& 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

Two journalists vs. a layman's view

Moazzem Hossain
AS soon as the editorial piece by Mr. Mahfuz Anam (The Daily Star, October 11) caught the eyes of the readers, it was certain that a reply would not be long in coming. The prediction came true and a reply came out in The Daily Star on October 12. It happened to be from a journalist of foreign origin, Mr. David Bergman. Mr. Bergman's reply in fact has puzzled a layman like me (non-journalist). Why? Because Mr. Bergman felt that Anam's 'Third View' was full of emotion.
Well, emotions have no place in the court of law. Mr Bergman tried to establish this by putting up arguments against the prosecution with three examples - Sayeedee, Quader Molla and S.Q. Chowdhury. He even mentioned the Skype scandal that eventually made a top judge leave the ICT. While Mr. Bergman was satisfied with this departure, he was not happy with the alleged colluding prosecutors (his words) remaining on the floor of the ICT. In a nutshell, Mr. Bergman expected more transparency and better standard maintained in selecting or rejecting witnesses by the prosecution for the three men mentioned above.
I am not going to contest Mr. Bergman on the issues regarding the prosecutions' shortcomings or gaps, let us leave them for the experts. I, however, would like to put a few points to Mr. Bergman on the subject of emotion and, of course, to say the least, about how close this whole affair is to the hearts and minds of the people of this nation.
I find no harm in Mr. Anam getting emotional when telling the truth about 1971. Mr. Anam is not a part of the prosecution or the defence team. Display of any emotion thus will not affect the prosecutors or the defence. He fought in the Liberation War and can become emotional about what he witnessed and what he read during 1971. It is impossible for a person in his shoes to remain silent at this critical time. Mr. Bergman's worries would have been justified if Mr. Anam was in any capacity connected to the affairs of the ICT.
In my view, the very title of Mr. Bergman's write up, "Legitimate demands do not justify turning a blind eye on standards," is out of step. The reasons Mr. Bergman used to justify his write-up are certainly contestable from the prosecution's point of view. I, indeed, am not qualified for this. I must say, however, that it is true that atrocities were committed all over Bangladesh, and some people from this land helped the Pakistan army to commit these crimes.
I know my friends and teachers had been slaughtered and sisters raped 42 years ago. The people in the dock simply failed to prove that they were innocent. How can one believe Molla when he says: "I am not the same Quader Molla who was the perpetrator?" How can one believe Sayedee when he states he was never a part of the Razakar bahini? S.Q. Chowdhury remains defiant even when every Chittagonian knew what had been going on in that slaughter house on top of the hill. As a layman, one wants answers to these questions. I hope, Mr. Bergman understands.
Yes, according to the court of law one must not be punished until found guilty beyond doubt. One also must recognise that the environment inside and outside a courtroom is hugely different. Inside, while there are several versions of a story, the process of law at the end concludes with a single verdict. But, outside the courtroom the general people draw their own conclusions. What happens outside the courtroom matters less.
Yes, everyone wants to see a high standard maintained as far as possible in the process, but some minor hiccups are impossible to avoid in a circumstance like this where institutions are very weak in accountability terms. One must also remember that a strong anti-liberation front is out there to destabilise the trial by all means, domestically and internationally. Look at the defiant moods of Molla and Chowdhury immediately after their respective sentences were read out. One must also not forget that the terror the supporters of these people unleash during the protests is also unprecedented, and a great danger to the day-to-day life of the general public.
Let me conclude by citing the last sentence of Mr Bergman's article: "... unless one protests now, these same unfortunate practices will simply be repeated and used against a different set of political opponents. And this time it will be people whose politics Bangladesh's civil society establishment supports." This piece of advice is not new to this nation, Mr. Bergman. The same argument has been uttered again and again by the opponents since the trial began. They even threatened that one day the freedom fighters would be put on trial as the enemies of Pakistan who split the nation. Well, perhaps for this reason Mr. Anam gets emotional about what he believes in. Certainly, so far we have not seen any gross miss-carriage of justice in the trial process that one can be ashamed of.
Mr. Anam's write-up is entirely directed towards our politicians who are still playing with fire. One cannot be fooled when one sees that the main opposition alliance remains defiant and uncommitted to the ICT. One need not be a rocket scientist to understand this indifference. Mr. Anam wants to attract the attention of the politicians to this end.
The writer is an academic based in Brisbane, Australia.
E-mail: m.hossainbhuyia@gmail.com