& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Assertion of our sovereignty

Mozammel H. Khan
SOVEREIGNTY is a very’ highly talked-about issue in the political arena of Bangladesh, especially when Al is at the helm of the government. In the eyes of AL’s political opponents, lack of sovereignty primarily refers to "selling out the country" to our giant neighbour. It has played the sovereignty card so indiscriminately that the accusation has now become like "crying wolf in theeyesofour general mass.
However, this time around, in the issue of trial of the alleged war criminals, the ) moment has arrived for the current government to validate the real sovereignty of the nation.
The trial of war criminals is an important element in .XL's election manifesto. Its resounding election victory' was considered a strong endorsement for the promised trial. The endorsement was more emphatic for the fact that a large chunk of young voters who. in spite of the fact that they were taught a distoned history of our great War of Liberation, came out in large numbers and voted for the AL-led alliance.
Subsequently, a resolution was also
unanimously passed on January 29 in the maiden sitting of the ninth parliament, albeit in the absence of the main opposition, calling on the government to ensure immediate trial of the war criminals.
Planning Minister A.K. Khandaker, who was the deputy commander-in-chief of the Liberation War forces and currently the president of the Sector Commanders Forum, which has been spearheading the nation-wide campaign to try the war criminals, thanked parliament for adopting the resolution.
In his words:" People will sleep in peace tonight. For many, it's the beginning of the end of the torment they have been enduring for 38 long years." The prime minister, echoing the sentiment of the house declared: "Trial of the war criminals is now a demand of the nation."
As the resolution was passed in the parliament, the government (not AL anymore) is under obligation to ensure the trial of war criminals. The commitment of the government was re-emphasised by the Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Shafique Ahmed on February 3, when he said: "Since it's a resolution adopted by the legislature, the government
will now assume responsibility for the trial."
In the last few months, however, there were conflicting and confusing statements from the responsible sources of the government about the process and time-line of the appointment of investigation officers and public prosecutors. After the PM's visit to Saudi Arabia at the end of last April, it went all quiet on the trial front. There were a lot of speculations and rumours spreading around about the pressure of that powerful oil-rich kingdom not to proceed with the trials.
Hie basis of those rumours has been revealed, though not by naming any particular country, by the general secretary of AL. and influential minister Syed Ashraful Islam who. on August 19, disclosed: "The government is facing pressure from different quarters at home and abroad for not trying the war criminals of 1971. We are facing obstacles in bringing the war criminals to trial. But we are putting in our best efforts to overcome them." The minister must be given due credit for being partly transparent instead of letting the public continue making second guesses.
Having said that, the "internal" and the "external" pressure that die minister was referring to was nothing unexpected. The government, however, can never evade its responsibility of following through with its own election pledge. On the internal front, apparently, the scenario is more conducive that expected.
The main opposition's false belief that it could win an election with the support of the vote bank of the alleged war criminals, no matter what, was proven wrong in the last general election. None of its
spokespersons has so far issued any public statement either supporting or opposing the trial.
Quite to the contrary, it has given a momentous opportunity to the main opposition to challenge the government to prove the existence of the sovereignty of die Republic, die lack of which they very often refer to, by following through on its electoral promise of holding the trial. The government, on the other hand, has an obligation to divulge to the public die elements of the source of "internal" pressure other than the alleged war criminals themselves.
The source of external pressure has never been a difficult riddle to solve. After die defeat of the occupation forces in 1971, a number of alleged war criminals found a
safe haven in diat land and continued their anti-Bangladesh campaign, spreading lies and distortions, until August 15 of 1975.
The country in question does not have any major investment in Bangladesh and as such docs not control any components of Bangladesh's internal economy. However, just like any other oil-rich middle-eastern country, it employs a huge numberof Bangladeshi workforce.
This leverage of a foreign country, no matter how powerful it is, should never be allowed to keep our government hostage in deterring the implementation of an overwhelmly endorsed election pledge of a freely elected government.
We owe this trial to our martyrs as well as to our future generation. It is, indeed, a
great challenge as well as an opportunity for the government to validate the sovereignty of the Republic by neutralising the pressure, and to establish that it is the people of Bangladesh themselves who hold the ultimate authority in deciding the course of theirown destiny.
In this context, it would be worthwhile to cite an incident that occurred in 1993-94, reflecting how the tiny island nation of Singapore kept its head high in upholding its sovereignty and dignity. An eighteen-ycar old hoy, who happened to be a US citizen, was found guilty of writing graffiti on a car. A court convicted him and awarded him "ten rounds of caning," a common punishment for this kind of crime in Singaporean law.
The then US President Bill Clinton wrote to Singapore PM requesting him to commute the sentence on humanitarian grounds, considering the harshness of the punishment. The then senior minister Lee Kwan Yew, the father of modern Singapore, wrote back to President Clinton, shrugging off the fact that more than fifty percent of the investments in Singapore belonged to US companies: "If we yield to US pressure and make an exception to the verdict of our own judicial system, we lose our moral authority to govern ourselves."
Should we not expect a similar affirmation for upholding the sovereignty and dignity of our nation vis-a-vis "pressure from different quarters at home and abroad" from our honourable prime minister?
Dr Mozammel H Khan is the Convenor of the Canadian Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Bangladesh.