All the Awami league leaders got released from jail to help rebuild the party. Even Taher's right hand ASM Abdur Rab was sent to Germany (at government expense) for treatment from jail. No one showed jail code than. Tofael etc all got freedom. What did he do anything comparable to what this regime is doing to politicians? Zia did release politicians ( Most of them not arrested by his regime) before venturing into politics. This 1/11 government is exactly doing the opposite.
4. What lot of "unconstitutional, underhanded political dealings" Zia resorted to?
5. "….No matter how much we like Zia as a person, his end justifying means policy did set the precedent for future dictators in Bangladesh. Reengineering the political ground using force and power for own personal ambition started right then…"
This is wrong. This started way before in Pakistan. Zia, pulled into it by Taher, tried to get rid of that tradition unsuccessfully and ended up giving his life.
6. We all denounce the massacre of 15th August. 1/11 is more comparable to 15th August or 24 March than anything else. A so called 'Noble attempt to get the nation rid of corrupt family politics.' If you condemn 15 August, you must condemn 1/11 also.
7. Our debate probably started with a discussion on 7th March speech. If we can pay tribute to Bangabandhu for his 7th March speech with hindsight of an independent Bangladesh, why we would be so restrained in giving Zia the same advantage?
8. And if I can respect Bangabandhu in my walking through history, let that not color my perception, why my "version of the history is very much coloured by .. personal respect for Ziaur Rahman" ? Are you really competing here to establish one version of history over the another?
March 8, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Re # 6, as you say, we don't have the benefit of hindsight at this point. And some of us were not even alive at that point. However, I don't see if the doctrine of necessity has to be blamed, why Zia's name should be the only one being consistently brought up. What about the imposition of one-party system of governance in our country? As far as I know, in 1975, Zia was a side-lined officer in the army, after Shafiullah, someone like Khaled Mosharraf would have been chief of staff. Tofael Ahmed was the head of Rakkhi Bahini. All these people did their part, and Zia reacted to the situation he found himself in. Zia started from a situation of house-arrest and facing almost certain death, a coup and a counter-coup. He reacted to events, he did not set them into motion. Bangladesh in 1975 was used to the authority of one person only, and that one person was now dead. Bangladesh in 2007 had seen three successive political governments, and their members and leaders were alive and functioning. I can in no way see how Moeen can claim any part of Zia's legacy, or derive and legitimacy from the events of 1975.
March 8, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I thought we are comparing Military regimes of today and the past. Isn't the thread called "then and now"? Bakshal was wrong but that is not what we are discussing here. Similarly Mujib, his role, respect etc is totally irrelevant in this thread.
We are discussing similarities of previous military regimes and this one and that is exactly why Zia's five years is relevant.
My curiousity was because that in comparison how and why we left out comparison to other military regimes.
Rumi bhai, I don't want to get into specifics on what Zia did because we would disagree on how the same event is interpreted.
As I said, no matter how you shape and rationalize a coup and a military dictatorship and martial law, they are all the same — just in different degrees. This is what you told me in Jan 11th when I foolishly thought that Fakhruddin was actually in charge and I learnt my lesson in two-three months.
That Zia wasn't a strong arm dictator, that regime did not abuse rights under martial law and Kangaroo courts, that he did not rig election, that he did not announce that he would make politics difficult for politicians and started giving perks to people to join his party, are known to all who has followed Bangladeshi politics. I bet you will loads of references in NYTimes archive of it.
Again, when I read the points made by Rumi bhai in support of that military regime and when I read KGazi's comments in support of present military regime, I only see a difference of personal opinion and taste and not principled rejection of military dictatorship.
March 8, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Asif
You are again and again bringing the term of a coup and giving KGazi example. Please tell me what coup Zia conducted.
I have written two huge size comments, #5 and # 7, and if you still don't want to compare the philosophy 1/11 to Ershad's 24th March and Mushtaq-Faruq's 15th August,and rather keep focused on Zia's rule, which is least comparable among the three ( other two 15th August and 24th March), I can not stop you from doing so and I have nothing to add.
"…I only see a difference of personal opinion and taste and not principled rejection of military dictatorship…"
So you are setting a pre-condition that one must denounce Zia before attempting to join the league of progressive, secular, dmocratic super humans rejecting military dictatorship in principle. Sorry for my unauthorized intrusion into this elite territory.
March 8, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Asif/Rumi bhai, I don't think we have had this discussion enough. We've had plenty of Mujib-Zia food fights about who said shadhinota first in the last week of March 1971. We've had plenty of Mujib and Zia bashing. But we haven't had enough appraisal of Zia on his own, without dragging Mujib in unnecessarily. So by all means, please do continue.
Here we're discussing Zia as a military ruler, right? So let's not bring in other things like shadhinotar ghoshona or Bakshal, even tangentially, unless absolutely needed.
Asif, it's a perfectly valid position to take a position like: 'I categorically reject any form of army intervention in politics, under any circumstance, and without exception - so I denounce Zia, Ershad and Moeen'. I won't argue with this at all.
But there is a more nuanced argument. One can be opposed to military intervention in principle, and yet make exceptions. Let me give you an example.
Suppose there is a counter-coup tomorrow, Moeen is replaced as army chief by Gen Zahir or Jahangir or someone else, the Advisory Council is reconstituted after a chaer dawat to Bangabhaban, emergency is withdrawn, any politician against whom a specific case cannot be brought under a normal court is released, an election is held within 90 days with full participation of everyone, and power is handed over to the winner of that election.
Suppose this happens. This will also be the result of a coup (whatever we end up calling it). Will we then say that Jahangir or Zahir is as bad as Moeen?
But wait, if Moeen had done exactly the same thing after 1/11, would we have said that Moeen was as bad as Ershad?
Rumi bhai, apni ki bolen? Tacit?
Where is the difference?
As soon as we move away from a total condemnation of all military interventions, we have to make some criteria against which we judge interventions.
March 9, 2008 at 12:18 am
And I should also note my thoughts on this (which are still in very much a formative stage - if I had a clear idea then I'd have blogged about it). I think a systematic checklist would have to cover the following.
1. Coup's origin.
I think a general that comes to power in a countercoup, when constitution is already suspended and there is no 'normal' politics to begin with, should get a special pass compared with someone who ousts a democratically elected government.
Zia's involvement in the massacres of 1975 were matters of speculation, and I'm not aware of any genuinely rigorous study that puts the responsibility squarely on him.
There is no doubt whatsoever that Ershad led the 1982 coup and ousted an elected government.
Moeen falls somewhere in the middle. We can speculate about conspiracy theories. But really, a lot of things had to happen before 1/11 happened. And I don't think it was all Moeen's fault.
2. Exit strategy
I think an exit strategy that institutionalises the army's role in politics is much worse than one where the general doffs his uniform and leads a king's party.
On this count, Moeen thus far is more condemnable than either Ershad or Zia. Zia especially did rely as little as possible on the army in running the country (I think the deputation of generals to run civilian agencies started under Ershad).
3. Entry strategy
Regardless of how the coup happens, once in power every general thinks they can stick around. On this score, I don't think Zia and Ershad differ much. And it seems neither will Moeen.
But I do think we can make a distinction in how they conduct their entry into politics. I think this is what Rumi bhai is arguing - that Zia did doff the uniform as soon as he could, won a contested election, and then formed a party; whereas Ershad created a king's party, rigged an election to get a docile parliament, and won an uncontested election.
But to be sure, even though Zia sent the army back to barrack, his very success as a politician created perverse incentives for other generals. Because Zia succeeded in transforming himself from a military dictator to a popular president who was a retired army officer, every other army chief since then has had similar dreams.
March 9, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Jyoti bhai, the thing is if there is a counter-coup tomorrow and everything is outlined still happens, the perception will still remain that democratic politics in our country remains a gift from the generals; that can be undone at any time at their mere whim. And this needs to be stopped. The stamp of civilian control over our officers need to be firmly affixed - once and for all.
March 9, 2008 at 3:34 pm
William Sloan, President of American Association of Jurist(AAJ), who has recently visited Bangladesh and revealed that events leading upto 1/11 and plan afterward was hatched as early as 2005. According to his news conference in New York, Nov 2006 beating people to death in broad day light was also pre planned. MOST interesting of all during his visit to Bangladesh in Aug, 2005 an editor of a newspaper had discussed detailed pre and post 1/11 plan with him. There should be no doubt now involvement of Mahfuz Anam gang in 1/11, not to mention involvement in killing several lives.
http://www.dailynayadiganta.com/fullnews.asp?News_ID=71330&sec=1
March 9, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Jyoti
Your very well thought model has one omission.
Take this scenerio,
Communist East germany is under one party autocracy. No non Government media. Among a mess of bloody coup-counnter coup, the leadership eventually given to a popular Army general ( A promimant face in country's independence struggle) by a bunch of soldiers who were part of the mutiny.
The General quickly restores free press, reinstates the registration of all the political parties to resume multi-party democracy, ruthlessly bring back the chain of command in the military and eventually becomes president through an election.
***************
Th popularity of Zia was sky high in second half of 70s. His winning election with very high margin was very predictable. BNP winning 207 seats was also not very unusual if you follow 1991, 1996 and 2001 elections. In 1991 BNP (without Zia, out of power) alone got highest number of seats. In 2001 one they got 199 seats with Jamaats vote. In 1979 as Jamaat was not organized yet, many Jamaat votes went to BNP. With this calculation I find 207 seat victory was quite plausible.
March 10, 2008 at 3:14 am
Jyoti,
(11)…that is exactly my point. In hindsight, we can judge Zia's action and perhaps can give a certificate that there was no other way at that time and that was possibly the only solution in the vacuum that existed.
But we do not know the outcome of this government yet. Having said that, what I will say is that in terms of execution of its policies, I find little difference between the three martial law/SOE eras, when it comes to political engineering.
Whether it is freedom of expression, human rights abuse, mockery of justice, illegal constitutional changes later ratified by a parliament which was elected via a rigged election under tight media control — all happened first in Bangladesh's turf under General Zia's term.
Rumi bhai, your argument that the fact BNP won a two third under Khaleda Zia 12 years later to show that BNP could win power by that margin in 1979, four month's after its birth is a poor one and falls flat on various times you talked about how elections are conducted in Bangladesh and how grassroot strong hold is important. No party can have that much grassroot stronghold to carry 79 percent of the electorate in its 5th month of existence. The reality is the BNP under Khaleda ZIa in 1991 won mainly because of its principled role under anti-Ershad movement and by then its grassroot was much stronger and Khaleda Zia was the most popular leader of Bangladesh in her own right.
Bangladeshi press around that time was controlled by Martial Law. So there is little to find. So I dug around to look at NYT archive and found this piece. There is little in here that distinguishes this era as any different from Ershad or Moeen era. The same anti-corruption message, calling for strong Presidential form of government, election rigging. 79 percent of the vote cast went for BNP which defies any pattern of election voting in Bangladesh.
http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/election_79.pdf
My point again is not to diminish Zia's role in this country. But to show that historically, ALL military rulers have done similar political engineering which has failed. When you criticize one and rationalize other, the argument becomes suspect.
Similarly, how Bangladesh will view the post 1/11 change will be hugely shaped by what happens in the coming election. The indication for a happy ending is getting dimmer by the day.
March 10, 2008 at 5:17 am
The BNP brand of politics - market economy, apprehension of India, religious values - has a huge constituency in Bangladesh. In the late 1970s, with AL in complete disarray, a coalition of the supporters of these ideas, led by Zia the war hero and provider of the stability after the bloodbath of 1975 - okay, this party could get 40% of the votes, which in a first past the post multi-sided contest (AL had serious competition from the left) could give it 69% of the seats, even within 5 months of its finding.
So this could be one answer to Asif's question in 3 - BNP's win in 1979 perhaps could be explained without resorting to any rigging, perhaps the results did reflect popular will. I haven't read anything that suggests that Zia's personal popularity was not genuinely high.
But Rumi bhai, I think Tacit's very good point in 13 is still valid - "the perception will still remain that democratic politics in our country remains a gift from the generals; that can be undone at any time at their mere whim".
It is that perception that Ershad capitalised on in 1982, Nasim tried to in 1996, and Moeen did in 2007.
Now, suppose through torture or otherwise, Khaleda and her sons buckled. What do we think will happen? Will Delwar continue to keep the BNP mainstream together? Or will there be a flood to the Mannan-Hafiz faction? With AL ready to go to the election, what do we think will happen in the district towns and upazillas on the jatiyatabadi side of politics? If Khaleda buckled tomorrow, I think out of sheer practicalities of politics, various centre-right leaders will join the king's party. A coalition of ex BNP MPs, B Chowdhury, Ershad, Oli and perhaps a faction of AL turncoats and some post liberation Islamists - and I don't think much engineering will be needed to bit Awami League in a contested election.
But will that make the intervention in 1/11, and the subsequent 'anti-corruption drive' and the 'reforms' and all that other wonderful stuff Mr KGazi believe in alright?
—
Now, we cannot go back an undo 1975 or 1/11. We have to live with both events and their aftermath. I think it is absolutely crucial that we have more discussions about Zia's achievements and shortcomings, on his own right and not in comparison with Mujib or Ershad or anyone else. But while analysing 1/11 and aftermath, I think the crucial issue is what Tacit says: The stamp of civilian control over our officers need to be firmly affixed - once and for all.
How do we achieve that?
March 10, 2008 at 6:32 am
To write in support of ANY military regime, one needs to answer NO to one fundamental question! It's more like a three-step question—
Q1: Do you detest military government?
(If NO, answer the second question. If YES, then leave the discussion)
Q2: Do you like all type of military government?
(If NO, answer the third question. If YES, then good on you)
Q3: What "type" of military government do you support (e.g. short-term, long term, politicized, martial law)?
I think Rumi bhai is answering the third question, while Asif answered Yes to first question. So the debate may not go anywhere.
When one says "I hate ALL military regime, but Zia was different". The fact remains: s/he actually answered NO to first question and DO like military government (at least one of a kind).
(History is written by the winners. So I hope Moeen doesn't succeed in a future political career)
March 10, 2008 at 9:13 am
Asif
"Whether it is freedom of expression, human rights abuse, mockery of justice, illegal constitutional changes later ratified by a parliament which was elected via a rigged election under tight media control — all happened first in Bangladesh's turf under General Zia's term."
I would like some evidence behind these accusations. I know the elite intellectual world speaks of these. But the fact is that exactly the opposite things happened. Press got back freedom, politicians released from jails, political dissent started to be allowed again. The current elitist faith that; Zia= bad dictator, human rights abuse, curtailing of press freedom; could now become so powerful because during Zia's rule nobody stopped the intellectuals from running the campaign. Tell me which newspaper he banned. Tell me which intellectual he arrested, tell me which extra judicial killing he ordered. You are looking at all those politicians ( Inu et el) jumping up and down now. Almost all of them got released from jail with the signature of a man called Zia.
And all of you refused to talk over an East German model I eluded to.
Its not as simple black and white as military no military. You simply can't justify Moeen's coup citing Zia example.
1975 ws a different world, cold war was being fought in Bangladesh as well, bangladesh was also a different country. Let me put the model again;
" Communist East germany is under one party autocracy. No nonGovernment media. Among a mess of bloody coup-counnter coup, the leadership eventually given to a popular Army general ( A promimant face in country's independence struggle) by a bunch of soldiers who were part of the mutiny.
The General quickly restores free press, reinstates the registration of all the political parties to resume multi-party democracy, ruthlessly bring back the chain of command in the military and eventually becomes president through an election. "
How would you folks judge this scenerio?
March 10, 2008 at 9:49 am
Rumi bhai, fair enough. I will get the evidence. But let's talk about the first one that I gathered on rigged election.
March 10, 2008 at 9:50 am
Also would you care to answer number 18?
March 10, 2008 at 11:37 am
I don't want to see the world of Bangladesh via a 1979 NYT article. The allegtaions made there are present against every single government in Bangladesh. In 1978-79, after all that happened through 25 Jan to 7 Nov, 1975; were in a disarray. Zia was immensely popular, Awami league was the immediate past government and I firmly believe the elctions reflected the public opinion.
Press could not talk aganst Martial law government is simply a misrepresentation of history.
I did not find #18 a meaningful comment to answer.
The only way Moeen's 1/11 revolution could have been compared to that of Zia's governance is if BNP jote;
1. Changed the constitution to impose one party rule and force all political leaders to join their party.
2. Ban all the newspapers and free press.
3. Two other coups-counter coups happened prior to 1/11. ( For the record I condemn 15th August military intervention with deepest of hatred. I believe there were legal and civilized form of showing dissent and bring about a change. You all have mixed up 15th August to Zia's politics. )
I am a firm believer of democracy and if Zia's martial law proclaimation bans a constitutional change that killed democracy, I'll always support that. There is absolutely no double standrad here. But I definitely see a clever ploy to justify the acts of Moeen, Kamal hossain, Mahfuz Anam, Motiur Rahman et el. When this is the real intention, lets discuss their actions, not what Zia Mujib did 30 years ago.
March 10, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Jyoti, yes indeed, the real question is that the one Tacit asked. The perception has been that good governence can be only delivered by the military whereas politicians means chaos and confusion. Ziaur Rahman in his speeches for election against Gen Osmani continuously pounded on the fact that Bangladeshis do not want to get to the era of corruption, confusion and mismanagement. They needed to move forward. The era of stability had arrive thanks to the arrival of the general. Now compare this with the speeches of any general whatsoever.
Rumi bhai mentioned free media under him. Is that really the case? Granted that he lifted the embargo on other papers but were they free to report everything? Martial law was imposed after August 15th, predating Zia's arrival. Chief Martial administrator was the the President who was also the chief justice. Yes, there was a civilian face to the government. Sounds familiar? Now, last week of December, 75 a full blown state of emergency was declared in Bangladesh clamping down on any press freedom. Now the martial law was in place until an parliament capable of making constitutional amenment with two third majority was elected.
Justice Sayem declared election for in november 76 which was overruled by the military and the election was postponed indefinitely. Justice Sayem then resigned six months later on "ill health" when Gen Zia promoted himself to Presidency. Now if these are not political engineering, I don't what is.
When you talk about mockery of justice under Zia's rule, the first name that springs to mind is obviously Col. Taher's. But even if you leave that, you need to look at all the trials that happened under special martial law tribunals for three years. Any one familiar with swift justice under martial law tribunals? I rest my case.
Ziaur Rahman loved to say in the beginning of his rule, "I am a solider and not a politician and nothing would please me more to go back to the barrack". But after a year and half in power, his stand changed and he thought he is the only saviour who can save the country.
So the CMLA and the army chief Zia, who recently promoted himself to Presidency, then decided to run for Presidential election. Not sure if took his uniform out before that. But the full power of military and the establishment were behind him. He used all the government facilities, the helicopters etc to roam around for his campaign against a feeble opposition with no money.
He ran against the combined opposition candidate, much respected Gen Osmani. Gen Osmani promised parliamentary democracy, if elected, whereas as Ziaur Rahman promised a strong presidential system.
He duely got elected in June amid protest of rigging. Combined opposition of Osmani pulled only a mere 20 percent.
After that he formed his own party in September 1 of 1978. When everything was set, election commission announced election for parliament in February of 1979.
The newly formed pary with very little grassroots base won 80 percent of the vote giving them 2/3rd majority — just about enough to pass all the unconstitional changes that happened under the martial law government of the past three years. The independent observers reported fraud favouring the BNP in the election. Press only (lifting of press censorship) became free after the martial law was lifted when the Presidency and 2/3rd majority in the parliament was captured. He may have had won the election for his popularity, but whether he would have won with 2/3rd majority remains a question. A high court bench in 2004 declared these 3 years of his ruling unconstitutional.
Now if this series of events is not political engineering 101, I don't know what is. Of course, he became a popular leader later. But he fully manipulated the system to his favour before that. Now going back to Jyoti's question, if Moeen eventually becomes a very popular leader, will it give it legitimacy to what he is doing now? It shouldn't. Because if it does, then the era of Faruq-Rashid, Khaled Mosharraf, Zia, Ershad, Nasim, Moeen will continue to haunt us forever.