News From Bangladesh
November 20, 1997

Commentary

The editorial of 8th November (News from Bangladesh, Amitech) by Dr. Rashiduzzaman took me down memory lane.   The author's name sounded familiar and pretty soon I was thinking of Ekattorer Dinguli (Those days of 1971).

Dhaka, in 1971, bore the looks of a city occupied by Nazi Germany.  The nine month long massacre of the 3 million Bengali civilians started with the murder of professors at the Dhaka university.  I have had the opportunity to hear of the grisly killings from an eye witness who was an instructor of a Science subject at the university on 25th March, 1971.  Now living in USA, this eye witness can't thank his stars enough that he escaped alive from the ordeal.

The Pak army were on orders to "clean" up the university quarters on that night of 25th March, 1971.  The army rounded up the campus.  A Bengali speaking soldier/officer was ordering the residents of the teacher/staff quarters to come out.  Then they went into the apartments and shot point blank to execute the cream of our society.  Dr. Mofazzal Haider Chowdhury, Dr. G.C. Dev, Dr. Jyotirmoy Guho Thakurta, Dr. Giasuddin Ahmed, Dr. Muniruzzaman were among those that were murdered that night.  The eye witness, at one point, saw a junior officer who had a lighted cigarette in one hand and with the other hand was dragging the dead body of a university professor down the stairs.

Dr. Radovan Karadzic is a psychiatrist.  He writes poetry.  But, he is also the mastermind behind ethnic cleansing of Bosnia that had targeted all non-Serbians for elimination.  In his interviews with western journalists, he has never once expressed remorse for his misdeeds.  Instead, he has always rationalized his heinous acts.

Dr. Rashiduzzaman has been prominently mentioned by name in a book called "Ekatturer Ghatok Dalalera Ke Kothai" (published by the Muktijuddho Chetona Bikash Kendro).  The book has documented the fact that he was fired from his university job after liberation for collaborating with the Pakistan army through much of 1971.

In the editorial of 8th November, Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman made no secret of his esteem for Jinnah.  That, of course is not a crime.  But supporting the army junta in 1971 is another matter.  The Yahya regime is guilty of crimes that have few parallels since the days of Nazi Germany.  Was the Professor so much of an ideologue that he had to be on the side of the killers?  Didn't it ever bother his conscience that so many of his colleagues were butchered by the army on that fateful night?

Cold blooded killer-intellectuals like Radovan Karadzic are not all that rare.  Some of Hitler's partners in crime were among the best educated citizens of Germany.  They were physicians, scientists and what not. But all their education proved to be a thin veneer for their lack of humanity.  We expect better from even an illiterate foot soldier.

Dr. Rashiduzzaman was not accused of planning or coordinating a genocide.  But so controversial was his role in 1971, that the university had to expel him from the faculty right after liberation.  He immigrated to the United States which has a history of providing refuge to people who have no where else to go.  Even Nazi sympathizers had managed to find refuge in this country.  America is big enough and generous enough to open its doors to people of every hue in the political spectrum.

Did Dr. Rashiduzzaman ever repent for his role in 1971?  Did he ever bother to meet the widows of Jyotirmoy Guho Thankurta or Mofazzal Haider Chowdhury?  Could he ever tell them, "What I did in 1971 was wrong"?  His admiration for Jinnah had led him to side with the Pak jawans on 25th March.  And, unlike Bengali speaking Pak supporters like Mahmud Ali, he didn't even bother to change his citizenship.

Recently I read an article by a Pakistani writer.  He was describing his emotion in the aftermath of Pakistan's breakup.  The author wasn't a Bengali.  But I could recognize that he had a conscience.  This is what he wrote, "Why did the situation get out of control?  Why did the then military leadership indulge in rape, loot and plunder?  Why were the people of Bengal tortured, maimed and murdered by ruthless and power-hungry West Pakistan soldiers?  Why have the findings of the Hamood-ur-Rehman report not been made public to date?..."  The Pakistani writer was not an eye witness to the crimes of 1971, but his conscience wouldn't let him forget what the Pak soldiers did to the Bengali civilians.  Unfortunately, there are Bengalis who were so fiercely wedded to the ideology of 1947 that it didn't bother them to see their sisters and mothers raped and killed by the murderous army.

History has taken its toll.  Dr. Rashiduzzaman's fight with Bangladesh continues though in a different form and in a different forum.   He writes in Asian Survey on the instability of Bangladesh.  He writes of the "Spirit of Liberation" in his inimitable style.  I don't understand why he doesn't focus his intellectual energy on Pakistan instead.  After all, at a critical juncture of history, he had sacrificed his personal integrity for the sake of Pakistan's integrity.  Doesn't he owe more to Pakistan than to Bangladesh?

Jamal Hasan writes from USA. His email is: jhasan@acc.fau.edu

News From Bangladesh
November 22, 1997

It has been brought to my notice that as a retaliation to my Amitech Commentary/Editorial ( The Jinnah Debate..) published on November 8, 1997, Mr. Jamal Hasan has recently started an unethical, unprofessional, willful, and malicious campaign against me, and it is regrettable that he has now published a canard in your daily Internet News on November 20, 97.  While I reserve the right to seek legal redress against such a deliberate slander, this is my initial rebuttal to present my side of the story for the awareness of the Amitech readers.  By his malevolent offensive to silence me and my cherished civil rights, Jamal Hasan has gone back to the dark days of early Bangladesh, when Bangalee nationalism took a xenophobic and fascistic turn, victimizing people by vigilante justice, witch-hunt and punishment for their unfounded guilt and presumed political and personal beliefs.  I am one of such innocent victims at the hands of personal vendetta, professional jealousies, university politics, unverified accusation and disparaging authors.  This is the murky episode of our history which needs to be told in the larger interest of national reconciliation, and I request the Amitech to allow me to publish a full article on this subject in the near future.

I was a senior faculty and a Provost of Dhaka University before I left Dhaka; did Jamal Hassan or any of his friends see me in Bangladesh in 1971?  For all the unfounded accusations, Jamal Hasan's only source is a reviling book called Ekattorer Dinguli, which lists my name as one of the many persons who lost their jobs, many of whom were also denied citizenship after 1971 for the blanket accusation of collaboration?

Are there any proven charges listed there?  Does it say that I was in Bangladesh to support the military actions in 1971?  Does it say that, indeed, I challenged their actions, and Dhaka University wanted me back and offered me a full Professorship in 1977?  Does it say that I had a Bangladeshi passport since early 1972 even while I was accused of not having it at all?  Does it say that I sought redress of my grievances?  Is Jamal Hassan aware that quite a few people listed in that derisive publication are important citizens of Bangladesh, who held high positions in recent years?

Not withstanding what has been written in a scurrilous publication, these are the following facts, which can be independently, verified:

(a) I was not anywhere near Bangladesh or Pakistan during the entire period of 1971 and Jamal Hasan's accusations are absolutely false.

(b) I came to the United States in October, 1970 to join the Columbia University as a senior visiting fellow for which I was granted study leave by the University of Dhaka.  During the entire period of liberation war, my wife and myself lived an anguished life in New York, having left two of our children behind.  Four of my first cousins were killed in 1971, and my family members had undergone all the miseries of that period.

(c) I had met all kinds of visitors at Columbia University, New York in 1971; some came to lobby for Bangladesh, and some of them lobbied for Pakistan, and quite a few of them were personally known to me, as colleagues and friends at Dhaka University.

Dr. A. R. Mullick and his entourage (lobbying for Bangladesh) had dinner with me in 1971.  Dr. Sajjad Hossain and Dr. Mohar Ali, two of my colleagues and friends who came to lobby for Pakistan also visited me, which had angered a few Bangladeshis, and behind my back, they reported against me when Bangladesh became independent.  And I know who they are!  And they might indulge in the same innuendo even today! In 1971, I did not speak anything against Bangladesh, I did not write anything in support of Pakistan, I never represented Pakistan to any forums; and I did not lobby for Pakistan with any one.

(d) Before I came to the United States, I served the University of Dhaka for a decade, and in recent years, I have worked with a number of international development projects in Bangladesh.

What I write is mostly academic; the professional critics had umpired whatever I published on Bangladesh and I invoke the intellectual freedom to express my views according to the established professional norms.  I have authored six books and numerous articles in reputable journals, and I stand by what I have written.

(e) My recent article in Asian Survey, which Jamal Hasan vaguely refers to, deals with the challenge of hartal to the democratic institutions of Bangladesh.  What I have said in that article about too much hartal being harmful to democracy is something that every sensible person (even Amitech) is discussing now!  What's his problem?  Can he make a distinction between a scholarly piece and a banal writing?  I wonder!  If he searches his memory lane with less spite and radiates it with a modicum of respect for others, he may even find something that he likes in my long list of publications!

(f) What I have written on the Jinnah debate is, I feel, most balanced for which I have received several letters of appreciation from around the world.  However, I wish to meet any professional criticism for that article or any other writings of mine.

In the light of these facts and truth, I demand an unconditional apology from Jamal Hasan through the Amitech Internet News, and immediate withdrawal of his vicious campaign against me.

M  RASHIDUZZAMAN writes
from Glassboro, New Jersey; USA.
His e-mail is <rashiduzzaman@mars.rowan.edu>

News from Bangladesh
November 22, 1997

I was appalled by Mr. Jamal Hasan's invectives on Dr. Rashiduzzaman, a reputed political scientist from Bangladesh. I do not understand the simple fact what prompted Mr. Jamal Hasan to make this sudden trip down his memory lane to vilify Dr. Rashiduzzaman, when I thought, some of us were trying to take a "fresh look history".  I fail to comprehend why the discussion about pre-partition politics and some leaders of that time degenerated into a vindictive campaign against a contributor, with whose views, we may or may not agree.  What an honest and intellectual debate!  No wonder, we have a continuing saga of 'bad Kismet'. Does Mr. Jamal Hasan realize that this is not the appropriate forum for mudslinging?  I do not intend to go into a discussion of what Dr. Rashiduzzaman did or did not in 1971.  I think Dr. Rashiduzzaman or his friends and students who knew him personally will respond to these allegations.  It is audacious to think that Dr. Rashiduzzaman has less right to write on Bangladesh issues than others.

Is not the guarantee of freedom of speech the foundation of democracy?  If Mr. Hasan felt so strongly about Dr. Rashiduzzaman, his sensible option was to send him a personal E-mail and give him an opportunity to respond.  He could also initiate a general discussion on the role of intellectuals in the period of liberation struggle, or a topic such as "Genocide in Bangladesh - the Pakistan style" in which the activities of Pakistan army in 1971 could be discussed in graphic details.  That would have been fair.  Please stop this personal vilification and witch-hunting.  This will only discourage other readers with a probing mind from contributing thoughtful and intellectual writings to AMITECH pages.  Is that what you want, Mr. Hussain [sic]?

Mr. Syed Ahmed writes from Canada. His email is: sahmed@rdc.ab.ca

Subject: Re: Bengali intellectual collaborators: remnants of a dark past

Dear Friend,

People like Rashiduzzamans are not rare at all in our society.  There is one good part of him though ..he is not changing his skins like a snake .... only problem is that not everybody knows his past.  If you know your enemy… then you would know what to expect from them.  If Bengali knows who are Rashiduzzamans .... then its easier to recognize their scholarly work... and simply reverse the contents… and bingo… you will have what you want!!!

I think I am not clear enough to explain myself.  What I am trying to say is that Rashiduzzaman has a viewpoint that we were better off with Pakistan... Nothing wrong with that... people can have their personal opinions.   I have never read any articles about Rashiduzzman… though I have heard about him before… so it is very hard for me to have a discussion on him.  But... if he hadn't published anything which proved that he supported the genocide of Bangladeshis… then his ideas can be viewed as scholarly ideas...

But… IF in his work… he says that what those Pak army did was justified… then let me tell you one thing... I have a big problem with that!!  We fought for our freedom… and we have it… its a different story that most of us have no clue what freedom means... but somehow… we have it.  It’s now our turn to keep it...
to keep our careful eyes on people like Rashiduzzaman... BUT .... we should honor their scholarly work… if they are Scholarly (Again… I have never read any of his work!!) ...and should not spend time on criticizing them...UNTIL they pose a threat to our Freedom (This word is really overused.. isn't it?? )    :)) Pappu

News From Bangladesh

November 24, 1997

Editorial

Global Amitech regrets publishing a commentary written by Mr. Jamal Hasan titled "Bengali intellectual collaborators: remnants of a dark past" in our 20th Nov on line edition under editorial / commentary section. This obviously was put on line due to some misunderstanding within the editorial board.  As it is, we were already investigating the matter.

Mr. Hasan in his commentary indirectly accuses Dr. Rashiduzzaman for collaborating with the Pakistan regime during the 1971-liberation war of Bangladesh.  Mr. Hasan cited a book "Ekatturer Ghatok Dalaiera Ke Kothai" in which Dr. Rashidizzman had been recorded as one of the collaborator.

"News from Bangladesh" did it's own investigation into the matter. We can confidently say that Dr. Rashiduzzman was not even in the country during the 1971 liberation war.  Our record shows that Dr. Rashiduzzaman left for USA in 1970 and joined Columbia University New York as a visiting fellow (this can he verified from his employment record at the Columbia University).  There is no indication that he participated in any anti-Bangladesh campaign during the liberation war of 1971.

It should also be mentioned that we found out that Dr. Rashiduzzaman actively participated in the Anti Ayub movement in 1969.  Our investigation also verified the fact that he was indeed invited to join Dhaka University as full professor in 1977.

We have interviewed several people who knew Dr. Rashiduzzaman from the university days and as such verified that Dr. Rashiduzzaman did indeed left Dhaka in October 1970 and had no role as a collaborator with the then Pakistani regime.

We have stated our position clearly in this regard and made our record straight.

Once again we regret for this 'incident,’ which may have caused some damage to his reputation.

Board of Editoff
"News From Bangladesh"
Global Amitech

News From Bangladesh
November 28, 1997

It is very sad to see that what was rather an academic discussion on the history of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India has been turned into an ugly episode by Jamal Hasan (Commentary: Bengali Intellectual Collaborators: Remnants of A Dark Past, Nov. 20).  It is an unprovoked and slanderous attack on a scholar of Dr. Rashidduzaman's standing.  I am not out to do tit for tat.  Dr.. Rashidduzaman can speak for himself.  He has already spoken and we hope to hear more from him in the future.  I don't need to say much because the intelligent watchers of the Internet, by this time, have learned the motive behind Mr. Hasan's mollified contention.  He is out to malign a person because his views are not acceptable to Jamal Hasan.  It is also a fact that over the years, like Rashid, many people have suffered from such canard and witch-hunt at the hands of over-jealous persons.

For those, like Mr. Hasan, are not aware, let me tell you, Dr. Rashidduzaman left Dhaka in 1970.  During the crackdown in 1971, he lost contact with his two children who were left with his in-laws.  When Rashid approached the US State Department to trace his children and family in 1971, I happened to be one, as an employee of the Dhaka US Consulate, who located his children and his in-laws in Bangladesh.  In fact, I also helped his children to come to the United States in 1972.

We also know that a few of his vindictive 'friends', driven by personal jealousies, included his name in the collaborators list which is the main source of information to include Rashid's name in Ekatturer Din Guli.

Mr. Hasan by indulging in such deplorable acts will never see the light at the end of his memory lane.

News From Bangladesh
November 24, 1997

With great dismay and utter disbelief I found this morning that the editorial board of NFB decided to write a rejoinder to apologize for the publication of Jamal Hasan's article.

You [Editor of NFB] should have communicated with me before publishing the rejoinder.  I was personally in the US throughout the liberation period.  I was about to write a short account of our activities for that period in Amitech.  Dr. Rashiduzzaman (R. Zaman) is most certainly trying to hide his past, which is not a good one.  He is not giving us the full account of his activity.  He never came out of his apartment to support an independent Bangladesh like most of us did in that turbulent period.  In his statement (2 statements in NFB) he attacked the book "Ekkaturer Ghatak Ra Ke Kothai."  The book was published in 1988.  He had ample time to write articles to clear his name.  I don't think he did that.  He could have gone to the court for defamation against the publisher of that book.  An estimated 15,500 copies of that book were sold worldwide.  Why is he reacting now?

He squarely blamed the ultra-nationalist fervor during Sheik Mujib's time as the sole reason for getting his name included in the book.  Well, Dr. Yunus or Dr. F.R. Khan's name was not included in that book.  Right? He also said that he was offered a full professorship to D.U.  Your [NFB Editor’s] investigation also confirmed that.  But both R. Zaman and you failed to mention that the offer came during the time most Razakars were holding the big position in Bangladesh.  Am I being right?

Dr. R. Zaman is a man with checkered past.  I think the truth should come out.  In order to know Dr. R. Zaman, we have to interview or get statement from people who knew him during 1965 through 1971.  We have to find out why was he sacked from D.U.?  Is it all that difficult?

I'm sorry to tell you [NFB Editor] that he didn't do anything to help the cause of Bangladesh at the most difficult time of our national crisis.  While Dr. Yunus, Dr. F.R. Khan, Dr. Aminul Islam, Dr. Zillur R. Khan (Brother of F.R.Khan) and many more East Pakistanis came out in public to condemn the brutal killing of Bengalis, our good friend Dr. R. Zaman, being a selfish man, never uttered a kind word favoring the independence of his motherland.  I don't think he was silent either.  We have to find some old-timer from NYC area to testify that.

Surprisingly, this guy is not remorseful till this date.  Now he started telling NFB readers that Jinnah was a great leader for our people.  And worse, he defended the position of Jinnah on "Lucknow Pact" which I believe was designed to sell short the interest of Bengal (particularly East Bengal).  Mr. Nibir K. Datta quite eloquently wrote about this issue.  Any smart individual can see in his [R. Zaman] writing that he is a still a Pakistan aficionado.

In summary, what looks like a duck, feels like a duck and quacks like a duck, is surely a duck.  Dr. R. Zaman has a checkered past.  All the testimonials of his previous favorite student (Dr. Hashmi) or sympathizer (Dr. Sayed Ahmed) cannot whitewash his past.  The truth is - he is a solid example of what a selfish individual who never favored independent Bangladesh .  We don't need to hear the views of this guy in NFB.  This is a suggestion from me.

To the editor of NFB: "Please allow me to write my remarks since you have allowed an instantaneous remark to be published in NFB from both Hashmi and Sayed Ahmed opposing the position Jamal Hasan took.  Of course, I want my remarks to go in the readers' column.  I want to write as an individual.  I hope, by this time I have earned this privilege."

This simple note is just to commend you for a rejoinder on today's Amitech regarding a commentary by Mr. Jamal Hasan which, I believe, helps maintain the integrity and full confidence of audience into Amitech.  However, I don't think that you should regret publishing Mr. Hasan's commentary.  All will agree with me that the episodes generated by the publication of the commentary brought to light the truths.  The commentary and subsequent rejoinder of yours and Dr. Rashiduzzaman underpin the importance of rewriting some books which claimed to have documented our war time histories.

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997

Bengali intellectual collaborators - remnants of a dark past November 20, 1997 by Jamal Hasan I was appalled at what Mr. Jamal Hasan wrote about Professor Rashiduzzaman.  The discussion concerning the events and circumstances leading to the independence of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh was unremarkable until Professor Rashiduzzaman entered the scene.  He elevated the debate to a high level of academic sophistication.  His style of writing and the depth and breadth of knowledge that he brought to bear on the subject earned him many admirers and attracted quality scholars to join the debate.  The readers like me were impressed and kept returning to the Amitech site for more.

If Mr. Jamal had nothing to offer in terms of new knowledge or insight on the topic, he should have stayed out of the debate.  Instead he engaged in totally uncalled for personal attacks on Dr. Rashiduzzaman.  Obviously, Mr. Hasan does not know Dr. Rashiduzzaman or what he was doing during the war of liberation.

Those of us who were organizing demonstrations throughout the East Coast against US policy, throwing blockades on ocean liners, and chasing every Pak sympathizer out of any public speaking forum can say unequivocally that Rashiduzzaman was never seen to participate in any anti-liberation activity.

I do not know Mr. Hasan or his credentials to engage in debates on history and political science, but if his tirade was based, as it seems it did, on a political document like Ekattorer Ghatak Dalalera Ke Kothai, I know now that he does not belong in the class of writers such as Rashiduzzaman, Taj Hashmi, Nibir Datta or Asghar Ali Engineer.  If Mr. Hasan finds himself out of depth in this debate, he should know better to stick to his shallow waters of political junk-writing than to try to tarnish the name of a leading political scientist like Professor Rashiduzzaman.

News From Bangladesh
November 28, 1997

I was deeply offended by the tone of the article that was posted on the Editorial section called "Talk on Science & Technology Nov 28.

The tone was similar to the language used by the colonist master when talking to the natives, it seems some of the editorial's are getting too preachy and condescending. What does this statement mean "Your leaders are liar.." Whose leaders?

Is the writer a non-Bangladeshi by referring to the readers as "you" "your" etc.  Most politicians lies, bend the truth and are demagogue worldwide so what's new.

As for the argument over "Dr. Rashidduzaman" role during BD'shes independence (my knowledge is based on the editorials) what exactly is he being accused of?  Is silence, not coming out openly for Bangladesh's independence a crime.

If this is the case most of our top civil servants, intellectuals and politicians can be accused of this similar discretion.  Known collaborator's, Razzakar's A1-Badar etc. were pardoned by Sheikh Mujib for murder and treason, so did Dr. Rashidduzaman commit a more heinous crime.  Golam Azam, Maulaha Mannan, Biswas were all vocal Pakistani supporter, some of them became President and some "the active opposition".  I am very much perplexed by this whole argument, the most Dr. Rashidduzaman can be accused of is that he harbors pro-Pakistani sentiment which by it self is not crime in BD or anywhere in the world.  If Dr. Rashidduzaman thinks that Bangladesh is a mistake and we were better of under Pakistan and is actively promoting the de-independence of BD than he should be exposed fully and people should take notice.

As for the argument of "Jinnah" Suhrawardy, Fazlul Haq, and even Sheikh Mujib considered Jinnah "Quaid -i-Azam" and their leader and owned him for there respective political career.  One thing I did learn from the editorials was the notion of "recursive history" trying to explain the past with the present, unfortunately I have read too many editorials based on this unscientific method.

I have always enjoyed your editorials but recently they have become personnel and silly.  In order to maintain a high standard a strong editorial board is necessary, to check for accuracy, English, and a clear and precise subject matter to comment on or to make critical argument.

News From Bangladesh
November 28, 1997

I had been reading the debate on Jinnah and like many other 'new generation' students liked to know our past.  You (Mr. Ullah) know as a learned person that you can twist any historical fact to suit your taste but that is not history.  Any lay man can write any thing about many of our great leaders with the support of numerous historical fact that can reduce their credibility as the leaders.

I believe that all the facts should be judged on the basis of context.  Dr. Rashid had been writing highly scholarly analysis on the subject.  Why do you want to stop him from expressing his views?  We the newer generation feel that enough damage has already been done to our nation by our habit of pulling each others legs.

I don't know either you or Dr. Rashid or Mr. Jamal but I believe that academic debate does not call for a type of criticism in which you are indulged in.  Dr. Rashid might have been silent during the days of our independence struggle, so did majority of the population.  That does not mean that they did not support the cause of Bangladesh.  By your standard of judgement majority of our population are 'Dalals'?  Your Letter to editor on the subject is not convincing.  Please try to be constructive rather than destructive.

News From Bangladesh
Friday, Nov 28, 1997

I was totally dismayed by the purging of Mr. Jamal Hasan's article of 20th November, 1997, "Bengali intellectual collaborators: remnants of a dark past".  I was also dismayed by the fact that Amitech editors came out with a rejoinder in defense of Dr. R. Zaman.

To me, the purging of Mr. Hasan's article is censorship.  He has every right to express his opinion.  From, what I remember from his article, he alluded to a published book in defense of his opinion.  To attack him, and purging his article, is a wrong thing to do, when that book, it's writer, publisher etc. are supposedly doing brisk business for close to a decade.  Anyhow, if Amitech decided to censor Mr. Hasan's article, it should purge or not publish any article or opinion related to Mr. Hasan's article.  There are now at least five/six rejoinders left in favor of or against that article.  It leaves a reader with reading something based on no foundation.  In this regard, I believe, the right thing to do for Amitech is to reinstate Mr. Hasan's article immediately.

I was surprised to find Amitech's apology also (24th Nov.).  As a reader, I clearly understood that the opinion expressed are of the writers' not of Amitechs'.   It will be a sad scenario, if there was any intimidation in this regard.  If there is a need, at all, to apologizes, it should come from any one of the concerned parties.

Having said all that, I clearly do not condone what is going on in this forum lately.  I had an idea that this forum will be used for building bridges to the next millennium keeping in light the overall development of Bangladesh.  Here, we are solidly stuck at the middle of 20th century, debating, of all, M. A. Jinnah's sherwani?  Ever wonder, the reasons behind our dire poverty! The Western European philosopher was right when he brought up the debate of the poverty of philosophy leading to philosophy of poverty (twist).

Amitech, I hope, need not deviate from taking open-minded approach to this forum.

News From Bangladesh
November 28, 1997

On today's News from Bangladesh (November 27) I saw two entries in Readers' Opinion column both joining the recent debate about Dr. Rashiduzzaman's activities during our struggle in 1971.  So I got the impression that the issue of whether Dr. Rashiduzzaman is an individual with a checkered past is very much alive in the minds of some readers.

It is my opinion that Dr. Rashiduzzaman ought to come in the foreground telling us all why he should not be considered a Pakistani Dalal or a learned person who never favored independent Bangladesh in 1971.  I find his self-assertion that he neither favored nor opposed Bangladesh movement a little hard to swallow.  I was also in the US throughout the period of 1971.  (Dr. Rashiduzzaman claimed that he was in the US during the crisis in 1971.  Can he be more specific about the dates?).  Thus, I can shed some information about the persons who joined us in our struggle for independence and who never came forward to offer their helping hands.  Dr. Rashiduzzaman never came out and utter harsh words about the Pakistani military who were out to destroy the would be emerging Bangladesh.  Did he ever come out in public and say kind words about our freedom fighters or criticizes Pakistani government for unleashing a reign of terrors during the entire nine months?  The answer, I hate to say, is a negative one.

I vividly remember that a small number of Bengalis (from occupied East Pakistan) harbor the distorted view that all this hullabaloo about Bengali nationhood will be trampled by mighty Pakistani army in due course. So these naysayers never did join the movement for Bangladesh and they used to hurl occasional insults at us all favoring an independent Bangladesh.  I personally do not know whether Dr. Rashiduzzaman went that far, but I know that he was no friend of Bangladesh movement.

Where was Dr. Rashiduzzaman on June 12, 1971?  This date was very important to all of us the then East Pakistanis residing in the eastern seaboard of North America.  We drove and hitchhiked to New York City from thousand miles around to attend the protest demonstration in front of Dag Hammarskjold Plaza outside the UN headquarters.  This is the demonstration where even Pakistani intellectuals as Feroz Ahmed and Eqbal Ahmed attended to voice their concern over Pakistani atrocities against Bengalis in the eastern wing. Dr. Rashiduzzaman was only few miles north of the plaza.  Did he ever come down to join his countrymen? Nope!  I don't think he ever did.  I will apologize publicly to Dr. Rashiduzzaman if I am proven wrong.

I was often told by our teachers that a person should be judged by his or her actions, not by his words. Because, too often the actions speak louder than the words.  Dr. Rashiduzzaman opted not to join the struggle for our homeland.  That decision -- not to join the movement -- is in itself an action.  Let me now compare Dr. Rashiduzzaman with two other persons from our homeland who happened to be in the States during 1971.  They are Professor M. Yunus and late Dr. F.R. Khan.  These two gentlemen need no introduction from anyone else or me.  How come they joined the movement while Dr. Rashiduzzaman stayed in the sideline?  Drs. Yunus and Khan rationalized the brutal killings of Bengalis by the Pakistani army an act so vile that they opined an independent Bangladesh is the only solution to the problem.  They wholeheartedly joined the liberation movement.  By doing so they, like all of us favoring an independent Bangladesh, risked their lives along with the lives of their dear one in occupied East Pakistan.  This was a courageous act on their part.  Side by side, though, we had people like Dr. Rashiduzzaman who for ideological or whatever reasons of their own, never publicly supported our struggle for independence.  And now after 26-long years Dr. Rashiduzzaman changed his color, like a chameleon, and too eager to join in the pre-partition debate in this forum.  He probably thought he is going to get away with his checkered past and start a whole new identity in this new-age medium.  How wrong was his assumption!

The other surprising revelation is Dr. Rashiduzzaman never knew the name of the book that enlisted him as a collaborator during the crisis period.  He referred the book as "Ekatturer Dinguli" written by Mrs. Jahanara Imam.  Was he nonchalant when his name appeared in the other book entitled "Ekatturer Ghatak Dalalera Ke Kothai?"  He should have protested vigorously to the publisher of this book (Mukti Juddho Chetona Bikash Kendro) to get his name off the list.  Did he act quickly to restore his good name?  If he was silent all this time - what does that signal?  Silence often symbolizes acknowledgment of the guilt.  Isn't that so?

The other contentious issue centering Dr. Rashiduzaman was his dismissal from the Dacca University in 1973.  Did he take any actions against the University Syndicate? Didn't the university do a grave injustice to him?  Again, he never mentioned in his recent protest note whether he took any legal action to restore his good name.  However, to confuse us he mentions that he was offered the full professorship to Dacca University in 1977.  Was it an offer for new appointment or reinstatement to the old position?  If my thinking is correct, Dr. Rashiduzzaman should have received all the back pay and some additional money if the authority would have admitted their guilt and reinstate him to his former position.  The other factor we have to take into consideration is that during 1975 through 1981 we have witnessed resurrection of many Razakars and Pakistani Dalals to high position by General Zia's administration.  Ironically, by admitting the fact that he was offered the position full professorship at DU in 1977, Dr. Rashiduzzaman is casting a doubt on his own character.

The last insult Dr. Rashiduzzaman hurled at us all by saying that he became a victim of a ultra-nationalist fervor "in the dark days of early Bangladesh when Bangalee nationalism took a xenophobic and fascistic turn."  It does not come as a great surprise to me that he characterized our struggle to free the country --when an estimated three-million people gave their life - as merely a ultra-nationalist fervor.  Through his recent writing in this electronic forum he depicted himself, after all these years, to be an arch anti-Bangladesh person.  As usual, he does not find the Lucknow Pact unsavory to his taste and he considers Jinnah - well, you know what!  Does it surprise anyone where his allegiance lies when it comes to Bangladesh and Pakistan?

May I suggest to Dr. Rashiduzzaman that rather than saber rattling his weak case, he should come forward and admit once and for all that it was a blunder on his part to be a nonchalant person when his brothers and sisters were butchered by the army of Yahia-Niazi-Tikka.  He is now making another mistake by not admitting the original blunder.  And I simply wonder, why?

November 29, 1997

The Board of Editors of News From Bangladesh of Global Amitech has published, on 24 November,1997, an unprecedented Rejoinder.

Unprecedented in the sense that since I have been following the News From Bangladesh, no such rejoinder ever appeared.  What prompted the Board of Editors to come  up  with the apology has been a commentary by one Mr. Jamal Hasan posted in News  From Bangladesh's 20 November, 1997 edition.  In the commentary, according to the Board of Editors, Mr. Hasan "indirectly accuses Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman for collaborating with the Pakistan regime during the 1971-liberation war of Bangladesh."

Prior to the Board of Editors' Rejoinder, Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman, in a separate and strongly-worded rejoinder, published on 23 November, 1997 edition, categorically denied that in 1971, he did not speak anything against Bangladesh, did not write anything in support of Pakistan, never represented Pakistan to any forums, and did not lobby for Pakistan with any one.  He demanded  "an unconditional apology from Jamal Hasan through the Amitech Internet News, and immediate withdrawal of his (Mr. Jamal Hasan's) vicious campaign".

An interesting point is, the aggrieved person, so to say, Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman's did not raise any question why such a commentary appeared in Amitech, nor did he ask any apology from its Editors.  I have, thus to presume that the said apology was made by the Editors own volition, after, what they described as "some  misunderstanding within the editorial board" and conclusion of News From Bangladesh's "own investigation into the matter".

This brings me to the question of the role of Board of Editors of an on-line daily news site.  I have since believed that News From Bangladesh is not a newspaper as is commonly understood.  It is also not an Internet Edition of a daily newspaper, like the Daily Star, for example, where, editorials are either written  by the editors themselves or in their names.  The Editors of such newspapers are liable for the consequences, in law, for publishing materials.  As written by or in their name, the Editors are obviously careful about the contents, though, irresponsible editorials are not un-common in Bangladesh.

On-line news sites, on the other hand, are totally  different kettle of fish.  As a new media, and by nature, it is more accessible and free from traditional strings.  The Board of Editors of News From Bangladesh, introduced a new convention, allowing write-ups of the general readers to be posted as "editorials", where they exercised, so far, no or very  little control over the content, quality or the language, enabling publications of numerous superb pieces of work, along with, not unexpectedly, declarations from a reader in "Readers' Opinion" that if he had a chance he would have killed all the  three bastards like Khaleda Zia, Hasina and Ershad.  Very recently, one of News From Bangladesh's editorial member was personally addressed by presumably a gentleman named Mr. Mohammad Rahman, Dayton, Ohio, and I quote, "Hello Dr. Ullah: What bullshit are you trying to write against Mr. Jinnah ?... " (23 November, 1997, News  From Bangladesh).  Such indecent materials appeared only because the Editors followed the usual hand-off
approach.

With this Rejoinder, however, and acknowledgement that "some damage to his reputation" has been caused because  of  one commentary and public apology, the Board of Editors  have, I believe, abandoned this approach in favour of an interventionist one.  Now, they cannot but investigate, the veracity of  the contents of every article and  put on-line after satisfaction.  I for one, will have no problem, if the editors can maintain this policy without discrimination.

Still, I reckon, the best approach would be for the Editors to allow News From Bangladesh to be utilised as a "forum of  many opinions", contributors to argue and fend for themselves, and let the readers  make-up their own mind about the facts involved and also about the writers, without any  input  from the Editors.  I think, the role of Editors of on-line news sites should be more of facilitators than conventional editors.

That said, as I re-read Mr. Hasan's said commentary, "Bengali intellectual collaborators: remnants of a dark past", my impression was, Mr. Hasan rather directly questioned Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman's role in 1971, not "indirectly", as the Editors maintained.  Mr. Hasan relied solely on the information contained in the publication Ekatturer Ghatok Dalalera Ke Kothai published by Muktijuddhu Chetona Bikash Kendro and expanded on the theme and formulated his question.

When I read Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman's piece, perhaps his first contribution in News From Bangladesh, similar thoughts cropped up in my mind too.  But as I read Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman's Rejoinder and his denial, I still have some difficulties in appreciating his innocence.

Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman in his Rejoinder has not refuted the fact that he was dismissed from the University of Dhaka pursuant to a Dhaka University Syndicate decision on 1 October,1973.  He maintains that he was an "innocent victim(s) at the hands of personal vendetta, professional jealousies, university politics, unverified accusation", which is quite possible.  My question is, what has he done about it?  My elementary knowledge of law tells me that "dismissal" is a punishment, which cannot be taken unless appropriate procedures are followed, like, show-cause notice and opportunity to reply.  Dhaka University being a legal person, had to follow this norm.  If they did not, Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman had rights to enforce his "fundamental right" through the High Court.  Form his Rejoinder, I am guessing Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman either has not challenged his unfair dismissal or even if he had, he lost.  In either situation, the conclusions cannot go in his favour.

Secondly, the publication Ekatturer Ghatok Dalalera Ke Kothai, which is essentially Who's Who of 1971 Collaborators, was first published in June, 1987 by the Muktijuddho Chetona Bikash Kendro.  In it, pages 188 to 190, contain the names  of the Dhaka University teachers and others who were given "forced leave" on grounds of "collaboration".

Dr. Rashiduzzaman's name appears at 11 (Gha) (2) with double asterisk mark to explain at page 190 that he was expelled from Dhaka University and the source being, 3 October, 1973 edition of Dainik Bangla.

It  is inconceivable that Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman was not aware  of this publication back in 1987 or even later.  The publication  was  an instant best seller and in that year alone, ten thousand copies were sold.  I am assuming that Dr. Rashiduzzaman is an innocent person, but the question is, did he take any legal action, as he intend to seek redress against Mr. Jamal Hasan, against the author and publisher Muktijuddho Chetona Bikash Kendro of 31 E, Topkhana, Dhaka -2 ,for, firstly, to struck off his name from the list of the collaborators and then demand adequate compensation?  And if so, did he win.  Here too, if he has not gone for protecting his good-name in the court of law or if he lost in such a proceeding, again, adverse conclusions will inevitable be drawn.  To a person, his reputation and honour is the most expensive asset and for a man like Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman, I have no reason to think that he will not defend forcefully.  Moreover, the periods of 1980-90 were very congenial, politically speaking, to take such rightful legal actions.

If  Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman either did not take recourse to clear his good name and if he is still listed as a "collaborator", I hardly find it surprising if anyone picks up the clue and writes an essay.  However, I am aware that re-quoting of a defamatory material could be a defamation in itself.  Nevertheless, Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman should have concentrated his attention more at Dhaka University and at Muktijuddho Chetona Bikash Kendra than to the Commentator.

In his Rejoinder, Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman put forward, in his defence, some other statements, which really did not help him much.  First of all, he mixed up the publication "Ekatturer Ghatok Dalalera Ke Kothai" with Mrs. Jahanara Imam's memoir, "Ekattorer Dinguli".  He mentions that it contained his name who lost job and others were denied citizenship but lists no "proven charges".  True, the publication was simply a compilation, mainly from the newspapers and other documents and never intended to be detail document.  As an avid observer of Bangladesh politics, he knows very well that in Bangladesh, collaboration has rarely been proved in legal  sense, since very few prosecution took place.

He then went on to say that he had a Bangladeshi passport since 1972.   I think, Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman, more than anyone else, is familiar with the fact that citizenship has nothing to do with collaboration.  In Bangladesh, government revoked citizenship of few individuals quite illegally, which was addressed in Golam Azam's case.  The restoration of  Golam Azam's citizenship had no bearing on his alleged activities in 1971.  In Europe, for example, stripping of civil rights and citizenship of the Nazi collaborators were awarded by the courts and formed a part of punishment.

Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman's claim endorsed by the Editors that Dhaka University invited him back in 1977 as a full Professor does not answer the question.  If he was illegally dismissed from his job, as he claims, the High Court certainly would have ordered his re-instatement.  The  fact that in 1977 the University offered Professorship might be interpreted by some as a part of rehabilitation phenomenon seen since 1975, when, the  country  witnessed, many acknowledged collaborators were given high official positions.  And just because some alleged collaborators hold "high positions" like Minister, Prime Minister and President, did not absolve them of their past activities.  One example may be mentioned here.

Mr. Abdur Rahman Biswas after becoming President was widely accused of being one collaborator.  He then said, as a President, his  hands  are tight to take legal actions for defamation but, citizen Mr. Biswas, a noted lawyer himself, has yet to initiate any proceedings to protect his name after many months of leaving his office.  I guess, Mr. Biswas knows, the problem of a defamation suit is "truth".  If there is a iota of truth in the allegation, the case is sure to crumble.

In the rejoinder, Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman mentioned about his academic contributions in terms of number of books and articles, etc.  I am sure no one doubts his caliber or intellectual ability or "depth and breath of knowledge"as a reader put it (27 November, 1997, News From Bangladesh).

But again, the issue is not his "superb intellect" but his good name, which has been questioned, and, I am sure, not for the first time.  Once named in 'Ekatturer Ghatok Dalalera Ke Kothai' and considering its wide circulation he is almost an icon of betrayals and treachery in the eyes of many.  Hence, it is high time to clear his name once for all.  There are many examples where, even the descendents have written books or gone to the court to clear their predecessors names, which Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman can do it himself and end the process started by Mr. Jamal Hasan.

Finally, while refuting the comments of Mr. Jamal Hasan, which he is very much entitled to do, Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman also  has taken a snipe, as I see it, at the whole  nation, when he writes about "the dark days of early Bangladesh, when Bangalee nationalism took a xenophobic and fascistic turn".  I was numbed and felt insulted to his characterisation of early days of Bangladesh, which  just suffered the second highest casualties next to holocaust.  If this is his description of Bangladesh in the guise of "intellectual freedom", he should not least be surprised why, despite all his denials, some people consider him a collaborator.

The problem is now with the Board of Editors of News From Bangladesh.  If a Commentators remarks for alleged damage to reputation of an individual receives two apologies, what happens when the entire nation is slandered ?

November 29, 1997

Mr. Jamal Hasan's article in NFB (19th November) on collaborators, in general, and on Dr. Rashiduzzaman, in particular, has led to quite a few editorials and Readers' Opinion articles.  Unfortunately, they seem to be generating more heat than light.  I feel that it would be more Productive to initiate a discussion on the Original Sin, if only we can identify it.

No one seems to be disputing what happened on 1st October, 1973.  The Dhaka University Syndicate expelled Dr. Rashiduzzaman from the university.  The original sin was either Dr. Rashiduzzaman's or the Dhaka University Syndicate's.  But no one has written enough to allow the readers to come to an informed judgement.

What exactly were the charges that led the university to take this extreme step against a senior faculty member?  Did somebody, fueled by personal and/or professional jealousies, conspire to falsely implicate Dr. Rashiduzzaman?  Was the Syndicate guilty of a gross miscarriage of justice on 1st of October, 1973?   Or is Dr. Rashiduzzaman blaming others merely to cover his own sin?  Most readers would like to come to an informed conclusion.

The debate hasn't been entirely unproductive.  I can cite at least two positive developments.  The first is Dr. Rashiduzzaman's promise to write a full length article on the issue some time in the future.  The second is AMITECH's own investigation.  These two will go a long way for us to conclude whether the original sin was Dr. Rashiduzzaman's or the University Syndicate's.

I can understand Dr. Rashiduzzamn's indignation and anguish if he has been indeed slandered by Mr. Jamal Hasan.  But Jamal Hasan's sin is miniscule compared to the original sin.  Dr. Rashiduzzaman was sinned against and slandered many times over on 1st October of 1973 at the Dhaka University Syndicate.  Subsequently he was wronged by the newspapers which reported the expulsion.  He was further wronged by the brisk selling "Ekattorer Ghatok Dalalera Ke Kothai," which was first published in 1987.  Jamal Hasan has merely picked up on these threads in 1997 to add to Dr. Rashiduzzaman's torment.

There is a silver lining to every cloud.  Difficult as it is, Dr. Rashiduzzaman should try to get over his anguish over the Jamal Hasan article and make the best of it.  He should see it as an opportunity to clear his name finally and conclusively.  Once that happens, no one will ever again snigger behind his back.  Jamal Hasan has actually done Dr. Rashiduzzaman a big favor, though perhaps unwittingly, by bringing into the open a possible gross miscarriage of justice dating way back to 1973.

Finally, I must emphasize that it is not enough to clear Dr. Rashiduzzaman's name.  AMITECH should not conclude its investigation till it pinpoints the persons who were responsible in 1973 for Dr. Rashiduzzaman's ordeal, an ordeal which continues to haunt him to this day.

* This article was submitted to News From Bangladesh.  Nevertheless, it wasn’t published by the editor of Internet news daily.

News From Bangladesh
November 30, 1997

Recently, an unhealthy and unnecessary debate is going on News From Bangladesh trying to portraying Dr. Rashiduzzaman as a collaborator.

However the major reference book is "Ekatturer Ghatak Dalalera Ke Kothai?" (publisher= Muktijuddho Chetona Bikash Kendro).  I had the opportunity to read this book and just wonder how the so called Drs and academicians accept this book as a reference for debate.  This book contains the name of the publisher without any address and most of the information are given with clear-cut political motivation and without any reference.

In a letter "Unmasking of a nonchalant professor" [NFB, 29 Nov.], Mr. J. Ullah claimed that Dr. Rashiduzzaman ought to come in the foreground telling us all why he should not be considered a Pakistani Dalal or a learned person who never favored independent Bangladesh in 1971.  Nothing can be funnier than this.  Cannot the other ask why Mr. Ullah will be considered a patriot?  Everybody knows 194 Pakistani soldiers were identified as war criminals and Sheikh Mujib let them return to Pakistan safely.  Should we call Sheikh Mujib a collaborator or a war criminal?  Why did Sheikh Mujib not try the killer of the intellectuals? What was his weakness?

It's easy to debate on 1971 but we should understand the facts too. For the arguments on other side one may read "kalo pnochiser age o pore", by Abul Asad.  AL leadership was definitely not prudent enough to launch the freedom struggle from a united platform of all political parties which is the usual case of any freedom movement.  This is the main reason of today's chaos on dalal and razakar issue.  They know their fault and even do not hesitate to seek the collaborators' collaboration when they are in need of it (at least for doa before election).

Instead of hunting dalals, I would like to remind everybody including me to judge ourselves first; why should I be called a patriot?   What is my contribution to the nation?

News From Bangladesh

November 30, 1997

Readers’ Opinion

I have been noticing with great interest the free and open discussions that are made available to your electronic newspaper published from Dhaka and containing contributions from scholars from many different scholars.  This is very positive and will nurture free and rational thinking among its readers.  It is needless to say that not everyone will agree with every piece of article.  Neither do I.  What I appreciate most is the opening of a forum which allows discussions of all shades of thoughts -fundamentalist, secular, atheist, leftist, pro and anti Indian/Pakistani etc. etc.  This process enriches a society to a level where every honest person can live comfortably.  I hope that this kind of spirit will continue which other publications from South Asia will follow.

On one issue which agitated many of your readers and its editor in chief as well is the characterization of Dr. Rashiduzzaman for his contribution on the role of various political figures during the partition of the country.  I am distressed at the vehemence at which the contributor was attacked by another historian.  I vividly remember the days since the roar of the lion from the Dhaka meeting "e sangram swadhinater sangram .... amader dabaye rakhter parba na. .... ".  I am sure lots of well meaning people were concerned about the fate of a separate Bengal nation.  The concerns were multifold.  Prime concern was that Bangladesh will degenerate into a secular state influenced by kafirs - internal and external.  The second was that if Pakistan is divided it will change the balance of force dramatically in favor of Hindu dominated India. Then there were the certain extermination of non-Bengali Muslims (known as Biharis or Mojahirs).  It is noteworthy that outside Dhaka, even people coming from different parts of Bengal and Assam (who had very good Calcutta accent) were called Biharis and for all practical purposes treated as such.  No one ever addressed the fate of those people (and the handful of Ismailis and Ahamedyas who were doing good business in Dhaka and Chittagong).  Right or wrong, these thoughts drove many honest Bengali Muslims to resist the disintegration of Pakistan.  Many Biharis became victims of communalism and had apprehensions which proved not entirely false.  Thus there were reasonable grounds for dissenting with the freedom movement and took political stand on the issue which put them in the same camp as Yahya Khan and Monem Khan.  Taking guns and mercilessly killing innocent people is a different matter.  No one will support that kind of thing.  Even today, chroniclers of Pakistan admit the guilt for the crimes carried out by their military.  This is admirable.  But what is lamentable is the witch hunting that is being carried out by some circles.  They do not have any political labels.

Bringing the miscreants to justice is one thing.  But trying to counter fascism by fascist means will be even counter productive.  What is needed at this hour in Bangladesh is moving on and forget and forgive from all quarters, fifty years have gone since partition and 25 years since emergence of the new nation.  Publication and frequent reference of the book like "Ekattorer Dingulir Ghatokera ke kothai" etc., do not do any good for any one.  Imagine if some one in Calcutta had published a book titled  "Desh jara Bhanglo Korlo Tara aajo Eai Sahare Sukhe Aache" or someone in Karachi publishes a book titled "Maghrabi Pakistaniia Bangali Quatiloko Sakal Pehachan Lo" will these help in healing the wounds.

Historians know it better than anyone else that events do compel people to take certain stands on issues for which they regret later or even distance from similar activities later.  Many reputable Western historians have blamed Mr. Jinnah for the massacre of innocent people in Calcutta and following events in Bihar and districts of Bengal.  Percival Spear blames him in every book he wrote on the matter.  Among the liberal circles of Calcutta, most people believe that Mr. Jinnah was a skeptic just like Mr. Nehru.  But his agenda was to liberate and protect the Muslims of India.  Barring the Muslims of South India, most Muslims saw him as a liberator and helped in the formation of the Muslim State.  Those in Dhaka who blame others being pro-Mr. Jinnah, may find in their attic portraits of not only Mr. Jinnah, but also Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan and other Muslim League leaders with Indian roots.  So why single out Dr. Rashid and that too without any strong ground.

Why not spare him and devote on the unfinished work that need to be done at this hour.  Some of the urgent tasks are: Let the political forces work together, shrug off the Indian Juju.  Historically, Delhi tried to govern as far as it could regardless who is in the throne.  I do not believe, the rulers of India are as bad as it were seven hundred years, five hundred years, three hundred years, one hundred years or even fifty years ago.

Regarding how the minorities are treated in India, the minority leaders will tell you about this.  I personally feel that millions (not all) of Muslims suffered in the hands of thugs of Bhiwandi, Bombay, Delhi and many other places since 1947.  My fullest sympathy is with the victims.  I also request my Bangladesh friends to be little more generous towards the "Biharis" of Jahangir Nagar and other camps where they are languishing to be repatriated to places like Karachi in Pakistan or Hyderabad or Lahore.  My question is who grabbed the properties of the erstwhile industrious Biharis (including Ismailis and Ahamedyas)?  If Mr. Altaf Hussain of MQM is right, their prospect may not be rosy there either.  That leaves the last option for consideration: Why not welcome the Biharis back to Bihar?  I have no problem with that.  After all, as the poet Shamsur Rahman wrote in his "Panthajan," "Manab Shantan Ami, Eai Mor Padchoy."  Shamsur Rahman is my kind of poet, a true Bengali and humanist

News From Bangladesh
December 1, 1997

Mr. Jamal Hassan's recent personal attack on Professor Rashiduzzaman has created a bad feeling among the readers of Amitech's News from Bangladesh. I do not know Professor Rashiduzzman or Mr. Jamal Hassan as a person. However, I am familiar with Professor Rashiduzzaman's professional work and read his writing with interest. He is one of Bangladesh's reputed political scientists and his views on historical events and/or historical figures should be treated with due respect. The reason is that academic writing goes through a peer reviewing process which is designed to remove any unsubstantiated claims or statements. So when an academic reaches to a professorial position, then he/she does not indulge in any hyperbole in defending anything in any forum which cannot be substantiated. This is a question of academic integrity and honesty. This is one reason why most academics by training and temperament are cool in their expression and cautious in making statements. After all, they can see both sides of any coin. But at the same time they are courageous in the sense that they analyse or comment on subjects/issues which may not be in vogue or can go against the popular perception. In general, we learn from those people who tell us the other side of the story. We should be fortunate to find people like Professor Rashiduzzaman as a contributor to the debate on historical/political issues in Bangladesh. Academics like him should not be intimidated by attacking personally in an indecent way. Most academics are not accustomed to mud-slinging or are not adept in the language of street politics. Given the rejoinder from Professor Rashiduzzaman, Dr. Taj Hashmi and the Amitech's regret (or diplomatic apology!), Mr. Jamal Hassan should formally apologize to Professor Rashiduzzaman, at least for the sake of decency. This will ensure that a gentlemanly precedence is created and the integrity of the Amitech is maintained.

This sad incidence has exposed the weaknesses of the Amitech. It cannot afford to publish political stories without a reviewing process by its editorial board. I suggest that the Amitech re-constitute its editorial board by including people who have "proven professional knowledge" in Bangladesh's history, culture, politics, and economics. A referring panel should also be constituted to review all editorials/commentaries, including those submitted by the editorial board members. This may also save the Amitech from unwarranted embarrassment and/or legal complications.

News From Bangladesh
December 3, 1997

Commentary

The publication of, "Bengali Intellectual Collaborator: the Remnant of a Dark Past" has proved to be the catalyst for plenty of fireworks on Amitech's News from Bangladesh.  In the process, readers are engaging in a lively debate on the right of individuals to free speech that includes the right to point out well known "secrets" from the nation's dark past.

I strongly feel that I am at least as entitled to quote from the public records about an intellectual from my land of birth as I am entitled to quote from the public records on, say, the American poet Ezra Pound or the British writer P.G. Wodehouse.  In fact, the issue is much larger than any particular intellectual collaborator. Louise Malle's "The Sorrow and the Pity" had touched on the wider issue in a different context.  France of the 1990s, after decades of ambivalence, has now become quite accustomed to pointing fingers at alleged collaborators in Vichy France.

Allow me to acquaint the readers with the sequence of events that led to my article and the subsequent debate.  It must be quite an unique event in the annals of web journal that Jinnah's sherwani had ignited an intense political debate on NFB.  M.A. Jinnah is not really in the realm of my research interest.

Nevertheless, I contributed a short letter to the editor and a somewhat longer essay.  And then it happened!

The name of a contributor to the debate sounded familiar.  It brought on flashbacks in my psyche.  It led me inexorably to writing about publicly recorded allegations against the contributor dating back to Ekattorer Dinguli when the nation was being bled to death by the genocidal campaign of the Pakistani Army.  Contrary to the insinuations of the Professor's supporters, my article had absolutely nothing to do with the Jinnah debate.  I would have written the very same essay even if his article had been a "scholarly" written Mujib Bandana.

Collaborators inevitably become outcasts once the masters, they serve, become discredited.  However, it is not unprecedented for these outcasts to be rehabilitated once they repent for their mistakes.  Bangladesh, unfortunately, has followed a different path because of the grave mistakes of her political leadership.  To Bangladesh belongs the dubious distinction of "rehabilitating" a collaborator even to the Presidency of the country.

It is as false as it is unfair to claim that I had painted the Professor as a Razakar because I found myself incapable of refuting his "scholarly" arguments.  My research interest has always centered around our heroic Liberation Struggle during Ekattorer Dinguli.  For more than a decade in USA I have been writing in ethnic papers in America (including Pakistani papers) about the glory days of our struggle for national emancipation.  Our sacrifices during that struggle remain unparalleled in the history of South Asia.  The Ekattorer Dinguli had affected practically every Bengali family in Bangladesh.  No other people in the subcontinent had to pay such a high price to wrest their birth rights from the oppressors.  The freedom loving people of occupied Bangladesh in 1971 have collectively been my greatest hero.  No other leader from the subcontinent, not even Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, can rival the immense sacrifices made by many a citizen of Bangladesh.  From this perspective, M.A. Jinnah is only of minuscule importance in my world view.

The Professor's supporters have claimed spuriously that my article on intellectual collaborators was a below-the-belt blow.  According to them, I had resorted to this lowly attack because I was frustrated by his "scholarly" arguments.  Allow me to recapitulate.  On the 8th November my piece on pre-partition Bengal Muslims was published side by side with the said individual's article.  As far as I can recall, this was his first essay in NFB on pre-partition history, in general, and on Jinnah, in particular.  So I had never had any occasion to debate him on the topic.  My next article, published on 20th November (it has now been purged!) was on Bengali intellectual collaborators.  It sought answers from the professor for his alleged complicity.

I have never shirked away from an honest debate.  I have been writing on our Liberation Struggle in the media and in different fora.  In the process, I have debated people from all parts of the subcontinent including Indians and even retired Army Officers from Pakistan.

I have always enjoyed these debates, especially in the last 14 years in America.  I respect scholarly debates that throw light on topics of interest.

In fact, I readily admit that the professor's article on pre-partition history was restrained rather than vicious. I regret that I have not been able to debate him on that topic till now because I must first address the issues raised by my article on collaborators.

I have always wanted NFB to be a forum in which diverse opinions are presented and debated without any censorship.  In fact, to acquaint NFB readers with the views of a cross section of Pakistanis, I successfully lobbied the NFB editors very recently to get two very interesting articles by Pakistani writers published. Needless to say, the two articles drew quite a fusillade from the Bangladeshi readers.  I strongly believe that with these articles NFB has established a healthy tradition of presenting the readers with the Pakistani viewpoint even if it is not palatable to the average Bangladeshi reader.

The feedback I received from an editor of NFB after I had e-mailed the article on intellectual collaborators to NFB, convinced me that it has been rejected for publication.  I respected the editor's right to reject my article.  But, needless to say, I felt disappointed as any writer would.  At this point, I decided to give the article some exposure by floating it in the cyberspace through a known channel.  This drew the Professor's attention within a few hours.   In fact, the Professor approached me through a third party to find out if I had posted it in any newsgroup so that he could post a rebuttal.  He also wanted to find out if I had used any mailing list to circulate the article.

Next day, to my greatest surprise, I found that NFB had published the article in its entirety without any editing.  I was elated.  At the same time, I was relieved to realize that NFB would at last provide a forum to the Professor to "face the nation."

I find it difficult to believe that the Professor was unaware of a best-selling WHO'S WHO OF KILLERS and COLLABORATORS published in Bangladesh.

Nevertheless, I shall give him the benefit of the doubt.  This is a great opportunity for the Professor to clear his name once and for all.  In fact, I have already conveyed to him this view through one of his acquaintances.

Known collaborators seldom escape retribution in the aftermath of a bloody struggle for freedom.  Many an Israeli collaborator in PLO administered territory has been known to be executed.  But in Bangladesh, very few have actually been prosecuted for collaboration with the Pak Army.

Radovan Karadzic's Pakistani counterpart in occupied Bangladesh was General Rao Farman Ali Khan (the most intellectual of the lot).  His Bengali associates will be remembered for ever with indignity and anger. When we retell the days of the marauding Pak general to our younger generation, we cannot possibly omit the names of Dr. Syed Sajjad Hussain and Dr. Mohar Ali as the object of our scorn.  Pakistan's Karadzic could not have hoped to reduce our educational institutions to Pakistan's outposts in Bangladesh without the help of collaborators like Sajjad Hussain and Mohar Ali.

Every alleged collaborator has the right to continue to express his opinions and viewpoints.  But, then, every conscientious individual has the right to confront the alleged collaborator with his/her for misdeeds.  We can easily imagine that all hell will break loose if an Israeli collaborator were to write on his point of view in a Palestinian publication.

It is quite heartening to see that young Bengalis in USA are networking with Nobel Laureates, US Senators, Congressmen, academicians and policy makers to disseminate the facts about our ordeal of 1971, the Bangladesh genocide.  It makes me happy to see a young Bengali reporter of the New York Times getting front page coverage for her story on Bengali students fasting in New York during the month of Ramadhan.

UK's Channel Four's story on Bengali killer-collaborators was a big sensation both at home and abroad.  One of the featured criminals, Chowdhury Moinuddin was cited in the book, "Ekatturer Dalalera Ke Kothai".  He has been directly accused of the murder of a number of Bangladeshi intellectuals.  The criminals were directly confronted by cameramen in the heart of London.  The Channel Four TV coverage titled "The War Crimes File" has been viewed by millions in Europe.

And now the tapes of "The War Crimes File" are being sold in cities like New York, Miami and Los Angeles.

Even today, more than half a century after the fall of Berlin, investigative journalists of ABC's PRIME TIME LIVE, 20/20 and CBS's 60 MINUTES go to great lengths to interview alleged Nazi collaborators even in far off countries like Argentina, Austria and Canada.

Louise Malle's "Sorrow and Pity" depicted the story of Nazi sympathizers of France.  Men do behave unpredictably under threat and duress.  I can forgive the person who had collaborated at gun point in occupied Bangladesh.  But it is much harder to understand, let alone to forgive, the Bengali who collaborated of his own free will even as he lived in the safety of democratic America.

The deliberate killing of educated Bengalis started on the 25th March, 1971 and went on till December of the same year.  We are lucky that Dr. Muhammad Yunus was not in Bangladesh in 1971.  Bangladesh's biggest pride, the GRAMEEN BANK concept, would not have been a household name world wide if Dr. Yunus was unfortunate enough to have been a resident of the Dacca University Teachers Quarter on that fateful night of March 25, 1971.  And even if he had escaped the killings of 25th March, he might very well have been murdered on the orders of the notorious Al-Badr high command during the weeks before liberation. Tikka, Rao Farman Ali and their associates would never have let Dr. Fazlur Rahman Khan live if he were stranded in occupied Bangladesh.  Thank God, he wasn't and now we can proudly point at the Sears Towers in Chicago as the creation of a Bengali engineer.

In USA, people with a tainted past try their best to clear their names if they are indeed innocent.  Sometimes, even the descendants of people who were once wrongly accused and even convicted, take upon themselves the burden of restoring the honor of the alleged wrongdoers.  Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were hanged in USA for alleged espionage.  Now their sons have undertaken the arduous task of clearing their parents' names.  Even the great grandchildren of Abraham Lincoln's alleged assassin are trying to clear the name of their forefather.

I would be the happiest man on earth if the professor, after all this notoriety, turns out to be clean.  This will let me like him and respect him as a scholar with integrity.  After all, the names in that Directory cause too much pain, too much pain .....

Mr. Jamal Hasan writes from Florida, USA. His email is: jhasan@acc.fau.edu

News From Bangladesh

January 10, 1998

Readers’ Opinion

Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998

Though I do not want to ignite another round of fireworks on Dr. Rashiduzzaman's role in 1971, I take exception to Dr. Jaffor Ullah's calling Dr. Rashiduzzaman 'a self-proclaimed intellectual from the great nation of East Pakistan' (NFB editorial on December 31, 1997).  It seems that Dr. Jaffor Ullah did not learn his lesson from all the debates in the NFB.  Instead of apologizing to Dr. Zaman, for the unfounded allegations against him, as many readers have suggested, Dr. Ullah has branded him again in a most unprofessional way, which one should not expect from an intellectual of Dr. Ullah's stature and from an editor of NFB.   Dr. Ullah, Mr. Hasan or others could not provide any substantive evidence in support of Dr. Zaman's so-called collaborative role.  I also take exception to his calling those who did not agree with his views on the 'Jinnah debate' or 'the national anthem', 'Pakiphiles' whose visions are tainted with Pakistani fervor' (editorial on January 6, 1998).  This is another example of his deliberate attempt to stifle an objective exploration of our history of the sub-continent.  If you say anything in favour of Jinnah, you automatically become a 'Pakiphile', in his eyes!

How long will it take Dr. Ullah and others to understand, that there were millions of Bangladeshis in 1971 who were caught between the unspeakable, brutal atrocities of Pakistani Army and the fears of breaking away from Pakistan (the state their forefathers fought for and supported overwhelmingly only two decades and a half ago), apprehensions of Bangladesh becoming a vessel state of India and doubts whether Bangladesh could survive on its own and the thought that Islam was in danger in that part of the world?  To them, it was a choice between the devil and the deep sea and it was not an easy choice to make as some people lead us to believe.  Of course, those fears turned out to be irrational and unfounded.  Bangladesh has managed well, both politically and economically, given the challenges of a new nation and the constraint of resources, both human and non-human.

You cannot call a person a collaborator, for just being skeptic about the way the liberation movement was going on at that time.  There were questions and concerns about the Awami League leadership (many people and leaders from the other political parties from Bangladesh simply could not trust Sheik Mujib and other Awami league leaders) and a myriad of other causes which made some people not support the liberation movement wholeheartedly or just play a neutral role.  I am sure that all these people who could not actively support the movement realized their mistakes and had to deal with their consciences the rest of their lives, particularly after the full extent of brutalities and the horrors unleashed by the Pak army, the true successors of the marauding hordes of Genghis Khan, surfaced.  Can't you be a little generous and leave the matter at that rather than digging the dirts and engaging in name-calling?  About the actual collaborators, many times, it has been suggested in NFB pages, that those who actively collaborated with the army, should be brought to justice.  Yes, that should be done, no matter how long the time has passed since the crimes have been committed, although justice delayed is justice denied.

To Read the Transcripts of Intellectual Collaborator Debate in the Newsgroup: