15 August, 1975 Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and part of his family killed
June, 1996 His daughter Sheikh Hasina comes to power after western donors restore democracy
April, 2001 High Court confirms death sentences for 12 of the accused
October, 2001 Shaikh Hasina loses election and Khaleda Zia becomes prime minister
December, 2008 Sheikh Hasina reelected
August, 2009 Final appeal hearing begins
November 19 2009 Appellate division confirms judgment of death by hanging
Thus, we see that the case had lain dormant, under the protective mantel of an Indemnity Ordnance, promulgated by President Khandker Moshtaque Ahmed, and later ratified by General Zia as Indemnity Act of 1979.
The "assassins" were rewarded with lucrative posts and given heroes' status by every subsequent government until the election of 1996 produced Sheikh Hasina, daughter of Mujib. She had survived the killing becasue she had been out of the country in 1975.
Therefore, the pattern that emerges is this: killers are hailed as heroes till 1996, the dynasty acquires state power in that year, loses it in the election of 2001, when proceedings against the killers stop, and are resumed again after Hasina, the daughter, returns to power in December, 2008.
A personal vendetta? A lynching? Victors justice? All three.
I remember the day as if it were yesterday. I was fourteen, and I lived in Dhanmandi, very near the scene of the killing. At dawn, I heard the booming of guns, and woke up in fear. Later, we learned that Mujib and his family had been killed: there was rejoicing throughout the land!
Against this background, what are we to make of the Supreme Court verdict? Well, to put it mildly, it opens up an enormous gap between law and morality. The law must posit that every killing in peacetime is murder; but a moment’s consideration will show that morality can never posit that every killing in peacetime is immoral. Was the killing of Caligula murder? Certainly. But was it immoral? Certainly not.
Furthermore, we cannot consent to the proposition that the law, and the legal process, is always just.
Take Chief Justice Taney. A devout Catholic, he had emancipated all his slaves; yet, when the Dred Scott case came up, he had to assert that 'a black man has no rights'. When the Bengal terrorists were gunning down British officers and, after due process, were being carted off to the Andamans, Bengalis hated the English for that: now, several streets in Calcutta are named after 'terrorists'.
Moreover, the Supreme Court, respect for which must be implanted in the heart of every citizen if we are to live in peace and with a clear conscience, has been sullied by a case that was basically moral, not legal. Now, no one, except the narrow band of fanatics devoted to the House of Mujib, who reck with neither morality nor logic, will regard the ‘due process’ as little more than an elaborate charade. The Supreme Court came into bad odour the day democracy was introduced: December 6, 1990. On that day, after General Ershad resigned, the Chief Justice became president, instead of the vice-president per constitution; later, he had this illegality legalized when parliament sat and passed two amendments. Since then, no one has ever believed that the Supreme Court is above politics.
Now, they will say, there goes the last institution to the democratic dog.
Showing posts with label dynastic democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dynastic democracy. Show all posts
Friday, November 20, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Die Nasty: The Sins of the Fathers
The sins of the parents visit the child.
Consider the fate of Benazir Bhutto. She was warned not to come to Pakistan. It was almost like a Greek chorus hissing disapproval, yet powerless to do anything. She was destined to death.
For the sins of her father.
At an Oxford debate, an opponent described her father's calling as that of “a tradesman of some description. A butcher, I gather.” She looked like she had been slapped across her mug.
The speaker was referring to the genocide of 1971 for which half the blame must rest with her father.
The other half must rest with the other demagogue elected from East Pakistan – Sheikh Mujib. Together, they destroyed the lives of hundreds and thousands of people. And both men died violent, unnatural deaths. I was fifteen when Sheikh Mujib was killed – and I still remember the nationwide jubilation at his passing.
When there's no other way to remove a dynasty –the ballot cannot do that – there remains only one way: the bullet.
Sheikh Hasina has received intelligence report that she is on an international terrorist hit list. They say there have been 21 attempts on her life – which if true, reflects very badly on the military prowess of the jihadis. Kidding aside, how long does Sheikh Hasina have – a year, two years?
I'm not a betting man, but if I were to wager a significant amount, I would take a punt on 1 year – that is, 2009. Before the year's out, she'll be out. Of course I could be wrong about the timing, but it's a foregone conclusion. Just a matter of time.
And then? The dynasty will renew itself, and there will be more assassinations...nemesis, like evil, never tires.
Consider the fate of Benazir Bhutto. She was warned not to come to Pakistan. It was almost like a Greek chorus hissing disapproval, yet powerless to do anything. She was destined to death.
For the sins of her father.
At an Oxford debate, an opponent described her father's calling as that of “a tradesman of some description. A butcher, I gather.” She looked like she had been slapped across her mug.
The speaker was referring to the genocide of 1971 for which half the blame must rest with her father.
The other half must rest with the other demagogue elected from East Pakistan – Sheikh Mujib. Together, they destroyed the lives of hundreds and thousands of people. And both men died violent, unnatural deaths. I was fifteen when Sheikh Mujib was killed – and I still remember the nationwide jubilation at his passing.
When there's no other way to remove a dynasty –the ballot cannot do that – there remains only one way: the bullet.
Sheikh Hasina has received intelligence report that she is on an international terrorist hit list. They say there have been 21 attempts on her life – which if true, reflects very badly on the military prowess of the jihadis. Kidding aside, how long does Sheikh Hasina have – a year, two years?
I'm not a betting man, but if I were to wager a significant amount, I would take a punt on 1 year – that is, 2009. Before the year's out, she'll be out. Of course I could be wrong about the timing, but it's a foregone conclusion. Just a matter of time.
And then? The dynasty will renew itself, and there will be more assassinations...nemesis, like evil, never tires.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
no tears for a bhutto
I know a lady who lives in Canada. She is a widow: her husband died during the civil war of 1971 in the then East Pakistan.
She has had to bring up her two children by herself, and the best possible route for her was to emigrate. Now, when she comes to Bangladesh, she hardly wants to leave the country and go back to her adopted nation. She is in her seventies, and does not expect to live much longer.
When Benazir Bhutto was killed, I was overjoyed – but I noticed an outpouring of sympathy for that woman. Thus Robert Fisk observed: “however corrupt she may have been, let us never forget that this brave lady was indeed a martyr”! He calls her “this lone and brave woman who had dared to call for democracy in her country”.
Incredible!
In Bangladesh, we remember her father all to well: he was the man who unleashed mayhem on Bangladesh, mayhem that killed 500,000 people (I owe this figure to David Reynolds’ history, One World Divisible).
The Bhutto family’s respect for democracy is famous: Bhutto pere refused to accept that Sheikh Mujib had won the election throughout Pakistan.
Benazir Bhutto was popular because her father was a demagogue who literally split the country for the sake of power: the people of Pakistan (like the people of South Asia) apparently believe that “virtue” descends from father to child. If virtue can be inherited, then so can vice. And South Asians have a passion for those – and the pathological products of their loins - who have failed their country.
A few days after Benazir Bhutto shuffled off her mortal coil, I spoke with the lady widowed in 1971. She sounded pathetically apologetic for feeling good that Bhutto had been killed – she, of all people!
“You see,” she explained, “I lost my husband in 1971.”
I assured her I was just as happy as she – which could have been nowhere near the truth, because nobody I loved had died in 1971.
She has had to bring up her two children by herself, and the best possible route for her was to emigrate. Now, when she comes to Bangladesh, she hardly wants to leave the country and go back to her adopted nation. She is in her seventies, and does not expect to live much longer.
When Benazir Bhutto was killed, I was overjoyed – but I noticed an outpouring of sympathy for that woman. Thus Robert Fisk observed: “however corrupt she may have been, let us never forget that this brave lady was indeed a martyr”! He calls her “this lone and brave woman who had dared to call for democracy in her country”.
Incredible!
In Bangladesh, we remember her father all to well: he was the man who unleashed mayhem on Bangladesh, mayhem that killed 500,000 people (I owe this figure to David Reynolds’ history, One World Divisible).
The Bhutto family’s respect for democracy is famous: Bhutto pere refused to accept that Sheikh Mujib had won the election throughout Pakistan.
Benazir Bhutto was popular because her father was a demagogue who literally split the country for the sake of power: the people of Pakistan (like the people of South Asia) apparently believe that “virtue” descends from father to child. If virtue can be inherited, then so can vice. And South Asians have a passion for those – and the pathological products of their loins - who have failed their country.
A few days after Benazir Bhutto shuffled off her mortal coil, I spoke with the lady widowed in 1971. She sounded pathetically apologetic for feeling good that Bhutto had been killed – she, of all people!
“You see,” she explained, “I lost my husband in 1971.”
I assured her I was just as happy as she – which could have been nowhere near the truth, because nobody I loved had died in 1971.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
A Modest Proposal
Since we in South Asia in general, and Bangladesh in particular, are addicted to dynastic democracy, may I make a modest suggestion?
In Bangladesh (and the model may be worthy of emulation), we should try and bring the 21st century into our politics by cloning our dynastic leaders. They will then look exactly like the real thing, and the people will be no whit wiser.
At the same time, we should apply modern genetic technology to remove aggressive genes from the clones, and make our leaders less assertive and violent.
This way, the two dynasties would be able to coexist in harmony, and we’ll have a virtual national government, with each bowing out gracefully after every election. They can then dispense with their thugs, armed students and violently faithful teachers and bureaucrats.
And if any nasty atavistic, recessive gene turns up, well, we can simply clone the clones and remove that gene.
There will be only one problem, albeit a minor one: what to do with the real McKoys?
In Bangladesh (and the model may be worthy of emulation), we should try and bring the 21st century into our politics by cloning our dynastic leaders. They will then look exactly like the real thing, and the people will be no whit wiser.
At the same time, we should apply modern genetic technology to remove aggressive genes from the clones, and make our leaders less assertive and violent.
This way, the two dynasties would be able to coexist in harmony, and we’ll have a virtual national government, with each bowing out gracefully after every election. They can then dispense with their thugs, armed students and violently faithful teachers and bureaucrats.
And if any nasty atavistic, recessive gene turns up, well, we can simply clone the clones and remove that gene.
There will be only one problem, albeit a minor one: what to do with the real McKoys?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
