Subject: Re: Dr. Rashiduzzaman vs Jamal Hasan
From:   skolastika@aol.com (Skolastika)
Date: 1997/12/10
Newsgroups:  soc.culture.bangladesh

The controversy about the role played by Dr. Rashiduzzaman during the most critical juncture of our history has aroused a lot of interest in NFB.  I did not know anything about him or of him until Mr. Jamal Hasan's article and his reference of him in the book "Ekaturer Gahatakra Ekhan Ke Kothai".  I checked with the above reference and discovered his name among the collaborator teachers of Dhaka University.  The book was written during the languishing days of the spirit and values of our great struggle and when all who sided themselves with the wrong side of the history were thriving in their march not only toward rehabilitation but were safely manipulating the echelon of state power.

Since he was in the US. during our liberation struggle, I went through a recently published book written by Mr. A.M.A. Muhith (UPL, 1996, pp499), entitled "American Response to Bangladesh Liberation War ."  It is probably the most authentic and documentary evidence of the heroic deeds of our great sons who were residing the North America during that period.  It revealed even the faintest contribution made by any Bengali towards the cause of our very existence.  I am quoting of two instances where Dr. Rashiduzzaman name was mentioned in the book. "On March 30 a regular conference of South Asia study group was held at Washington Hotel.  It was an opportune moment to focus attention on Bangladesh Crisis.  Professors K B Sayed, Rashid uz Zaman and Sajjad Yusuf, all teachers in the Dhaka University at one time or the another, were present in this gathering and their comments were sought after.  The situation was a little unclear then and most scholars hoped that good sense would dawn on the Pakistani ruling junta.  There, however a few who doubted it and they were concerned about how the war would be fought by an 'untrained mass of meek Bengalis'"(page 11).

On another occasion it was narrated "In July of 1971 three professors of Dhaka University - Mohar Ali, Kazi Din Mohammed and Sajjad Hussain together with Justice Nurul Islam arrived in the US on a mission to speak about the Pakistani position that everything was all quiet on the Eastern front.  Both in New York and in Washington DC the league (Bangladesh League) took several measures, including demonstration before their hotel, and passing out information about their true identities to the individuals and institutions they had scheduled for appointment.  In some instances, the continued vigilance by the League members forced them to cancel their appointments and at least on one occasions the city police of New York had to escort them to the Pakistani mission.  It was so unfortunate that these misguided Bengalis became the willing collaborators of the oppressive military machine against their own people.  Later, when Hamidul Huq Chowdhury and Mahmud Ali came to the US of the four mentioned above, their movement had to be so restricted that they could not make any head in their mission.  It was rumored that a Bengali visiting fellow at Columbia University from Dhaka University, Prof. Rashiduzzaman, took upon himself the shameful responsibility of providing his visiting colleagues some appointments and forums" (page 416-417).

Any one reading through the book would echo the perceptions and analyses given by Dr. A. H. Jaffor Ullah on the issue.  In fact, Dr. Jaffor Ullah's own contribution was mentioned in the book on several occasions. He (then a graduate student) was the secretary to the Bangladesh League of America in Dayton, Ohio branch whose president was Dr. A.K.M. Aminul Islam.

To give him (Prof. Rashiduzzaman) the benefit of doubt I would consider him 'inactive' which was in itself a failure on the part of a Bengali intellectual to respond to the call of the day and an indirect condonation of the brutal acts of atrocities being inflicted on the Bengali masses.  Even in his own bastion at Columbia University, in addition to others, two Nobel Laureate (Tsugn-dai Lee and Issac Rabi) came with a strong statement of condemnation of the heinous acts Pakistan military junta.  Sitting in the safe haven of North America, it was, indeed needed a quite bit of decimation of heat from the blood stream to act 'inactive', given the fact if one's 'four cousins were killed'.  This refrigerating effect of the blood stream could be the results of one's lunatic devotion for 'Pakistan's integrity' or one's endless hatred towards his own people.

To keep the historical facts in perspective, I would like to dispute a claim made by one of over-zealot admirers of Dr. Rashiduzzaman about his delivering a speech at Paltan Maidan.  As an active participants (I was an elected member of the SAC of Engineering University) of the 1969 student movement and as my memory can recollect, no Professor of any universities ever delivered a speech in the central SAC meeting at Paltan Maiden which was presided over by Tofail Abmed.  However, there was one Dr. (a physician) Rashiduzzaman who delivered a speech on January 20,1969, at the SAC meeting at Paltan Maidan. He was no other than the elder brother of our great martyr Asaduzzaman (Shaheed Asad) who met martyrdom on January 17, 1969.  I will respectfully urge Dr. Rashiduzzaman to clarify if I am wrong in my recollection.  If so, I offer my advance apology to him.

Subject: Re: Dr. Rashiduzzaman vs Jamal Hasan
From:  skolastika@aol.com (Skolastika)
Date:  1997/12/09
Newsgroups:  soc.culture.bangladesh

At the end of his rebuttal to Jamal Hasan's "Bengali Intellectual Collaborators: Remnants of a Dark Past," M. Rashiduzzaman writes,

"I wish to meet any professional criticism for that article or any other writing of mine."  What follows is an acceptance of his offer; it is a response to the very piece where he extends that invitation.  "Professional Criticism" of any text analyzes its breadth of knowledge, its presentation of facts, its interpretation of them, and its logic supporting that interpretation.  I have sought to do the same.  Since the facts surrounding the issue of the text I am responding to are best known to its author, I have accepted his version of them without scrutiny.  My focus, in fact, is on his argument, which, I find, could use some improvement.

Since Rashiduzzaman's essay is a rebuttal, some knowledge of the nature of the charge he rebuts is essential in understanding his reasoning.  Hence I begin with a summary of Hasan's "Bengali Intellectual Collaborators: Remnants of a Dark Past."  This background to Rashiduzzaman's rebuttal is useful also because Hasan's controverisal piece has been removed from Amitech.  (It appeared on November 20, 1997).

In it, Hasan has offered an interesting revelation about Rashiduzzaman: that his role in the liberation war of Bangladesh was questionable.  In support of his claim, Hasan cites a publication that seeks to shed light on the mysterious deaths of our intellectuals and the controversial role some other intellectuals played in 1971, EKATTORER GHATOK DALALERA KE KOTHAI.  He also mentions another, EKATTORER DINGULI, but he does not quite say that this book also lists Rashiduzzaman as a collaborator.  He simply remarks that Rashiduzzaman's editorial on November 8 took him "down memory lane" and that he was reminded of EKATTORER DINGULI, a memoir of 1971 days.  According to Hasan, "Dr. Rashiduzzaman has been prominently mentioned by name in a book called EKATTORER GHATOK DALALERA KE KOTHAI."  This document, Hasan adds, reveals that Rashiduzzaman was "fired from his university job after liberation for collaborating with the Pakistani army through much of 1971."  Whatever information Hasan derives from this book inclines him to think that Rashiduzzaman did participate in "supporting the army junta in 1971."  The rest of Hasan's article berates Rashiduzzaman for his lack of conscience and remorse, drawing parallels between him and Radovan Karadzio and "Hitler's partners in crime".  It offers no specific charge against the former Dhaka University teacher.  In fact, it does maintain that "Dr. Rashiduzzaman was not accused of planning or coordinating a genocide"; all it claims is that his role in 1971 was "controversial," a role that led to his dismissal from DU.

Several rebuttals have immediately followed Hasan's piece, including the one by Rashiduzzaman himself. Here, He pronounces the accusation baseless and devoid of merit.  The source of Hasan's information, interestingly enough, Rashiduzzaman identifies as EKATTORER DINGULI (which apparently is not Hasan's definitive source) and not as EKATTORER GHATOK DALALERA KE KOTHAI (which evidently is such) -- a significant oversight in a scholar who has authored six books and should know one from another.  Next he offers his argument protesting his innocence and questioning the premises of the accusation.  Let us examine the bases of this defense.

A clear proof of his unblemished role in 1971, Rashiduzzaman contends, is his stay in the US the entire year. Perhaps it escapes his notice that the charge against him is collaboration with Pakistan and support of its army's deeds in Bangladesh in 1971 and not active participation in them -- as Hasan makes clear in his article.  The word "collaboration" has a wide-ranging meaning varying from assisting someone in the production of a book as a subordinate author or co-author to lending intellectual or moral support to an occupying army and its (often brutal) actions.  Collaboration of the last kind can, indeed, be made outside the country about whose affairs it is made.  It is also a charge difficult to prove and, if proven, equally hard to prosecute in a court of law in a democratic society because it involves the issue of the accused's civil rights. (Realizing the problem, the Bangladesh government gave a blanket amnesty to all collaborators.) Though not a legal offense in most cases, those accused of collaboration try hard to rub off the stain if they can because society looks down upon them (a fact I will illustrate with a few specific examples later in my essay).  Perhaps aware that a ground for such a charge of collaboration exists against him though he was not in Bangladesh in 1971, Rashiduzzaman is keen on proving that it ill applies to him.  Unlike what some people might think, his expatriation in the US at that time, he informs, was characterized by anxiety and emotional pain because he had left two children back in Bangladesh and had suffered the loss of four cousins in the war.  However, in 1971, by his own admission, Rashiduzzaman did establish links with known collaborators.  He welcomed in his house Sajjad Hossain and Mohar Ali who went to New York to lobby for Pakistan, and lobbying for Pakistan by a Bengali at that time, indubitably, was an act of collaboration.  Then, Rashiduzzaman also saw those who went to lobby for Bangladesh.  This contact, seemingly, watered down the sin, if any, of his other contact -- that with the collaborators.  The passage where he reveals all this is worth quoting in full.

"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 dad not lobby for Pakistan with any one."

But the above account creates, rather than resolves, doubts.  Curiously enough, Rashiduzzaman is more incensed at those Bangladeshis who conveyed (behind his back, as he says) to the DU authority that he had supped with Sajjad Hossain and Mohar Ali than the authority that fired him.  Didn't they simply report an event that had indeed taken place?  How was that wrong?

Another question is the stance he adopted when the two competing groups of lobbyists were visiting him to win his support.  That he did not come out openly to champion Bangladesh and condemn Pakistan is evident enough because such an action is missing in his above list of conducts.  What prevented him from doing so? Then he didn't support Pakistan either and seems to have maintained a perfect equidistance from both camps. How he managed it must be a marvel indeed; it must have required the balancing act of a trapeze artist in the mind of a political scientist for whom complete disengagement from the burning political issue of the time was, no doubt, a singular trick of intellectual gymnastics.

If such a lack of interest in the fate of Bangladesh does not make him a collaborator per se, it does cast doubts about the integrity of his intellect -- more so because he implies his heart was all for Bangladesh. Right before the above passage, he says, "During the entire period of the liberation of 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."  Those experiences should have given him the passion, the verve -- an overpowering urge, so to speak -- to come to the fore of the Bangladesh movement.  And this he could do without fear of reprisal -- of sudden death at the hand of goon squads -- the fate of his colleagues.  Mysteriously, he did not act!

Rashiduzzaman had to welcome lobbyists of all stripes in 1971 as they were his DU colleagues and friends. That, however, is precisely the reason one wonders if he spoke out against the ruthless killings of his colleagues by the Pak army taking place at the time.  Did he, one wonders in particular, ask Sajjad Hossain about Jyotirmoy Guho Thakurta; the man who was slain by the army on the night of 25th March; the man who was the provost of a student dormitory and did not flee from his responsibility despite repeated earnest warnings because he felt he should not abandon his students to massacre -- a task that might have befallen Rashiduzzaman (former provost of another dormitory) if he had remained in Bangladesh that portentous night; the man who, above all, was Rashiduzzaman's university (and Sajjad Hossain's departmental) colleague?

Maybe he did, but making a strong public condemnation of the atrocities was his compelling obligation; certainly, he owed that much to his martyred colleagues.  Did he deliver one?  In his rebuttal, he invokes his "cherished civil rights," of his freedom to pursue his academic interests.  Isn't it logical to expect that such a staunch believer in such rights would be protective of such rights of others as well?  Many of those who were being massacred in Bangladesh in 1971 embraced death because they too had believed in their civil rights and had chosen to live up to them.

1971 gave Rashiduzzaman a rare opportunity. Among the expatriate Bangladeshis, he was better suited than most to espouse the cause of his country and earn distinction as a mover of the movement.  A former DU teacher, an anti-Ayub activist, a Columbia student, and a political scientist -- he had all the credentials.  But he chose not to walk the path to glory.  What held him back?

Earlier in his piece, Rashiduzzaman does mention that he had "challenged their [the Pak army's] actions." This, I think, is his best line of defense, but he can substantiate this claim only by offering documented evidence of such challenges.  All the other proofs that he cites -- the offer of reinstatement at DU, his possession of a Bangladeshi passport in 1972, his being one of those who have held and still hold "high positions" in Bangladesh -- do not quite fully cleanse the taint of collaboration.  For Shah Aziz became the prime minister of Bangladesh; Golam Azam won his citizenship back; and collaborators and war criminals have been routinely embellishing "high positions" in successive governments in Bangladesh (some say including the present one).  All of them have had to struggle with the charge of complicity with Pakistan's deeds in 1971, a stigma, though not a legal offense anymore, yet has amounted to a political liability for them, a stigma they are trying hard to erase.  (Even Golam Azam recently made a claim that he was not in the country -- and has his passport to prove the fact -- when the killing of the intellectuals was taking place in December, 1971, obviously implying that he should not be linked with their murder.)

Rashiduzzaman alone can put to rest all doubts about his role by explaining how he viewed the Bangladesh movement in 1971 and by presenting corroborative facts of his support, if any, for it.  Suppression of Hasan's piece does not help him because his own refuting statement indeed raises questions about his role--nor does the utterance of blusters, nor the disgorgement of vitriol, nor the questioning of his critics' scholarly credentials, nor the threat of lawsuits.  Of all these attempts to silence those who question his role, the last one (possibly a libel suit) has scurried his detractors (and the Amitech editors) back into the holes they came from.  Rashiduzzaman should consider carefully on what legal grounds he will move his suit.  Hasan's accusation is not his own concoction; "reviling" or "scurrilous" or spurious his source does exist. Rashiduzzaman can take its publisher/author to court, but can he take Hasan there?

Why Rashiduzzaman hasn't already done so is another mystery, for his piece betrays foreknowledge of the book's content.  If not, how would he know the book lists those who occupy "high positions" in Bangladesh?  Hasan has not identified them in his essay. (Rashiduzzaman can say that as soon as he learned of Hasan's mentioning of those books, he procured them, read them, wrote his rebuttal, and sent it to Amitech, all in less that forty-eight hours -- possible but unlikely.)  Then what would be the venue of this illustrious legal battle?  The US or Bangladesh?  Can a US court of law try a Bangladeshi publisher/author--not to mention the inherent difficulty in prosecuting an Internet posting that originates beyond the border of the US?  He can fight this battle in Bangladesh, perhaps, but he has to prove to the judges that even though collaboration is no longer a crime in Bangladesh, the accusation of its perpetration is hurting him!  Such a battle, I hazard a guess, will be fraught with many legal perils; if won, it could turn out to be a pyrrhic victory for the plaintiff and is not likely to help the very reputation he wants to salvage.

II

In this essay I have responded to Rashiduzzaman's rebuttal by calling attention to the seams of his argument. Those don't appear strong enough to hold it, forcing it to fall through the cracks.  No scholar should throw down the gauntlet of "professional criticism" to his writing, especially if he is in the habit of indulging in emotional reasoning -- an oxymoron, but in his rebuttal Rashiduzzaman amply illustrates that paradox.  He can of course say that his emotion, his outrage got the better of him on this particular occasion, but that is for him to say.  A dash of humility becomes the scholar; lack of it breeds arrogance, not a desirable trait in him, as many agree.  Rashiduzzaman should clarify his role in 1971.  If he felt strongly about Bangladesh, he should explain why he failed to act on that conviction.  If he leaned toward Pakistan but feels the stigma of a collaborator is undeserved in his situation because it was an inward, perhaps, an intellectual leaning, not an all-out support -- while his emotions, volumes of them, cried for Bangladesh -- then, too, he should frankly acknowledge the fact.  Such a confession would hardly make him a collaborator, for conflicts of that kind --between emotion and intellect -- do afflict many individuals. (Such a confession, moreover, would explain the enigma of his failure to participate in the Bangladesh movement.)

And he should not feel threatened to do the scholarship he does.  Surely, he has interesting things to say about the topics he examines, and he alone should determine what topics interest him the most.  Scholars, for the sake of academic freedom, should be allowed to choose their own topics -- even if it is the topic of an ant.

Subject: Rashiduzzaman vs Jamal Hasan
From: "M. Harun uz Zaman" <harunuzzaman.l@osu.edu>
Date: 1997/12/09
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh

I have read with interest, and some concern, the lively exchanges between Dr. Rashiduzzaman and Jamal Hassan.  Let me first express my appreciation to both of them for elevating the level of debate beyond what is customary on SCB or any other public forum, on some of the very sensitive issues of the liberation war.

Dr. Rashiduzzaman has been accused of being an "intellectual collaborator" of Pakistan during 1971, in the book "Ekattarer Ghatak Ar Dalalra Ekhon Ke Kothay."  Mr. Jamal Hassan and others apparently picked up on that accusation, and later softened their stance, once confronted with a very eloquent defense put forward by Dr. Rashiduzzaman.  I do not know enough about the specifics to make a judgment on this controversy.

My own observations on the *general* issue are the following.
 

1. A distinction must be made between the position taken by any individual or group prior to 1971 and during 1971. Prior to 1971, reasonable and conscientious people among the BDeshis were divided on the relationship between East Pakistan and West Pakistan: Opinions ranged from those who considered East Pakistan a "colony" to those who viewed the economic and political "imbalance" as a consequence of the pre-1947 "initial imbalance."

Interpretation of the relationship aside, there was also the ideological divide between the Bengali
nationalists and the Pakistani nationalists.  Also, the ideological persuasion colored the interpretation of
the *factual* disparity between the two wings of Pakistan.  Bengali Nationalists were more likely to
view East Pakistan as a "colony," while their Pakistani Nationalist counterparts tended to view West
Pakistan as a "dominant partner," as a result of the pre-1947 "imbalance," and thought of it as
something that could be remedied "within the framework of Pakistan."

The truth, as is generally the case, probably lies somewhere in between.  A scientific study could probably could attempt to measure the relative contributions of the "initial imbalance" and "the exploitative exercise" of the dominant position of West Pakistan.

2. After the Pakistani army launched the campaign of murder, rape and pillage, "pure" Bengali Nationalists overwhelmingly opted for independence. It was an easy decision for them; the action of the Pakistani establishment conformed completely with their viewpoint.

3. For the "pure" Pakistani Nationalists, the Pakistani action confronted them with a serious predicament. They were torn between their loyalty to Pakistan-the state and the atrocious behaviour of its rulers. They could not quite let go of Pakistan and let East Pakistan become an "stooge of India."  Yet, the behaviour of the Pakistani army did not quite jive with what they thought Pakistan stood for.

So, the Pakistani Nationalists reacted in much more varied fashion than their Bengali Nationalist counterparts.  Some became active collaborators (these were people who were very paranoid about potential Indian domination), some became passive collaborators (going through the motions to save their own skins, and perhaps sheltering their pro-liberation friends/relatives), some were neutral, and finally, some even abandoned their pro-Pakistan loyalties and became freedom fighters.  An example of a pro-Pakistani person becoming a freedom fighter is BADIUL ALAM, the main character in HUMAYUN AHMED'S movie, "AGUNER PARASHMONI." prior to 25th March, 1971, Mr. Alam was an active member of the National Student Federation (NSF), a militant student wing of Ayub Khan's Muslim League.  I have an uncle (my mother's cousin), who was a member of Islami Chatra Sangha (predecessor to Islami Chatra Shibir) before 1971 and turned into a freedom fighter in 1971.

4. There were people who were neither "pure" Bengali Nationalists nor "pure" Pakistani Nationalists (I think this section of the people was the majority), and their responses were also varied.

5. The overwhelming majority of the people of BD supported the pro-liberation forces even when they continued to hold jobs and function in other capacities with Pakistani government.

6. After Bangladesh was born, there was neither a systematic investigation of the human rights abuses committed by the Pakistani army and its collaborators, nor a scientific analysis of the motives and the roles of anti-liberation, and for that matter, pro-liberation forces.

7. A lot of people became labeled "collaborators" or "Razakars" because they held, or they were perceived to hold, "pro-Pakistan" views.  Very little distinction was made between whether such views were held prior to, or after 1971, or whether people acted on such beliefs or not. As I have illustrated under 3, these distinctions may be very important.

8. It *appears* to me that Dr. Rashiduzzaman may be a victim of the phenomenon described under item 7 ( I may be wrong).  I think the burden of proof lies on the accusers.  A mention in a poorly documented book (I read the book) does not constitute proof.  Nor does the dismissal from a faculty position because it may be another case of item 7.

9. Finally, I would appeal to everyone who have a strong interest in the history of Bangladesh to document and analyze with as much precision and objectivity as you can muster.  To paraphrase Shefiq Rehman from an article in Jai Jai Din on the *same* subject, "please document and document." You will be making a contribution to cementing our fragmented sense of identity.

Subject: Intellectual Collaborator’s: Reply to Dr. Rashiduzzaman’s Questions
Posted by: A.H. Jaffor Ullah <jhankar@Bellsouth.net>
Date: 1997/12/17

In a Commentary to Amitech's News From Bangladesh (3 December,1997) titled "A Rejoinder To Dr. Jaffor Ullah," Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman has directly posed several questions to me and made therein a number of remarks, which, I shall here, try to address.

First, he wanted to know whether "non-action a cognizable offense under those circumstances ?", where, non-action meant, he did not actively work and the circumstances were, the Bangladesh movement
in 1971, in other words, the fact that he was not pro-active, cannot be a cognizable offense. The answer should be, the Professor or for that matter, any citizen of Bangladesh, was under no legal obligation to support the liberation war of 1971.  The phrase "legal obligation" here is limited to responsibilities  generating from a piece of identifiable legislation. In this sense, Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman is right to claim that "non-action" on his part did not breach a legal norm.

However, "non-action" may have legal consequences. For example, to assist an accident or other similar circumstances, the so-called `Good Samaritan' law. Non-action there might result in legal actions, as has happened in Paris to the photographers at the accident site of Diana, the Princess of Wales. The photographers did not come forward to help a victim, which they were under legal requirements to do. So, "non-action" per se is not always the best defence.

Next, the Professor mentions that I "pick(ed)" up an "inadvertent  error on the exact title of the....book Ekatuuer Ghatak Dalalra Kuthai."  Well, I simply pointed out that he "mixed up the two publications", which, he admits he did.  The said publication being the principal source of the alleged allegation, it was important not to bungle it up with other books. Moreover, the Professor should have got the Book right, because, to characterise it, he has chosen exactly eleven different adjectives (or, invectives !) so far, namely, "reviling", "scurrilous" (used twice), "spiteful", "politically motivated", "unauthenticated work", "disdainful  publication", "yellow journalism", "character assassination", "tabloid writing in their crudest form", "hateful", "biased work"; and, it appears, all wrath are pointed at that Book.

Then, the Professor questions, whether this Book, Ekatturer Ghatok Dalalera Ke Kothai, "can be used as an authoritative evidence in a court of law ?"  The answer is, yes and no. It can be referred in a law court but, the Book is not an evidence of his collaboration in itself.  As a matter of fact, the Book was never intended to be a catalogue of collaboration of the individuals, but, merely a list the alleged collaborators. Thus, the Professor is correct when he writes "What that book (Ekatturer Ghatok Dalalera Ke Kothai) mentions was only a list of names including mine. Besides my name in the list what does the book say about me?"

He than challenges to "Reproduce what the book exactly mentions (how many words, how many lines and how many pages are in there discussing me?) about me !", which is irrelevant. For example, if a name appears in the American Political Science Association's membership list, the presumption is, the person is a political scientist and usually, no further elaboration is required.  Equally, when a name is there in Who's Who of 1971 collaborators, should not that be enough for people to assume that he is a collaborator and for him, to take all measures to stop dissemination of the Book, if he believed it be injurious to his good name?

If one takes a legalistic approach, as the Professor intended, one become a collaborator only after he is punished by a competent court of law for collaboration.  Under Bangladesh law, a collaborator was who had:

1. participated with or aided or abetted the occupation army in maintaining, sustaining, strengthening, supporting or furthering the illegal occupation of Bangladesh by such army;

2. rendered material assistance in any way whatsoever to the occupation army by any act whether by words, signs or conduct;

3. waged war or abetted in waging war against the People's Republic of Bangladesh;

4. actively resisted or sabotaged the efforts of the people and the liberation forces of Bangladesh in their struggle against the occupation army;

5. attempted to aid or aided the occupation army in furthering its design of perpetuating its forcible occupation of Bangladesh by making a public statement or by voluntary participation in propaganda within or outside Bangladesh or by associating in any delegation or committee or by participating in purported by-elections." Very few people, in Bangladesh, have been found collaborator in the court. However, apart from court of law, there exist another, more potent one, the court of public opinion, where, legal niceties have no room and evidences do not have to be always "authoritative."

Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman then rather pointedly questions why I did not "find any serious breach of law in the way..(he) was treated in Bangladesh."  This was precisely, I believe I did, in my letter to the editor (Readers’ Opinion, News From Bangladesh, 30 November, 1997), where, I wanted to know what legal action indeed he took, since he had a number of options in hand, as he was removed from his job at Dhaka University.  Even after his second Rejoinder, the Professor has failed to clear-up the air relating to his actions against dismissal.  First, he tells us, "It was on my representation that the government of Bangladesh rescinded their order," then he also writes, "I did file a writ against the Dhaka University who
offered me a deal of returning to my job and gave me a full Professorship there."

The question is, if the government of Bangladesh revoked his dismissal order (which is unlikely since the order was issued by the University of  Dhaka in the first place) because of his "representation," what then was the result of the writ petition?  Further, isn't it quite naive to suggest that "there was none to
fight a protracted legal battle in Bangladesh in  my absence," while, at the same time claiming that he has students all around who "are academics, bureaucrats, ambassadors, ministers (including 3 in present cabinet) and respectable professionals"?

The Professor then questions whether I deny that "Biharis were indiscriminately persecuted, victimized and killed in the early years of Bangladesh."  I do not. Indeed, there were numerous examples when Biharis received collective punishment and became victims of mob-justice.  However, as the new government began work, the number of such incidents diminished, though, no one, perhaps, was punished for taking law in into their own hand.  At the same time, one should not be oblivious of the context which created such frenzied reactions.

Finally, the Professor asked to "respond to some questions raised by Mr. Naryan Gupta in Amitech’s page on November 30", which, I find merely preaching from pulpit.  Mr. Gupta, in his piece, made it clear that what he wrote was an advise to his "Bangladesh friends," events seen from outside, so to say.

That said, Mr. Gupta's basic premise even don't help the Professor.   Mr. Gupta first tried to intellectually explain the concerns of some people who opposed the birth of Bangladesh and collaborated with the Pakistanis. In fact, no new themes were in Mr. Gupta's writing and he could not provide any new justification.  Instead, he maintained that "Taking guns and mercilessly killing innocent people is a different matter" and so also "Bringing the miscreants to justice" and then suggested that "trying to counter fascism by fascist means will be even counter productive," which is true.  However, if one looks at the qualifications put by Mr. Gupta and  if those are fulfilled, then I guess many people will have no problem.

Mr. Gupta observes, "Even today, chroniclers of Pakistan admit the guilt of crimes carried out by their military.  This is admirable."  I have no idea which Pakistanis Mr. Gupta is taking about and who
admitted "guilt of crimes."  Pakistani government even after twenty five years has yet to say sorry, so also any significant individual. Amitech's readers certainly interested to know and hear about the Pakistanis who accepts that their army carried out genocide and rapes.  One such rare individual is Pakistani  poet Ahmed Selim, who worked in favour of Bangladesh and went to jail for his activities.  He also has translated Jahanara Imam's famous book "Ekatturer Dinguli" in Urdu, beside 50 short stories on Bangladesh Liberation War.  Mr. Selim, an exception, owns about 6,000 paper clippings in favour of Bangladesh, but no publisher has yet come forward to publish them.

Mr. Gupta writes that "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."  I believe, most of the people in Bangladesh might listen to Mr. Gupta's advise to  "forget and forgive" if the collaborators genuinely "REGRET" and "DISTANCE" them "from similar activities" (emphasis added). The problem, which perhaps has missed Mr. Gupta's attention, is the fact that in Bangladesh, the collaborators are proud of their activities of collaboration and collaboration had often been rewarded with high official positions.

Further, to suggest "forget and forgive" perhaps is easy for somebody like Mr. Gupta, but may not be so for the victims of genocide, where three million perished and three hundred thousand raped.  It is only the victims who can forgive, and forget, nobody should.  World over, the victims of holocaust are still today
demanding punishment of the perpetrators and in number of countries, United Kingdom, Italy and France, the war criminals  are on trial now.  The governments, which benefited from the stolen gold of the holocaust victims, after long fifty years, are returning these items.  Before dishing out such advice, Mr. Gupta should have taken account of all these facts.

Again, Mr. Gupta's current concern for Biharis are pretty misplaced, beginning with the fact he has advised "to be little more generous towards the Biharis of Jahangir Nagar," a place where no Bihari population are known to inhabit.  Next, Bangladesh government from the very beginning gave the Biharis two options, either to retain Pakistani nationality to repatriate there, or to opt for Bangladesh and get Bangladesh citizenship.  The High Court made it very clear years before, anybody who was in Bangladesh on 26 March,1971 or born thereafter in Bangladesh, is a citizen of Bangladesh. Biharis who are Bangladesh citizens have equal protection of law.  However, in reality, some of them might not enjoy same protection, so also the vast majority of the citizenry.

In the end of the day, the Professor should have put the matter straight in his first Rejoinder. He should have clearly said that I was dismissed from Dhaka University but I won in the law suit or that the authority revoked their decision and thus, I got my job back.  Even after two Rejoinders, his statements are not yet clear.  Secondly, he should have said, I did not take any legal or other actions against the authors and publishers of Ekatturer Ghatok Dalalera Ke Kothai (it is incorrect that the Book's publishers had no address, I quoted the address in my letter from the Book's second edition, June 1987), because I do not consider the Book has any value or something else.  The heart of the matter is, his "non-action" in taking any measure against the Book "Ekatturer Ghatok Dalalera Ke Kothai" has perpetuated the believe that he was a collaborator and if blames are to be apportioned here, it should land solely on the Professor and his proverbial "non-action".

The Professor has yet another option.  In his own words, "Bangladesh political history has been central to my writing, and will remain so for the rest of my life." He must then have published some scholarly works on the independence of Bangladesh and in particular, on the periods between 25 March to 16 December,1971.  Amitech's readers have got fairly good idea about his findings of the "dark days of early Bangladesh", about which he writes, "During those murky hours, people were not only harassed and victimised for political reasons, but many were exiled from the country, fired from their jobs, deprived from their citizenship, properties and  business, and many were abducted, extorted, beaten, jailed and tortured to death in public places."

In view of this, may I propose that the Professor apprises through Amitech the reference of his published materials on liberation war and independence of Bangladesh, and in particular, his characterisation of "Ekatturer Dinlugli" for the interested readers to read to form their own opinion.  Also, he may, if he likes,
publish abstracts of those publications containing his analysis of Bangladesh's independence and liberation war, as he has evaluated early days of new born Bangladesh. Amitech's readers then will have better understanding of the man behind.

Subject:  Intellectual Collaborators: From Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman
From: ifahmad@erols.com
Date: December 19, 1997

An Internet debate over the events and personalities of the past has been woefully turned into a vicious on line inquisition and mud slinging.  Zafor [sic] Ullah, Jamal Hasan and their cronies appear to have been divinely sub-contracted to say who are the patriots and who are the Pakistani collaborators of the 1971 liberation struggle!  They have become the muckrakers of Bangladesh history foraging for rumor, mud and innuendo wherever they can grab it with a calculated motive to tarnish me.  My challengers may be patriots but their nationalistic fanaticism is unfathomable to most Western and non-Western readers.  Their recent "orgy of patriotism" are nearly all irrelevant, disingenuous and terribly misleading with deceptive statements, vindictive gestures and, as usual, simplistic but motivated slogans.  Bangladesh narratives, peddled by the over-jealous patriots is littered with lies, slander, and contempt for individual discretion, and vengeance only comparable to the fascistic proclivities, of one sort or the other.  Alarmed by such megalomaniac and belligerent hyper-nationalism, many years ago disenchanted philosopher George Bernard Shaw said: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel!"  Appalled by the ravaging viciousness of the mean minded characters in India, who bullied each other, Gandhi, the great non-violent leader, angrily denounced them as the "latrine inspectors" scavenging for smudge!

Initial Response to Some Specific Charges: With that landscape of the vindictive jingoists who are using the Internet, as a vehicle of tossing worst kind of personal abuse, baseless imputation and barrage of vitriolic against me, let me answer to some of the charges that recently surfaced in the DEJANEWS/Society and Culture of Bangladesh.

1. According to Dr. Mozammel Huq Khan's posting (DEJANEWS), Mr. M.A. Muhith, in his recent book (1996), mentioned that, according to a "rumor", I "took upon myself the shameful responsibility" of providing my visiting colleagues "some appointments and forums" (presumably cited in pp. 416-417 of Mr. Muhith's book).  I haven't heard about such a book until his allegation came to my notice; nor did I get an opportunity of discussing it with the author.  Mr. Muhith was two years senior to me in the University, and I have had the opportunity of knowing him as a respectable and ,conscientious gentleman over the span of the last 40 years.  Until and unless I actually see that book and the alleged references, I should refrain from any conclusive remark on this issue.  Meanwhile, I can say that whether it was Muhith or someone else making such an allegation, it is totally false and baseless that I arranged any appointment for any pro-Pakistani lobbyist in New York in 1971.  A personal recollection of rumors and gossip, no matter who is its author, cannot be valid evidence to charge or condemn someone.  In my Amitech rejoinder (11/12/97) to Jamal Hasan's malicious posting in the Amitech, I did mention that my contact with some Bangladeshi colleagues (who came for lobbying in support of Pakistan in 1971) created misunderstanding (which I am explaining below), and several Bangladeshi expatriates were responsible for spreading rumors, and reporting against me.  And I also said that I am aware of a few of such individuals in America.  I will be disappointed if a person of Muhith's standing would record such insinuation (without verification), which are now being peevishly used by a bunch of motivated individuals, to vilify me.  Those were still my early months in the United States, I knew few people, outside my academic circles.  Much hearsay, rumors and veiled allusion still prevail about the Bangladeshi activists in North America in 1971!  I don't want to get into such gossips! May be I should reserve them for my own memoirs!

2.  I have already stated that a number of Bangladeshis, some lobbying for Bangladesh independence, and some lobbying for united Pakistan, visited the Columbia University in 1971, and I had met with most of them since I was the only Bangladeshi senior fellow there at that time.  Among the visiting Bangladeshis whom I met or talked included Dr. A.R. Mullick, Justice Nurul Islam, Dr. Sajjad Hussein, Abu Sayed Choudhury, Fakir Sahabuddin, Dr. Fatima Sadeque, Dr. Mohar Ali and Dr. Kaz! Din Mohammad.

3. I can still recall how I came to know about Dr. Sajjad Hussein, Dr. Din Mohammad and Dr. Mohar Ali, visiting New York in 1971.  One day a senior Bangladeshi diplomat (whom I knew and the Bangladeshi diplomats were still with the Pakistan embassies then) at the Pakistan Mission to the UN, New York rang me to say that they were coming to solicit support for Pakistan, and he felt that it was something that they should not do at that critical juncture.  It was probably a day/two after their arrival, some Bangladeshis went to their hotel room to block them from going out for any lobbying, and the police had arrived to arrest the protesters.  At that time, the same senior diplomat, concerned about the unpleasant incident occurring at that hotel, called me rather frantically to implore Dr. Sajjad Hussein and others, not to lobby, and somehow, persuade them to leave New York without pleading for Pakistan.  That's how I first came to meet them in New York City, and I asked them to visit me.  In our face to face meeting, I told Dr. Sajjad Musssin and the other colleagues that in the light of what was happening in Bangladesh, they should leave the United States immediately without any lobbying for Pakistan.  To the best of my recollection, they had left the United States soon after our meeting, and I had no further contact with them.  Before his death, Dr. SajJad Hussein published his memoirs of 1971, where he admitted that the Bengali resistance in the United States was too strong for them to do any significant pro-Pakistani urging.

A Personal Note About A Few Visiting Individuals Whom I Had Met In New York In 1971:

(a) Both Dr. A.R. Mullick and Dr. Sajjad Hussein were pretty senior to me.  Dr. A.R. Mullick offered me a chair at Chittagong University when he became the vice-chancellor there, and I still remember his kindness to me.  While visiting me, Dr. Mullick took me apart from his entourage, and asked me to find some visiting academic position since, at that stage, he was not sure which way the Bangladesh movement would go in the future.  He felt a little embarrassed to personally look for a job while he was seeking American support for the liberation of Bangladesh. Indeed, my initiative led to a visiting fellowship for Dr. Mullick at a respectable university in the United States, which he was supposed to take up later.  However, the circumstances changed when Bangladesh became independent and fortune smiled on him, and, obviously, he did not need that fellowship!  Even in his memoirs (presented to me by a common friend), Dr. Mullick touched upon that visiting academic position, although he did not acknowledge my small contribution in that venture!

(b) I was not a direct student of Dr. Sajjad Hussein, but those who studied at Dhaka University through 1950's and 1960's knew him as a teacher of teachers, and a gentleman of gentlemen, a source of inspiration to many.  I joined Dhaka University as a faculty in 1958, and applied for a Commonwealth Scholarship (second batch) in 1960, and I still remember, how helpful Dr. Hussein was to the East Pakistani candidates during the interview.  For the Dhaka University teachers who proceeded to England in those days, it was almost a ritual to look up to Dr. Hussein for tips how to live in that part of the world.  Having been selected as a Commonwealth Scholar, I visited two senior professors at Dhaka University for advice about English living as a foreign student: one was Dr. Hussein, and the other was Professor Mufazzal Halder Chowdhury (killed in 1971), who was already known as my teacher at Jagannath College.  Dr. Hussein was always very kind to me while I was teaching at Dhaka University.

(c) Dr. Din Mohammad was not my direct teacher but I knew him as someone from a neighboring locality outside Dhaka City, and had common friends and relatives.

(d) Dr. Mohar Ali was two-year senior to me, and I had the privilege of knowing him as a brilliant student, a respectable colleague and an excellent historian.  He was very helpful and hospitable to me and my wife when we studied in England; at that time, he had already finished his Ph.D. but extended his stay to study Bar-at-Law.

I have had no regrets, and no second thought about inviting Dr. Sajjad Hussein, Dr. Din Mohammad and Dr. Mohar Ali at my New York apartment in one evening in 1971.  My meeting with them had no element of collaborating with what was happening in Bangladesh. Even if the whole events of 1971 are resurrected today, and if Dr. Sajjad Hussein is brought alive from his grave, I would not hesitate to do the same in the similar circumstances, no matter what happens to me!

Early in 1972, when I applied for my Bangladesh passport, the same senior diplomat (who sought my help to hold off Dr. Hussein from lobbying) in the new Bangladesh Mission (possibly with the observer status then), gave me the Bangladesh passport.  He was courteous, and remembered the circumstances of Dr. Sajjad Hussein and my colleagues visiting me.  Those who know me well enough are aware that I respect my elders, I cultivate a sense of gratitude for those who are kind to me, and I never mix personal friendship with politics.  My home in Dhaka and in the United States has always been a rendezvous of the nationalists, radicals, bureaucrats, politicians and rightists, and it will always remain so as long as I am alive!  If it raises controversies and doubts about me, I could not [sic] care less!

Responding to A Few More Untenable Allegations by Mozammel H. Khan and Farid [sic] Idris What Dr. Mozammel H. Khan talks about the March 1971 AAS meeting in Washington , is confusing to say the least. Before he made an accusation, though supposedly based on a publication, he should have checked the full facts.  He could have made queries at the American Association for Asian Studies (AAS) headquarters in Michigan. Most participants of that Conference/Panel are still alive!

I remember it was the AAS annual meeting, which coincided with the days immediately after the March 1971 crackdown.  It was a Panel on Pakistan (such panels are pre-determined months ahead, and only the members and registered guests can attend such discussion), and my own presentation was on East Pakistan's political and economic grievances against West Pakistan; there were other participants in the Panel including a Pakistani scholar.  Couple of Bangladeshi members of the audience brought the Pakistani military crackdown news to the attention of the panelists and participants.  A sharp exchange of arguments followed between the Pakistanis and Bengalis (all of the Bangladeshi participants including myself and Sajjad Yusuf disagreed with some of the comments of the Pakistani scholars), after which the Panel discussion went ahead as usual!  Sajjad Yusuf, (supposedly mentioned in Muhith's book) is still alive and he is in the United States! Most of the participants at the Conference/Panel were, at that stage, not fully aware of what was happening except a few newspaper reports.  I don't know what Muhith has written in his book about his role in that AAS meeting, he was still the Economic Minister of the Pakistan Embassy in Washington, D.C., as far as I recollect.

An aspersion has been made about my participation in the 1969 anti-Ayub movement.  In fact, a former student (not me) mentioned this in one of his rejoinders!  First, I don't want to make any exaggerated personal claim about the 1969 movements.  I feel that the real heroes of that movement are those who laid down their lives, went to jail and actually suffered during the anti-Ayub campaign.  The Dhaka University Teachers' Association took lead in that mass upsurge and almost daily meetings were held, and statements were issued on behalf of the Association. I was the general secretary of the Dhaka University Teachers Association, and whatever I did was expected of me at that important time.  Tofail Ahmed invited me to the massive Paltan meeting where I was ushered to make a speech (I am shy of political speeches!).  Next day, my pictures were in the newspapers, and my colleagues teased me if I had become a politician!  As a matter of record and recollection, Asaduzzaman was killed not far from my redbrick University residence (now the Science Annexe), just north of the University play ground, and his brother (my namesake) was also in that Paltan meeting!  Asaduzzaman hailed from my district, and my younger brother knew him well!  I don't want to steal any of Asad's, and his family's sacrifice and recognition in the 1969 movement!

<part 2 "The Banality of the "Collaboration" bogey!" will be posted separately>. Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman can be reached at rashiduzzaman@mars.rowan.edu.

Subject:  Intellectual Collaborators: From Dr. Rashiduzzaman
Date: December 19, 1997
(This the 2nd of 2 postings)

First, came Jamal Hasan's absolutely false and ludicrous charge that I was in Dhaka in 1971 and that I collaborated with the killing by the Pakistan army then, and he compared me with some of the most despicable characters of history.  All his claims were totally malicious and a bunch of spiteful falsehood.    He proved to be absolutely wrong, but so far he has not offered me an unconditional apology for such a deliberate defamation.  Whatever disclaimer is made by the Amitech, DEJANEWS, and SCB, it does not give license to an individual to publicly scorn others with malicious lies.

I have had difficulty in making out what Mr. Farid [sic] Idris wanted to say in his rambling DEJANEWS posting except that he supported Jaffor Ullah and Jamal Hasan, my villifiers.  His repetition and fragmented sentences got him nowhere!  May be in my older years, I cannot keep up with my youthful foes!  His writing style reminded me of what the Americans call FILIBUSTERING that amounts to talking and talking, zig zaging, jumping up and down when you have little convincing to say.

Ziauddin Ahmed [sic] has the same habit of going in a circle, and bullying without any substance in his argument, except piling blames after blames.  He wants me to keep on fighting a protracted legal battle no matter what it costs!  I told him that after the political changes in 1975, I made a representation to the government, which readily restored my citizenship rescinding the earlier order.  I filed a writ against the Dhaka University, but I did not pursue it, till the end.  The University offered to reinstate me with a full professorship, which I considered the best vindication I could get under the circumstances.  Since I was not planning to return to Bangladesh permanently, my lawyers also advised me not to continue the aggravation of a prolonged and costly legal battle.  Most of those teachers who were fired on political grounds during 1972-73 were reinstated after 1975.  And in the meantime, I decided to continue with my life in the United States.  At that time, I did not realize that one day I have to face the most vindictive Internet inquisitors like Jamal Hasan, Jaffor Ullah and their supporters!

I saw the first edition of the scurrilous book that is being used by my critics, which had no address.  A friend of mine who knew some of the people behind the publication promised to talk to them, and I was not aware of the second (Bengali) and an English edition until most recently.  I have given all the information that I need to do for the awareness of my readers, but my blamers keeping on badgering me like desperate lawyers with a weak case!  Earlier in this rejoinder, I have already explained the circumstances, which led to my meeting with Dr. Sajjad Hussein and other colleagues that Farid Idris has harped upon.  Collaboration with the Pakistan military repression, as one should realistically understand it, had nothing to do with it. However, I don't expect him and other habitual defamers, with a political agenda of their own, to be convinced!  May be they do not realize that in life there is something called personal relationship which transcends politics!

Jaffor Ullah, Jamal Hasan, Ziauddin and their accomplices attribute even a non-activism as a blamable offense.  More recently, I read an Amitech posting which branded such no-action (remaining non-involved) as a "mental collaboration"!  It reminded me of a newspaper report sometime earlier.  An American woman (or British, I don't remember exactly), having lived in Saudi Arabia for a while, blamed the Saudis of their many failings, and, she accused the Saudi men, of "visually raping" her whenever she went out of her home!  Ziauddin Ahmed [sic] suggests that even though non-action is not a cognizable offense, it could be held guilty in the "court" of public opinion.  Does he mean a kangaroo court?  I presumed him with a semblance of legal background!  Am I mistaken?  Collaboration is a fungible, elastic and implantable discernment, to say the least.

In course of the last two years or so, I came across radical Arab rhetoric denouncing Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, as the Israeli collaborator!  What a bizarre suggestion!  Over the years, about a dozen or so books/memoirs have been published in Bangladesh on what happened in 1971 and immediately after independence.  Two key conceptualizations about Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's (also called Mujib and acclaimed as the Bangabandhu by millions) role in the liberation struggle emerged: In the first assumption, Mujib, driven by the Pakistani refusal to transfer power to his majority party, was categorically in favor of a complete secession from Pakistan, which he hinted on March 7, and he gave further directives for declaration of independence subsequently carried out from the Chittagong Radio station.

Contrary to that postulation is the widely held view that Mujib was indecisive; and, he was overtaken by his radical student leaders who wanted nothing short of independent Bangladesh.  Unable to decide which way to go, either for united Pakistan with the six-point autonomy, or for a complete secession, Mujib decided to surrender to the Pakistan military leaving behind his followers to flee the country, to get killed by the marauding Pakistani soldiers, and to carry out the independence movement on their own. (see Oli Ahad, Jatiya Rajniti 1945-75). Zulfi Bhutto's biographer Stanley Wolpert cites Mujib's secretly taped conversation (with Bhutto) where the Bangladeshi hero hinted at some form of connection with Pakistan shortly before he was freed from the detention in January 1972.

The dispassionate historians have umpired none of those views; and, meanwhile, people argue both ways. Dhaka newspapers are filled with claims and counter-claims about Mujib's role in the 1971 liberation struggle.  We know that the acrimony between Prime Minister Hasina and the Opposition Leader Khaleda is also a battle over who did what in 1971.  Will such doubts or intents, if he had any, inactive or neutral, make Mujib a collaborator of Pakistan or even a "mental collaborator" of Pakistan?

Some of Mujib's best friends were suspected of collaboration.  It was known that Zahiruddin, an outstanding criminal lawyer, and a life long Awami Leaguer was accused of collaborating with Pakistani army, possibly because he was Urdu-speaking (I have seen him speaking excellent Bengali!).  I heard that his life was saved through the kindness of Mrs. Mujib soon after independence.  Even in the present Awami League party and the cabinet there are people who were suspected of collaboration.  According to published reports, some prominent members of the exiled government in Calcutta, wanted to compromise with Pakistan with a six-point autonomy barely weeks before the full-fledged war started in 1971.  Indian government quickly crushed that secret arrangement guessed to be sponsored by Washington.  Some of the Bangladeshi activists working for independence abroad had their fathers, brothers and close relatives working for Pakistan.

Abul Mansoor Ahmed, one of the founders of the Awami League wrote in Daily Ittefaq (September 8, 1972) that the government was deliberately violating the established legal tradition by prosecuting many people without trial.  The veteran Awami Leaguer also pointed out that "the fact that an individual who worked for the integrity of Pakistan, out of conviction, does not automatically make that person, a criminal". Rather, it amounted to working for the opposition, and it was only a matter of political difference, until Bangladesh was independent, Abul Mansoor Abmed argued.

In his interview with London-based IMPACT INTERNATIONAL, September 8-21, 1972, Ataur Rahman, another Awami League stalwart, stated that (while appearing for a so called collaborator's case) he had reminded a presiding judge the he had also been working (during 1971), described as the occupation period, when he had received his salary, sent some people to prison, and so on.  Will those activities of the performing judges (1971) be considered crime?  In the same interview, Ataur Rahman Khan also pointed out that the people being prosecuted as collaborators did not know that they were violating a law. In fact, the Collaborators Act was a retroactive statute criminalizing previously unknown offenses.  Will Zaffor [sic] Ullah, Jamal Hasan, Ziauddin and their associates respond to Abul Mansoor Ahmed and Ataur Rahman's views?  In their misconstrued vision, such stalwarts were also probably "collaborators" of Pakistani Did they read those materials before, or their minds are eternally sealed?

Ziauddin Ahmed [sic] is wrong in his assertion that the "collaborators" had no sense of remorse or emotions about what happened.  With a few exceptions, no body has supported the genocidal killing by the Pakistani soldiers.  For two decades, it has been the national preoccupation to narrate those brutalities.  Even those who actually collaborated, many were forced to join the A1-Badars etc. under duress.  Many possibly supported the existence of Pakistan but did not actively help the military.  After December 1971, most of such people were on the run.  But the killing, torture, abduction, extortion and rape continued!  Political killings were institutionalized.  Just this week, I read that Opposition Leader Khaleda wanted trial for nearly 40,000 people killed from 1972 to75.  The "collaborators" did not commit those killings!

A definitive history of Bangladesh in 1971, minus the political hyperbole, is yet to be written.  Doubts, fear, oscillation, vacillation, confusion and uncertainty linger around the politicians as much as they worry the individuals.  Those who make a mountain out of a molehill, those who contort events and those who purvey invectives in their narratives are the scavengers of history, not the dispassionate historiographers!

May I ask which international/national law prescribes neutrality or not coming out with either side of a conflict [or "remaining equidistant" (trapeze!) as one of my accusers describe it] as a breach of conduct?  Was the Bangladesh movement a nationalist  struggle or a civil war? A nationalist agitation is not a monolithic movement, since it has many layers, and many expressions, and many different exponents, and even detractors.  Only in a civil war, the dictum is: "If you are not with us, you are against us"!  At the heart of the confusions of Bangladesh history is the activist conviction that the 1971 Bangladesh independence, since it was brought about by a heavy loss of lives and sacrifices, amounted to revolutionary state.  Such radical imagination contributed to conceptual difficulty that misguided people, and confounded the historical interpretation.

Many Bangladeshi leaders, intellectuals and their retainers looked upon themselves as the radical inheritors who lost their sight as constitutional parties working though liberal democracy, due process and pluralism in a nation state. They don't seem to understand that bloodshed and countless sacrifice, however sad and repulsive it is, alone do not necessarily make a state ideologically monolithic.  They are not aware of the analytical distinction between a nationalist movement and an ideological struggle.  Zafor [sic] Ullah and his associates are afflicted by the conceptual bewilderment that dawned upon Bangladesh soon after independence.  They don't seem to realize that the nationalists cannot persecute others for their privately held (or even publicly demonstrated) opposing views, or for not being active in the nationalist movement. Many people who did not believe in Pakistan, opted for the Muslim state, and made a successful living there; but, on the other hand, many individuals who worked for a separate Muslim homeland, stayed back in India. In a nation-state, citizenship is not ideology-based.

In independent Bangladesh, people should be judged by their present commitment to their state, not by what they believed in 1971.  Until and unless we realize that, Bangladesh will continue suffering from the quandary of disunity and national bickering. Millions will feel like pariahs, not the proud citizens of Bangladesh.  What Jaffor Ullah, Jamal Hasan and their associates are doing will indefinitely stoke the fire of a civil war in the country!  Gone are the days, when the Bangladeshi hyper-nationalists could get away by hijacking justice in the name of patriotism!

Disturbed by the post-independent revolutionary pomposity, Abul Mansoor Ahmed, an elder statesman, warned his Awami League not to confuse parliamentary democracy with a revolutionary leadership. Through his newspaper columns, he cautioned that any radical posture was dangerous for his party and the nation at large. (see Abul Mansoor Ahmed, Beshi Dame Kena, Kam Dame Becha: Amader Shadinata, 1986) The radical rhetoric of the Awami League climaxed as a single party rule in 1975 when Mujib abrogated the constitution, made himself the virtual dictator in the name of a "second revolution" (the first one was in 1971).

It's well known that the Indian government was reluctant to try the Pakistani killers and rapists.  Why? According to most observers and analysts in 1972, India was afraid of an international tribunal trying the Pakistani soldiers where the legal experts would have asked why did India militarily intervene in the internal matter of another sovereign country?  The legality of the exiled government (in Calcutta) inviting India to intervene was not sustainable in the eyes of the international law.  New Delhi was not willing to confront such questions challenging the legality of their military action that midwifed the creation of Bangladesh. Under the international law, the Pakistani soldiers and some of their "collaborators" surrendered to the Indian military, and New Delhi's decision of not trying them prevailed over the Bangladeshis.  Most countries around the world condemned the Pakistani military crackdown, but when India declared war over Bangladesh independence, most countries except the Soviet bloc disapproved of it. [see a recent book: Craig Baxter, Bangladesh: From Nation to State, Westview, 1997]  Does it make those countries (which opposed Indian military intervention) collaborators of the Pakistan army?

Zaffor [sic] Ullah, Jamal Hassan and Ziauddin Ahmed, I know, will avoid such sensitive but serious questions! They have no eyes, no ears to listen to such arguments!  Inside Bangladesh, the collaborators' trials could not continue for the following reasons:

(a) lack of enough evidence and

(b) the 1972 Collaborator Act was declared void (Qamrul Hussein's case to the best of my recollection) by the court. Most of the 37,000 (or more?) persons held under the Collaborators Act were released, and only a fraction of those could be legally held.  Mujib's amnesty (or Zia's), was by no means, an act of unadulterated generosity!  Few cases could be upheld even against those who were charged with murder, abatement and rape.  Dr. Sajjad Hussein was released from jail in December 1973, the same was true of most others accused of collaboration.  They were detained in jail, but few were actually punished for the collaboration.

(c) What inspires people like Zaffor [sic] Ullah, Jamal Hassan, Ziauddin Ahmed [sic], and their accomplices are not so much the legality of collaboration, but a political motivation and personal ambition (to gain some recognition by "chasing" the "collaborators" or fantasizing themselves as the Nazi hunters, Bangladeshi style!). That's why they are on such a shaky ground for which the readers have denounced them, and Amitech refused to publish their canard.  A related point: Hundreds and thousands of Bangladeshis continued to work and do business with what was then East Pakistani government during the entire period of 1971.  Many liberal intellectuals who are now treated like the "godfathers" of Bengali nationalism did not raise their voice against military (or supported pro-Pakistani press statements) in 1971; yet "Brutus is an honorable man"! Dhaka newspapers are flooded by the tales of opportunism by those who enjoy the special status of the "certified patriots" today while they were acquiescent to the military action.  Were they guilty of collaboration, mental or circumstantial, and other charges?

(d) Bangladesh was under pressure from the Amnesty International which opposed prosecution of those who might have cherished pro-Pakistani ideas but did not commit any criminal offense.  Until the Pakistani army surrendered' to the Indian military, Pakistan was a legal entity in the eyes of both international and domestic laws; so remaining loyal to Pakistani nationalism, without killing or hurting anyone, was not a crime, no matter whatever the Collaborators Act specified.  Many were opposed to the Pakistani atrocities and sympathized with the Bangladesh movement but had qualms about the Indian military involvement.  Many more possibly connected their Muslim identity with Pakistan, and felt a sentimental attachment to it.  It is true that the pro-Islamic right wing groups aligned themselves with Pakistan, and some of their followers were accused of atrocities and killings in 1971.  Once Bangladesh were accomplished, Islam, collaboration with Pakistan, perpetration of savagery was all lumped together.  Not only the Islamic parties, which were outlawed, even ordinary orthodox Muslims were looked upon with suspicion and became victims of the witch-hunt.  Those were the circumstances, which compelled the Amnesty International and other human rights organizations to take up issues with the Bangladesh government right from the beginning of independence.

Be that as it may, Ziauddin Ahmed [sic] and his cohorts, at least by their connotation, imply that Amnesty's objections to indiscriminate punishment of the perceived collaborators did not really matter!  For them, cataloguing names, rumor, suspicion, fabrications, vendetta are more reliable sources of accusations than the circumstances of political behavior and actual commission of crimes!  According to one bureaucrat's memoir, many of them acted on both Pakistani and Bangladeshi sides to save themselves under the circumstances.  Those were the kinds of people who got protection from the human rights organizations. Aren't Amnesty activities covered by international law and UN approved Human Rights?  When an individual or a group does not champion a popular issue or a movement, they may be criticized for "political incorrectness" but that is not a punishable offense!  Dinesh DeSouza, a Christian from India, fought valiantly against "political correctness" over some of the most popular issues such as the civil rights, affirmative action and multiculturalism for years in the United States, and became a right wing celebrity.  He has severe critics for what he does or does not, but no body puts him in jail!  He did not lose his job or his citizenship! He was not thrown out of his house!  He did not have to prove himself to a few vilifiers, as I am being coerced to do so.

Ziauddin Ahmed [sic] wants to know about my publications!  Jaffor Ullah wants me to enter into a debate based on my writings on Bangladesh history.  Well, that's what I, originally, wanted to do!  I am not a blind supporter of Jinnah, but I would allow him the historical space that he deserves.  I did not need the Amitech posting for getting something published; I just wanted to share what I have known or studied about Jinnah. What did I get out of it?  The Internet readers know the horrendous outcome that I have been suffering!  It is Jamal Hasan and Zaffor [sic] Ullah who started smearing me, and doing it again and again, sometimes directly and sometimes through their friends, for which they have been condemned by such readers whom I have never known.

Before we can start an honest historical debate on Bangladesh, the malicious fabricators must apologize to me, and then we can go back to the Amitech pages, for a healthy discussion on a variety of subjects without hurling personal abuses!

My research and publications, since 1965, are open, and frequently quoted from the well known published sources.  Most of them have been abstracted and reviewed by the professional organizations.  However, such publications are for the academics, not for the vigilante!  I cannot oblige my slanderers by giving a list of my publications; exchange of scholarly information takes place between friends and peers in the pursuit of knowledge.  Over the years since 1971, I have presented papers/lectures on Bangladesh at the annual meetings of the AAS, South Asian Studies Annual meetings, Wisconsin-Madison, Bengal Studies Conferences, Mid-Atlantic Asian Studies Association meetings, Muslim Social Scientists Association's meeting, Columbia University, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, Sussex University, Scandinavian Institute for Asian Studies, International Institute for Strategic Studies, Harvard, M.I.T., University of Chicago, University of Michigan, University of Virginia, University of Texas, Syracuse University, University of Pennsylvania, UNESCAP, The Population Council, The Bangladesh Institute for Strategic Studies, Bangladesh Public Administration Training Center, Jahangirnagar University, Benares University, to mention some of them.

While I am fighting my slander-swinging critics through the Internet, I feel I am writing the first draft of my own memoirs! You will hear from me!

Subject:      Re: Intellectual Collaborators: Reply to Rashiduzzaman's Questions
From:         "A.H. Jaffor Ullah" <jhankar@Bellsouth.net>
Date:         1998/01/11
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.bangladesh

Over the X-mass holidays I had the opportunity to read Mohammed Rashiduzzaman’s rebuttal.  Needless to say it was unusually long for a rebuttal and it miserably had failed to vindicate the author.  The long article was written in convoluted English.  Could it be a work of a confused mind?  To this confused pedagogue my simple name, Jaffor Ullah, was misspelled (thus mispronounced) in all possible combinations. Similarly, young scholar, Farhad Idris became Farid Idris in the eyes of this "genius."  I wonder is that so difficult to remember the Arabic names by this self proclaimed "intellectual?"

Critiquing Farhad Idris’ article Rashiduzzaman stated – "I have had difficulty in making out what Mr. Farid [sic] Idris wanted to say in his rambling DEJANEWS posting …His writing style reminded me of what the Americans call FILIBUSTERING that amounts to talking and talking, zig zaging, jumping up and down when you have little convincing to say."

Well, the same standard should be applied to Rashiduzzaman’s style of writing.  He tried in vain to portray him as an unadulterated  "pucca" Bengalee.  Nevertheless, his convoluted style of English takes him no where!

During the turbulent days in 1971 there were hundreds of Bengalis in the college campuses scattered all over the US.  With the exception of a few, like Rashiduzzaman, most Bengalis wholeheartedly joined in "Free Bangladesh" movement.  However, Rashiduzzaman’s case is an aberrant one.  Bengalis in the East
Coast especially in the NY-NJ area knew very well Rashiduzzaman’s behind the scene anti-Bangladesh activities.  At that time he had nothing good to say about the emerging nation of Bangladesh.  His vision of united Pakistan stems from his blind love for Jinnah and the Muslim League.  Till this day his maladroit writings reflect that warped view.

Recently, I had the opportunity to read some of his pro-Jamati writings.  One of those is entitled "Islam, Muslim Identity and nationalism in Bangladesh" published in Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies (Vol. XVIII, 1994, pp. 36-60).  I wonder who financed this kind of biased study.  It does not come as a great surprise that Rashiduzzaman still harbors pro-Pakistani sentiments when it comes to geopolitics of our subcontinent.  A manifestation of that feeling reared its ugly head in the dark days of 1971.  At that time when most of us in the US were working very hard to spread the news of the genocidal activity of Pakistani army to the members of the US congress and public, Rashiduzzaman was busy frolicking with the Pakistanis in debate halls at the Columbia.

Can I produce any witness who would testify this?  Yes, we still have people like Dr. Alamgir Kabir residing in New York not too far from Columbia University.  His memory is still fresh and he spoke to me in an evocative language.  He volunteered to write articles based on his personal experiences of the dark days of 71.

You see, up until now Rashiduzzaman tried his best to soft sell to anyone who would listen that he never opposed Bangladesh movement nor did he promote a united Pakistan while he was at the Columbia during the entire liberation period.  I would rather not go into the details of what Dr. Kabir will reveal but suffice it to say that his revelations will refute all the things Rashiduzzaman had been saying to the readers of both Amitech and SCB forums to extricate himself.

Why does Rashiduzzaman love Jinnah and his two-nation theory?

What is his fascination with mighty Ayub Khan and "Basic Democracy" of this army dictator?

Didn't Rashiduzzaman was more than eager to publish a book on the very "success" of  ‘Basic Democracy’ of Ayub Khan in 1970-71?

His undying love for Pakistan, his Quaid-e-Azam, Ayub, and Basic Democracy stems from his distorted view that the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent were somehow different from the Hindus and the other minorities.  I’m sure the events of the late forties left an indelible mark on Rashiduzzaman.  Like so many non-secularists of his time, he must have erroneously concluded that East Bengali Muslims needed to be safeguarded from the undue influences of the elite Hindu writers and intellectuals of Bengal.  The formation of a united Muslim homeland assured him freedom from the Hindu influence he so despised.  This explains why he opposed the breakup of united Pakistan in 1971.

The thrust of this essay is not to figure out why Rashiduzzaman acted strangely in 1971 ignoring the call of his fellow Bengalis.  I'm just exposing the contorted view this misguided professor holds in his heart for his ancestral homeland.  Once you understand what dictated this guy to take such an unpopular stand on a popular issue, you will see that every action that he took made a heck of a sense.  I do not see any contradiction in Rashiduzzaman’s deep-seated belief and in his action in 1971.  The trouble is that he would neither agree in a public forum that indeed he made a monumental mistake then nor would he admit that he is a hate hawker.

It also makes a lot of sense to see that Rashiduzzaman tried his best to take cover under his "professional" umbrella when his critics hurled at him all the insults they could find to bolster their accusations and portray him as an ultimate Pakistani Dalal during the liberation period.  From the sampling of his "scholarly" work all I can say that his view on Bangladesh is tainted with anti-Hindu sentiments.  One can see such predilection in him when he admires the work of Professor Azrof and when he favorably mentions the celebration of "Bishwa (World) Iztema" in Tongi.

In his last rebuttal he boastfully mentioned all the professional accolades he had received throughout his "illustrious" career.  I wonder why does he teach at Rowan College, hardly a place for "scholar" of his stature, if he considers himself to be such a hotshot pedagogue. Besides, his career is not under scrutiny here.  I am tempted to break my own promise and tell Rashiduzzaman that my peers consider me a world authority on a nutritive factor call "Phytase."  I publish vigorously in my own field (Biochemistry and Molecular Biology); a world famous professor (whose lab produced a Nobel Laureate) mentored me and I do participate in International Symposia quite frequently.  However, I consider those professional achievements to be out of place in Amitech or SCB.  We should leave our academic or professional baggage out the door before entering the cyberspace to discuss issues close to our heart.

In my judgment we should end this debate about the alleged activities of Rashiduzzaman during 1971 as early as possible.  All Rashiduzzaman has to do now is to admit publicly the notion that whatever he willfully did in 1971 to promote a united Pakistan was dead wrong.  I'm, however, extremely encouraged by his new usage of the word "genocidal" or "Marauding" when he refers to Pakistani army activity against his own people throughout the liberation period.  Is he signaling something?