Subject:      Intellectual Collaborators: Reply to Rashiduzzaman's Questions
From:         "A.H. Jaffor Ullah" <jhankar@Bellsouth.net>
Date:         1998/01/21
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.bangladesh

Part I

Enough water has passed through the Padma to fill up the Pacific and Atlantic many times over since the inception of the current debate on Intellectual Collaborators.  Dr. Rashiduzzaman is now back in his adoptive country after his brief sojourn in Bangladesh.  And here are some of my thoughts on the remnants of a dark past written very specifically for his benefit.

After my write-up on Intellectual Collaborators was published in the Internet News Daily "News from Bangladesh" (NFB), the Professor threw a temper tantrum and managed to silence not just my voice but of many other writers as well by his none-too-subtle threats.  Paradoxically, in a bid to pose as the victim, the Professor went on to claim brazenly that it was I who was trying to muzzle his viewpoint and trampling on his civil rights.

The professor had succeeded in intimidating the editors of NFB from washing his dirty linen in public.  But he had not reckoned with the power of the Internet for hosting a free debate.  Fortunately for the truth-seekers as well as the truth-revealers, the Newsgroup, Society Culture Bangladesh, is beyond the realm of censorship.  When authors like Dr. Mozammel H. Khan, Farhad Idris and Ahmed Ziauddin were denied their says in NFB, they could fall back on this Newsgroup to reveal the truth and to pen their comments on the remnants from a sordid past.  I am glad that the Professor was informed of this new forum for the debate and has posted a couple of rebuttals.

Dr. Rashiduzzaman has demanded an apology from me on the grounds that I was wrong about his country of residence in 1971.  I unhesitatingly do so if my article on Intellectual Collaborators had indeed implied that Dr. Rashiduzzaman was living in occupied Bangladesh through 1971.  I apologize to the whole world for any misinformation either direct or implied.  But wait a minute, Professor.  The thrust of my essay was not your place of residence in 1971 but your role.  Even your grandchildren should be able to make that out from my article.

Let me point out the Professor's contradictory statements regarding his citizenship.  In his Nov.22, 1997 rebuttal published in the News from Bangladesh, Dr. Rashiduzzaman wrote indignantly," ...Does it say that I had a Bangladeshi passport since early 1972 even while I was accused of not having it at all?"

Now, in his December 19, 1997 essay's part II in the Bangladesh Newsgroup, the Professor wrote more truthfully," ...I told him that after the political change in 1975, I made a representation to the government, which readily restored my citizenship rescinding the earlier order".  The Professor has  been forced to reveal that h had lost not just his teaching post in Dhaka University but his citizenship as well in the aftermath of our liberation.  Thus, between 1972 and 1975, he carried the passport of a country whose
citizen he was no more!

There lies my problem, Professor.  Why do you have so many enemies?  Why did the Bangladesh Government take away your citizenship (as you have mentioned) and of  Dr. Golam Wahed Choudhury's? Dr. Golam Wahed Choudhury's case is another episode of the sad saga of collaborators.  But, Dr. Choudhury  was at least honest about his pro-Pakistani leanings.  Furthermore, as an aide to the great
butcher Yahya, his options were a lot more limited than Dr. Rashiduzzaman's who was a Senior Fellow at Columbia University.

Cold war politics dictated that Yahya not be judged to be as  vicious as Hitler in the eyes of policy makers in USA.  Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski later on found Dr. Choudhury, a stateless man after the liberation of Bangladesh, a place at Columbia.  I doubt that aides to Adolf Hitler would have been treated as generously after the world war.

I want to make it clear to Dr. Rashiduzzaman that I have never met him.  But his notoriety had reached my ears even in 1972.  I am prepared to concede his claim that his colleagues may have been led by jealousy to bring his misdeeds to the attention of DU authority in 1972.  But what about the people in the New York and New Jersey area who knew Dr. Rashiduzzaman in the 1970's?  Were they jealous of him as well?!  And if his academic achievements were indeed so jealous-worthy, how come he is languishing as an associate professor at Rowan College, New Jersey at the fag end of his career?

I had heard a lot about the Professor. His name was put in clear print in the COLLABORATOR DIRECTORY.  And, yes, I did confront him on NFB.   There is nothing un-American about that. As a resident of USA for nearly three decades, he has surely seen talk shows and has listened to radio talks where people have been confronted with their past with such "accusations" or "vilifications".

Professor, I am not divinely subcontracted to vilify you.  Of course I do not believe in the notion that mental collaboration is a cognizable offense.  A few of our 75 million were undoubtedly mental collaborators.  But there is a problem whenever such thoughts translate into action.
 

I am once again reminding the Professor that his "notoriety" had made him the talk of the town long before I submitted my article to NFB for publication.  Some time ago a person in California was talking on the phone to a friend who has been in New York since the late 1960s.  They were discussing your role in 1971.  And none of them had the slightest idea that NFB and SCB would be publicizing the facts in the very near future.

Dr. Rashiduzzaman, do not blame the messenger.  It is not a very effective strategy for damage control.  I very much doubt that you have even seen that "Scurrilous" book.  May be it was psychologically difficult for you to go through its pages.  That would account for your erroneous assertions in your latest essay in
the Newsgroup, "I saw the first edition of that scurrilous book that is being used by my critics, which had no address."  Ahmed Ziauddin has the first edition.  And he had stated in the Newsgroup that the edition carries the address quite clearly.  I have, in my possession, the second edition and that too has the address in clear print.  And how is it that you have not read M.A. Muhith's book?  As an academician, shouldn't you be well acquainted with such publications regarding Bangladesh politics?  And, especially so, since you have known and respected Muhith for over 40 years.

Regarding your participation in anti Ayub movement, I can have nothing but great admiration.  But wait a minute, Professor.  I will remind you of an episode from the Ayub Khan days that you have conveniently purged from your memory.  Recently I had the occasion to meet a person who had been a House Tutor of Mohsin Hall during those tumultuous days.  He remembered you very well.  After Professor Shamsujjoha of Rajshahi University was killed by the Ayub police, many of the Dacca University teachers went on strike to protest the killing.   The gentleman I know was among the majority (of teachers)  who had the guts to challenge the authority.  But, according to him, you belonged to the minority who dared not rock the boat.  Did you really join the anti Ayub movement later on?  That would have been a flip-flop worthy of the best of vacillators.

This is not the thread to debate Awami League's mismanagement of the country after our liberation. If you (Rashiduzzaman) want to debate that, you are welcome to start another thread for that purpose only.  I may even agree with you in that thread on many a point.  I just want to bring up a point in this regard for your attention.

A vast majority of the sixty five million people of occupied  Bangladesh (that includes this writer) who did not seek a safe haven across the border in 1971 were just as supportive of our heroic struggle for independence.  Most of them were not card carrying members of the Awami League.  You did not have to be an Awami Leaguer to denounce the butchery of the Pakistani army.  It was enough to be a freedom loving Bengali with a conscience.  Even Dr. Golam Wahed Chowdhury did not fail to mention (in one of his books) the poignant tale of plight of his relatives during 1971.

I have serious reservations about you, Professor Rashiduzzaman, and for very good reasons.  Soon after NFB published my article on Intellectual Collaborators, I received an email from one of your supporters.  He suggested indignantly that I should have sent you a personal e-mail regarding the allegations instead of submitting it to a public forum.  He reasoned that collaborators are already suffering mightily from a guilty conscience.  He felt that the very existence of Bangladesh is itself a constant admonition of their behavior in 1971. Though the email writer wanted to support the Professor, he was indirectly admitting that the Professor was a contemptible collaborator.

But Dr. Rashiduzzaman, himself, shows no sign of any guilt feeling.  The paper trail that he has left behind since 1971 basically projects him as a political scientist with a strong pro Pakistan bias who seeks redemption for the country, he betrayed, in the politics of Jamat-i-Islami.  Readers can make out from
Rashiduzzaman's essay in the Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies Vol. XVIII, No: 1, Fall 1994 that his political philosophy hasn't changed a bit from his days of betrayal in 1971.  Published under the auspices of Pakistan American Foundation, this journal caters to Islamist and conservative Pakistani views.  In his essay titled, "Islam, Muslim Identity and Nationalism in Bangladesh," Dr. Rashiduzzaman exposed his true feelings.  He attempted to softsell the fascist Islamic party Jamat-i-Islami at the expense of Awami League.  I am not a fan of Awami League, but the Professor's attempt seemed to me quite dishonest.  The essay from the Pakistan American Foundation journal is symptomatic of Dr. Rashiduzzaman's world view.

We know that all wars are dirty. And, unfortunately, there is dirt on either side of the fence.  During the  second world war the Nazi atrocities were unparalleled for their brutality.  But operations of allied forces were not always as surgical and as sanitized as desired.  We all know of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Russian army, after the fall of Berlin, were involved in excesses which are well documented.  But a Nazi sympathizer will not go far with his "plague in every house" argument because the world knows that the horrendous misdeeds of the Nazis can never be justified.

We can cite the Yugoslav war, too, to make the point I wish to make. The Serbs were the main villains, even if it can be shown that the Muslims or the Croats were no saints either.  International public opinion or the International Court will find many more Serbs guilty for crime against humanity.  There is no
respite for them even if Muslims and Croats are not paragons of innocence.

At the Tokyo war crimes trial, the only dissenting Judge was a Bengali (Radha Binod Pal) who had reservations about the victors trying the vanquished for crimes howsoever heinous they might be.  But the rest of the judges opined that no matter what, the criminals need to be punished because their crimes were simply too horrible.

It was apparent to even Henry Kissinger that reprisals against the collaborators were inevitable.  He had been a witness to similar reprisals in Europe at the end of the 2nd world war.  And as a cold war warrior, he was cynical enough to order his staff in the first week of December of 1971 to let him at once know of reprisals when they occurred so that he could immediately denounce the Bangladeshi freedom fighters.

Dr. Rashiduzzaman's current writings in NFB and SCB are quite in keeping with the aforesaid article (published in 1994) in Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies.  Readers can easily make
out that the writer is doing exactly the same thing - He is making "victims" out of people who were on the side of tyranny during Bangladesh's struggle for independence.  Dr. Rashiduzzaman is most certainly being cynical and selectively indignant when he complains that the members of Jamat-i-Islami were persecuted after independence.

He further complains that alleged murderers were prosecuted in 1972 even in the absence of irrefutable evidence against them.  Does he know that for a fact?

There cannot be any statute of limitations for the crimes of 1971.  Eichmann could be kidnapped, tried and hanged because his crimes were simply too horrible to go unpunished.  Does Rashiduzzaman know that even today, more than 50 years after the defeat of the Third Reich, old Nazis and their collaborators are still being pulled out from oblivion and prosecuted for their crimes?  Wasn't the Professor indulging in wishful thinking when he claimed lack of irrefutable evidence against the perpetrators of crime against humanity in 1972?  Even 26 years after independence, it would be premature for him to breathe a sigh of relief on behalf of the  collaborators.

Dr. Rashiduzzaman has denounced Bangladesh under Mujib for curbing civil rights. After the emergence of Bangladesh the country was facing a chaotic situation.  The Awami League regime failed to consolidate the fruit of independence.  But this failure cannot be the justification for denouncing our independence.  As a political scientist he should have been able to separate our struggle for independence from any failure of the government of independent Bangladesh.  Furthermore, the failure of AL was not a reflection of the  worthiness of Bengalis to be free.  Dr. Rashiduzzaman has made a mockery of our national aspirations by lumping the corrupt and inept AL leaders with the 65 million Bengalis to make his point.

When chips are down, even the most democratic of nations sometimes fail to play it straight.  When the Irish Republic Army was gaining ground, the British Government imposed restrictions on the press in its reporting of the Irish Republican Army position.  Germany was lately inundated with right wing terrorist acts.  It too decided to ban all extreme right wing and left wing parties.

Fortunately, censorship seldom achieves its objective in the modern world. When news of the IRA or of extremism in Germany is censored on local TV, the United States based Public Broadcasting Service takes upon itself the job of defeating censorship.

If Dr. Rashiduzzaman feels bitter, he can easily swing into action.   I am (and so is the world) waiting to read your memoir, Professor.   Let us have your mea culpa as soon as possible.

Have a good day, Professor.

Subject:      Intellectual Collaborators: Reply to Rashiduzzaman's Questions
From:         "A.H. Jaffor Ullah" <jhankar@Bellsouth.net>
Date:         1998/01/21
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.bangladesh

Dr. Rashiduzzaman in his SCB posting commented loftily, "I respect my elders, ... and I never mix personal friendship with politics."  This was to explain away his hobnobbing with the collaborators that were sent by Pakistan's military junta to lobby support in America.

Rashiduzzaman had invited the collaborators to his apartment for dinner at a time when they were being shunned as Quislings by the Bengalis in this country.  And now Rashiduzzaman is making a virtue of what he did.

I came across an interesting quotation, "Minds are like parachutes; they only function when open."  I am trying to reconcile Professor's comment regarding his respect for elders and his ability to pursue politics with an open mind.  But of no avail.  I too respect my elders, but I would not hesitate to draw a line when those elders are acting immorally and against everything I believe in.

Dr. Syed Sajjad Hussein, Dr. Din Mohammad and Dr. Mohar Ali were not only supporting a genocidal regime but were, in fact, acting as its agents. Morality had no place in what they were doing.   Dr. Rashiduzzaman trivializes their crime by paying tribute to their age.  People of principle would never have acted the way that Rashiduzzaman did.

Let us suppose (though it seems quite farfetched) that Dr. Rashiduzzaman had felt obligated to wine and dine the collaborators in his apartment.  But, if he were a man of principle, he would have come out in the cause of liberation to balance his "embarrassing act."  I doubt very much the Professor did any thing of that sort.  Can he cite any article by him during that period where he argued against the Pak army and in favor of the freedom struggle?  In fact, from what I have heard, he consistently spoke out against liberation at seminars in Columbia University and elsewhere.

Many in occupied Bangladesh had worked for the occupational army under duress.   But most of them tried to clear their conscience by coming out for Bangladesh as soon as they could.  I can readily understand why a person in occupied Bangladesh may have failed to publicly defy the occupying army.    But how do you explain the actions of a Senior Fellow at Columbia University who goes out of his way to hobnob with those that were trying to be useful to the military junta?

Can politics mix with friendship the way Rashiduzzaman claim they do?  In peace time, I can indeed envision a person with friends among Jamatis, Awami Leaguers and the BNP at the same time.  They can all congregate regularly with a cup of tea in their hands.  But, do I really have to remind a political scientist that 1971 was an extraordinary year in the history of Bangladesh?

Dr. Rashiduzzaman analogy with Dinesh D'souza's political stand was most inappropriate. Mr. D'Souza has been chastised for his right wing views and for his opposition to affirmative action.  But, of course, he hasn't been sent behind bars for his unpopular views.  America upholds his right to hold on to them as much as it upholds the rights of others to disagree with them.  We are not saying that Dr. Rashiduzzaman should be sent to jail for his views.  We are simply exposing his views and actions to unsuspecting Bangladeshis who may not be aware of the stance he took some 26 years ago.  Furthermore, we are seeking to make sense of unresolved issues and of unanswered questions regarding our liberation struggle.

Voices of liberal intellectuals like Anthony Lewis of the New York Times or of Noam Chomsky of MIT have been in the fore in the task of protecting minority rights in America.  People like Rashiduzzaman and Jamal Hasan have much to be thankful to them.  It is an irony of history that a person with a strong bias towards conservative Islamist world view will never be offered the red carpet by people like Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanan.

A year or two ago I was watching a Christian Broadcasting Show featuring Pat Robertson.   The US Congress had just taken a historical step by starting with a Quranic verse in one of its session.  Pat Robertson was visibly annoyed. he was dead against religious verses in the US Congress unless they were from Judeo-Christian texts.  It goes without saying that most conservative religious right groups in USA are against immigration from Asia and Africa.  Paradoxically, an Asian immigrant like Dinesh D'Souza, has chosen to dance to their tune of intolerance.

Dr. Rashiduzzaman magnified the issue of harassment of non Bengalis and pro Pakistanis in post 1971 Bangladesh.  The ulterior objective was to trivialize the magnitude of Pak army atrocities.  I sympathize with the plight of all linguistic minorities.  But I must remind the Professor that he would have seemed more objective if he had portrayed the other side of the coin as well.

In many instances, a good number of Biharis had acted as stooges of the Pak army.  There were premeditated ethnic cleansing with the full knowledge of Pakistani administration and of the Pak army.
This writer narrowly escaped death as he was crossing through Mirpur on March 30, 1971.  At that time Dr. Rashiduzzaman was probably safe and sound in USA.

A few weeks ago I had a chance to read the translated interview of Ryan Badal Shuvo in Probashi weekly from New York.  Ryan is one of the 30,000 war babies who were shipped out of Bangladesh.  In a poignantly emotional interview Ryan described how he had tried to trace his biological mother but of no avail.  He has now decided to work for humanitarian causes and would stick to his place of birth.  Ryan reminds us directly of the rape of Bangladesh at the hands of the Pak army.  At least 150,000 women were reported to have been savaged by the Pak soldiers.  But the Professor would never talk about that.   He would rather write about the "xenophobic Bengali nationalism" that had harassed innocents with a love for Pakistan.

Reprisal and harassment are not new to mankind. Not even USA is immune to it.  During the Iranian Hostage Crisis, hundreds of thousands of Iranian born citizens living in USA were harassed and humiliated for no crime other than their Iranian ancestry.  I personally know of immigrants who were afraid to admit that they were Iranians.  Some claimed they were from Pakistan, others claimed to be from India. Persian names were suddenly changed to Anglo-Saxon ones.

Any Iranian working in a retail outlet had to undergo the typical comment from the customer, "Camel Jockey."  In some cases physical assaults took place in front of police officers who hardly did any thing to stop that.  I am not sure the famous Amnesty International had even bothered to document such abuses.  At one university, a federal law enforcement agency was scrutinizing all Iranian born students.  Many of them were summoned and photographed.

And I am sure the Professor knows all about the internment of the Japanese-Americans during World War II.

During the Gulf Crisis we saw the ugly face of harassment again.  We were lucky the crisis was over soon and the Arabs and other people of Islamic heritage were spared further harassment.  If the Oklahoma bombing was carried out by a Rashid, a Zaman or a Hasan, we may all have been in big trouble by now.  So do not talk about harassment Professor.  You probably haven't seen enough!

After the demolition of Babri Mosque the minority Hindus in Bangladesh were subject to all kinds of harassments.  Temples were desecrated and even demolished. Riots broke out.  I personally know of the ordeal of a few of my Hindu friends.  When one of them visited Bangladesh in those days of infamy, a rickshaw puller demanded if he knew any Sura. Doesn't that give you the chill?  I wonder if the Professor has heard of such episodes!  After the so called November revolution of 1975, the common army men went into a frenzy.  Many of them were looking for so called "Indian agents".  Two from the Bangladesh Television staff were killed during this witch-hunting.  One of them was Chief Controller of BTV.

Dr. Rashiduzzaman was not aware of this witch-hunting period I suppose.  He was busy trying to get back his professorship at Dhaka University and of course his citizenship.  Also, after 15th August 1975, the regime showed all signs of paranoia.  I witnessed the customs officers at Tejgaon airport reading through pages of books with outgoing passengers.  It reminded me of communist Russia.  I know an individual who was randomly picked up by soldiers.  He survived the ordeal by the grace of God.  I have been told, that he too, like Rashiduzzaman plans to write his memoir!  It will prove how undemocratic the short lived Khandakar Mushtaque regime was.

Subject:      Intellectual Collaborators: Reply to Rashiduzzaman's Questions
From:         Jamal Hasan <jhankar@Bellsouth.net>
Date:         1998/02/03
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.bangladesh

Voice of the sixty-five million

It is not at all difficult to read between the lines of Dr. Rashiduzzaman's self-serving mea culpa on SCB. Dr. Rashiduzzaman’s sympathies lie squarely on the wrong side of the ideological chasm of 1971.  He identifies himself with all those that betrayed our heroic struggle for independence.  The professor groans and moans about "The Banality of the 'Collaborators' bogey!"  He wails of thwarted opportunities, "... some prominent members of the exiled government in Calcutta wanted to compromise with Pakistan...".

Would the Professor care to be more explicit in informing the readers who these prominent AL Members were?  Were they not "patriots" like Khandker Mushtaque, Taher Thakur and Mahbub Alam Chashi?  Weren't these individuals trying to stab our life-and-death struggle in the back?  It is indeed unfortunate that Bangabandhu forgave them their transgressions and betrayals.  Worse still, he took no steps to de-fang them either.  What followed was inevitable under the circumstances.  This coterie of treacherous politicians engineered the elimination of their "savior" and helped to usher in an era of pro-Pakistani regimes that continued to rule the roost for the next two decades.

A bloody national liberation struggle, perhaps more than anything else, polarizes the politicians of a country along sharply distinct lines. There is much less scope for sitting on the fence. You get to separate the patriots from the traitors, the opportunists and the carpetbaggers.  In general, those without a "historical baggage" to mark their ideological commitments are least likely to be identified as threats by the ruling oligarchy.  These are the politicians who find it easier to stay away from the raging war.  Leaders like Abul Mansoor Ahmed or Ataur Rahman Khan could ensure their safety in the Pakistan occupied zone by reassuring the blood-thirsty military junta that their wings were clipped.  They had to convince the regime that they would not pose any threat to it or to the integrity of Pakistan.

Bangladesh's liberation struggle was far more radical than what the Awami League politics had ever experienced till 1971.  Old time Awami Leaguers were faced with very difficult options at a very
critical juncture of our history.  Those who made the choice, either on their own or through force of circumstances, to stay back in the occupied  zone, had to often turn themselves into apolitical beings for survival.  Ittefaq's founder Tofazzal Hossain A.K.A. Manik Meah had been struggling for years for the dignity and well-being of Bengalis.  He had been often harassed and had even spent time behind bars during the Ayub era.  But 1971 forced his family to do the unthinkable. Manik Meah's sons had to "negotiate" with the Pak army to remain in business during 1971.

The London based BANGLAR DAK in 1977 published a rare photograph of the Hossain brothers  shaking hands with the war criminal Rao Farman Ali.  It brought to focus how the offsprings of Tofazzal Hossain had been forced humiliatingly into negotiating with the despicable regime for the sake of survival.  But most peopleunderstood the context and the circumstances under which the compromise took place. No one blamed Manik Meah's family of collaboration.

On the other hand, Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy's daughter Begum Akhter Suleiman had not only denounced our liberation struggle but had openly supported the brutal Yahya Khan regime.  Shere-e-Bangla A.K. Fazlul Huq's son, Faizul Huq, a minister with the current administration, had to spend time in jail when he was convicted for collaborating with the Yahya Khan regime during our liberation struggle in 1971.

Now, for the Professor's enlightenment I want to narrate some personal anecdotes.  They will help Dr. Rashiduzzaman to get a better understanding of the war of 1971 and of the Yahya Khan regime's attitude towards Bengalis in general.

One of my close relatives was a leader in the National Awami Party (Muzaffar).  After 25th March he moved to a village not far from his house in Comilla.  Some time later, he decided to take refuge in Dacca.  He had intended to relocate as far away as possible from the local army command of Comilla. While living in Dacca my relative was basically leading the life of a political retiree; he did not get involved with the national struggle for emancipation.  But that wasn't enough to save him from the army's wrath.  One early morning he was arrested from his Dacca hideout. He was sent to jail where he was routinely tortured . This went on till the day the country was liberated.

Another of my relatives was in the gramophone record business.  His company had published the famous 7th March speech of the Bangabandhu. After the army crackdown he quickly realized that the Yahya Khan regime was unlikely to show any mercy on him.  As a fugitive from the army, he fled from place to place till he hit upon a bright idea.  He escaped to Karachi in the midst of the 1971 crisis.  The army had not bothered to keep tab on passengers who were leaving for West Pakistan.   And, thus, he managed to flee
from the army to Karachi!  In fact, at about the same time he was landing in Karachi, the army had cordoned off his Dacca hideout only to discover that the bird had already flown away.  Fortunately, and inexplicably, the army never thought of looking for him in West Pakistan.

There was a heaven and hell difference between the situation in  Dacca and in Karachi during those infamous nine months of 1971.   Abul Mansoor Ahmed sent one of his sons away to the safety of Karachi. The son who was in his mid twenties had political leanings that were liberal and left-leaning (not pro-Chinese of course).  Abul Mansoor Ahmed was perspicacious enough to realize that his son risked elimination by the army if he stayed back in East Pakistan.  His decision to send away his son to Karachi was as sensible as it was pragmatic.

I agree with the Professor. We should avoid making mountain out of a mole hill.  But the tragedy of Bangladesh was a Himalayan one.  There is no way that a honest historian can turn it into a mere mole hill. As a conscientious human being, if not as a honest political scientist, Rashiduzzaman should not try to pooh-pooh the sacrifices of our martyrs or to shut his eyes to the unparalleled atrocities that the Pakistani army had inflicted on us.

I have an honest request of Dr. Rashiduzzaman.  So widespread was the suffering of Bangladesh that it is very likely that the Professor has close social relationship with families who have painful memories of Ekattur.  Dr. Rashiduzzaman will find it quite educational to take a few moments of his time to sit with these families and try to understand the magnitude of the tragedies in  their lives.

I have already discussed the widespread rape of Bengali women by Pak soldiers in my prior postings on SCB.  Pakistani journalist Anthony Mascarenhas relates in his memoir how disgusted he had felt to hear Pak army  officers joking nonchalantly about the rape victims in officers' mess in Karachi.  These "brave" army officers  were saying that it was quite all right for Pak soldiers to rape Bengali women as this would improve the genes of the East Pakistanis!

The Pakistani dictators never made any secret of their contempt for Bengalis.  If Rashiduzzaman claims ignorance of it, he ought to educate himself with some meaningful reading and research.  Ayub Khan's autobiography, "Friends, not Masters" can be a good beginning for him.  The current Pakistani Federal Minister of Information, Mushahid Hussain Sayed can give Rashiduzzaman a lesson or two in history.  As a journalist, Mr. Sayed had the chance to visit Yahya Khan on quite a few occasions.   He has relayed, quite candidly, General Yahya Khan's spontaneous reaction on hearing of the Awami League's election victory in 1970.  Mr. Sayed heard the dismayed General blurting out, "Oh, no! Those dark skinned Bengalis are going to grab power!

In the pre-partition days we had experienced discrimination and deprivation at the hands of orthodox Brahmins and Hindu Zamindars.  Dr. Rashiduzzaman and some of his fellow campers might have studied and researched this aspect of our  legacy.  But did he take time to analyze the racist or apartheid mentality of the rulers in post-partition days?  Did he ever bring to light the contempt with which we were held by these "Neo-Zamindars" from West Pakistan?   Rashiduzzaman's political beliefs will get closer to ground realities if he can document the contempt of our light-skinned brothers from West Pakistan and its effect in turning our land into their colony.  Professional pride, if nothing else, ought to motivate Rashiduzzaman to do the needful.

Jinnah's main constituency was never Bengal even though it had more Muslims than any other province of the subcontinent.  Jinnah merely exploited the legitimate grievances of Bengal Muslims to further the interests of his own constituency.  The Bengal Muslims had to play second fiddle to Jinnah's real followers.  It wasn't at all surprising that Jinnah came to Dacca merely to announce that Urdu shall be the only state language.

In an essay in on-line paper NEWS FROM BANGLADESH, Dr. Rashiduzzaman expressed his dismay that Jinnah's name had been erased from all walks of life in post-liberation Bangladesh.  I understand Professor's point of view fully well.  As a diehard supporter of the integrity of pre-1971 Pakistan, he has not been able to deal rationally with the erasure of Jinnah's name in Bangladeshi public institutions.  But do we have to remind him again that while Jinnah can indeed be an icon of Pakistan, his significance in independent Bangladesh is quite minimal?  Interestingly, Rashiduzzaman’s attitude is symptomatic of the very clash of history which the Professor had underscored so eloquently in his essay.

Saint Petersburg's name changed to Leningrad after the Bolshevik revolution.  But the name reverted back to Saint Petersburg after the demise of the Communist order.  Stalin was an icon of significance in the Soviet Union.  The city of Stalingrad had become a household name the world over during the 2nd World War.  Enter Nikita Krushchev and his successor Leonid Brezhnev.  The city, named after the war hero, suddenly became Volgograd.

We can give such examples of name changes in our own land.  During the era of iron man H.M. Ershad the old Jessore Road had been renamed Khan A. Sabur Road to honor a notable collaborator of 1971.  On December 17 of 1997, people's demand forced Khulna's Khan A. Sabur Road to be changed to Ruhul Amin Road.  Ruhul Amin was a valiant freedom fighter who was awarded Bir Srestha.  Political heroes are often created by the temporal rulers of a nation.  But history alone can judge whether the heroes are for real.

(Stay tuned.  More is yet to come!)

Subject:      Intellectual Collaborators: Reply to Rashiduzzaman's Questions
From:         Farhad Idris <jhankar@bellsouth.net>
Date:         1998/02/09
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.bangladesh

M. Rashiduzzaman has done it again.  His most recent posting on his role in 1971 (dejanews, December 19) has added fresh dust to the ones created by his earlier clarifications.  An unfortunate sign in this piece is the paranoia it seems to convey.  Is he losing his mind?  I hope not.

Rashiduzzaman's last rebuttal, besides being phobic, reveals his pseudo scholarship and his sophistry.  I am aware that subtle distinctions of reasoned presentations are often not maintained by those who contribute to an on-line news service.  The forum doesn't require the rigor of scholarly writing as most of the contributors are not scholars.  Rashiduzzaman is a different case, however.  When he participated in the Jinnah debate, he presented himself as a dispassionate historiographer, one with a keen mind and ability to elucidate the tangled yarn of the history of the subcontinent.  In his rebuttals to refute the charge of collaboration, he is all too aware of his privileged status as a scholar and is unabashed to tell his detractors so.  He tells them that he is the author of several books and a globe- trotting professor.  Hence he shouldn't claim the concession that those who don't brag of their scholarly achievements can if the arguments they present lack in scholarly etiquette or are not reasoned enough.

Curiously enough, his critics exhibit greater understanding of the issue and more scholarly respect in what they write than Rashiduzzaman himself. There are many of us who want him merely to explain his role in 1971, but that alone is enough for him to brand us as his sworn enemies.  He imagines that we have ganged up to defame him and are going considerable length to do so.  He fails to realize that we might indeed have genuine questions about his role, especially since his own series of rebuttals has only obfuscated the issue.  Thus, we, all of us (labeled variously as "cronies" and "accomplices" of Jaffor Ullah and Jamal Hasan), have engaged in "vicious on line inquisition and mud slinging . . . with a calculated motive to tarnish" him.  What would be the purpose in "that calculated motive" of ours?  What could we possibly gain from discrediting him?

It is well worth recounting the context of this fresh outburst of Rashiduzzaman's ire.  It is what Mozammel Khan has learned from A. M. A. Muhith's book called AMERICAN RESPONSE TO BANGLADESH LIBERATION WAR.  In it, Khan informs us that Muhith mentions Rashiduzzaman as one who "'took upon himself the shameful responsibility of providing his visiting colleagues [the "misguided Bengalis" who, according to Muhith, came to the US in 1971 to lobby for Pakistan] some appointments and forums.'"

Muhith also adds that the fact was "rumored" and not a conclusive proof.  Khan reveals one other instance in Muhith's book where Rashiduzzaman is mentioned, but it does not suggest any complicity with collaborators on his part.  Rashiduzzaman does not hesitate to perceive Khan as his foe and fails to note that Khan merely informs us what is already in a book--just as he denounced Jamal Hasan to be another foe for informing us what is in another book.  However, Khan's source, unlike Hasan's, Rashiduzzaman cannot easily dismiss as "scurrilous."

Lack of common civility is a feature in every writing this esteemed scholar has so far produced to clarify his role in 1971.  Does he not know that when he is naming people he should use the exact spellings they themselves use?  He spells Jaffor Ullah as "Zafar Ullah," Ahmed Ziauddin as "Ziauddin Ahmed," A. M. A. Muhith as "M. A. Muhith."  I, Farhad Idris, suffer the worst injury; he calls me "Farid Idris"!  Is he doing this out of his scholarly contempt for all of us or is it simple carelessness?

But Rashiduzzaman displays the same sloppiness when he refers to men of fame.  He credits George Bernard Shaw with the statement "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"!  Dr. Samuel Johnson must be rolling in his grave and wondering who the nincompoop dealing with his illustrious statement is.  In this particular claim, Rashiduzzaman declares that Shaw, the "disenchanted philosopher," made the statement because he was "alarmed by such megalomaniacs and belligerent hyper- nationalism," meaning what we, Rashiduzzaman's "vilifiers," are doing to him.  He should check if Shaw was a philosopher or something else.  He should also figure out the context of that remark when it was made in eighteenth-century England because the word "patriotism" as we know it today had a different meaning there at that time.  He needs to learn that meanings of words transform over time and go through what linguists call "semantic changes."

Another pitfall in Rashiduzzaman's reasoning is his habit of misrepresenting history.  In every piece he has written about his role in 1971, he describes the early years of Bangladesh as a period when the Bangladeshi nationalists perpetrated all sorts of crimes.  He explicitly states that the time was no better than what the Pakistanis were doing right before independence.  In his words, "After December 1971, most of such people [inactive Paki sympathizers] were on the run.  But the killing, torture, abduction, extortion and rape continued!  Political killings were institutionalized."  I would have excused such a blatant remark even though it disgraces our liberation and distorts its history if I could reasonably assume that Rashiduzzaman was ignorant of the events. But he does evince a strong passion for the history of Bangladesh; how can he claim that he doesn't know what happened in that country in 1971? Certainly, he does.  Since he still thinks that there was absolutely no difference between the days before and after the victory in December, the kind of history that he wants to teach us appears the farcical fiction of a brazen falsifier at best.

This is not to say that there were no brutalities committed by some Bangladeshis upon those who supported the Pak army, for example, upon the Biharis.  But to say that these amounted to nothing short of a genocide of millions is a gross distortion of the facts.  Ahmed Ziauddin has responded to this particular sophistry of Rashiduzzaman and has reminded him of the necessity to remember that those deeds were not endorsed by the government that came to power and to keep in mind "the context which created such frenzied reactions."

Rashiduzzaman forgets that, in 1971, a war occurred in Bangladesh, where the majority of its unarmed population had to resist a powerful army equipped with sophisticated weapons.  He ignores a basic fact: that the kind of civil liberty and freedom of thought that one grants even to one's fallen enemy (even though the same enemy has murdered, raped, and pillaged one's innumerable friends, relatives, and countrymen) can't be expected of the Bengalis at that time the majority of whom were illiterate.  To expect that despite what the Pak army and its local thugs had done to the them, they would still exercise their power of magnanimous judgment and spare the supporters of their former tormentors from all harm (especially at a time when blood was still flowing from the bodies of the slain and the memory of the losses was painfully raw) betrays a complete lack of knowledge of human nature.

Since Rashiduzzaman has knowledge of history, he of all people should know that Bengalis were not alone in taking justice in their hands under such a circumstance.  What was the fate of those French who collaborated with the occupying German army during WWII?  Pictures exist to prove that many of them were lynched when the war was over--despite France being a country with a deep sense of civil liberties.  The same country produced Voltaire, the thinker and writer who paid the highest tribute to intellectual freedom when he said centuries ago, "I might disagree with you, but I will defend to death your right to say so."  But that same country failed to exhibit that tolerance to its enemy after WWII.

My own recollection of the events in 1971 gives me a picture quite unlike the one Rashiduzzaman would have us believe.  I was a mere highschool-going teenager at that time, but I and my family managed to survive the proverbial bullets and bayonets of the nine months because we lived in a relatively respectable neighborhood in Dhaka.  Some of my close relatives living in Jinjira were not that fortunate; nor were the inhabitants of Mirpur, Mohammadpur, Tanti Bazaar, and Shakharipatti; nor were the slum dwellers scattered all over the city.  The Pak army and Biharis came in packs right after March 25th and merrily killed, raped, and looted them, putting their houses and shacks on fire when the job was done.  Only those who had escaped ahead of time survived, but just with their lives and with what they could carry along in their hands.

The days immediately following the liberation did not entirely let up the anxiety and horror of the genocide.  Accounts of secret killings of the intellectuals were being unearthed; violated women were being removed from military camps (the lucky ones because they were alive while some other raped women were not); and countless mass graves were being routinely discovered for months.  (People, especially children, are still maimed and killed when a landmine, planted by the Pak army in 1971, occasionally explodes in the rice fields.)  Understandably, the mood of the nation at such a time was unstable.  On the one hand, there was the joy of liberation; on the other, there was the pain of irreparable loss of lives and properties.

Yes, in those troubled times, some Bengalis, failing to exercise the kind of tolerance Rashiduzzaman wants from them on all   occasions, did form some lynch mobs, but they were not sponsored by the government.  In fact, their activity was quite limited because the Indian army was guarding the Bihari neighborhoods and prisoner-of-war camps.  Besides, unlike the goon squads deputized by the Pak army to murder university teachers and medical doctors (among others), Bengali lynch mobs didn't enjoy the cover of curfews.  Those incidents of abuse of the Biharis and Bengali collaborators were few and far between.  As soon as the government in exile returned to Dhaka and got working, they stopped completely.

A large community of Biharis still lives in Bangladesh. Rashiduzzaman himself often points out the significant number of Bengali collaborators occupying "high positions" there now.  Are not these facts sufficient testimony to the evidence that post-liberation persecution of them was not as widespread as he
claims?

Then can we honestly believe that Rashiduzzaman does indeed "forget" the context in 1971?  According to Khan, the other instance where Muhith mentions Rashiduzzaman in AMERICAN RESPONSE TO BANGLADESH LIBERATION WAR was his participation in a conference on Bangladesh held in Washington hotel.  Among the topics discussed in this event, one was the concern of some participants who wondered "how the war would be fought by an 'untrained mass of meek Bangalis.'"

An interesting maneuver in Rashiduzzaman's recent piece is his attack on the very concept of collaboration in the Bangladesh context.  Everybody, including Sheikh Mujib and all countries outside the Soviet bloc at that time, were collaborators according to some account or definition he possesses.  By this cunning ploy, Rashiduzzaman wants to throw out the window the very issue of collaboration by some Bangladeshis from Bangladesh's history of independence.  Although he vociferously denies the suggestion that he is a collaborator himself, he has only unqualified praise for those who were despicable collaborators even by his own admission.  Notice, for example, the eulogy he heaps on Sajjad Hossain. This particular collaborator came to the US in 1971 to appeal to a superpower so the balance could be tilted in favor of Pakistan.  Rashiduzzaman describes him as a "Teacher of teachers, a gentleman of gentlemen, a source of inspiration to many."  Does "a gentleman of gentlemen" wade through a pool of blood drained from his
martyred colleagues and countrymen to champion the cause of that very regime murdering them?  Defending his admiration for Hossain, Rashiduzzaman reminds us that personal relationships can cut across politics.  But is there no limit demarcating the two realms?  I can understand that one's esteem for one's teachers can overwhelm some other considerations, but I would also add that such unconditional loyalty for any idol has dangers and suggests a devotee with a weak mind and poor power of discernment.

Despite all those great qualities Rashiduzzaman credits Hossain with, wasn't Hossain misguided, if not criminally motivated, in his act of collaboration?  Rashiduzzaman can praise him all he wants, but should he not also condemn him for collaboration, more so because Rashiduzzaman's personal loss in that war was considerable?  (He claims that four of his first cousins perished in that struggle; I assume of course that they were murdered by the Pakis or their hired killers.)

That Rashiduzzaman can never bring himself to do.  And that specific failure, willful and morally indefensible, as it were, speaks volumes about his political loyalty in 1971.  Certainly, Rashiduzzaman has the right to pursue any politics he wants.  At the same time, he should be honest about it.  But what prevents him from openly saying that he had his loyalty for Pakistan in 1971 is a mystery that probably will never be solved.  Nearly three decades after the fact, a frank confession of such a kind is not likely to harm him in any material sort of way, especially since what has emerged so far doesn't suggest that he was a collaborator whose support for the genocidal regime in 1971 was all that vigorous.  After all, truth, even if it hurts a little, is better told than concealed.  Rashiduzzaman, on the one hand, will continue to defend and admire collaborators; on the other, he will pretend at the same time that he is not one of them.  In fact, he will find even the insinuation that he, at the very least, was a believer in their politics during the independence struggle quite loathsome.  Last but not least in his case, as he will express his outrage at such an allegation, he will appropriate the victim's rhetoric and scream at the top of his voice that he has been put on the rack by a "vicious on line inquisition" heedless of his civil rights.  In a classic case of the ostrich syndrome, he will remain unaware that his admiration for collaborators and attempt to camouflage the very issue of collaboration will keep exposing his loyalty for Pakistan regardless of the vehement denials he will offer.  The man is not all that clever.

Of course his devotion for Pakistan is not the business of any court of law to deliberate upon as a crime, for the issue is a moral and not a legal one.  However, this cardinal aspect of the whole debate about his role has eluded Rashiduzzaman so far.  He has failed to realize that what people want to know about his past involves its morality and ethics and not its legality.  Nor is he aware that they have such a zeal in this quest because by hiding the truth under layers of prevarication, he himself has been whetting their appetite.

I was motivated to write my earlier piece on him because I found his first rebuttal quite curious in its defense.  In it, Rashiduzzaman argues that among the many reasons against his being a collaborator, one is the fact that in 1971, he maintained links with the two opposing groups of lobbyists (for Pakistan and Bangladesh) in New York, implying that he did not espouse the cause of either.  Is such a complete detachment from the all- consuming political question of the time possible for any Bangladeshi?  Is it at all possible for a Bangladeshi political scientist?  In the same piece, he mentions that he "challenged their [the Pak army's] actions," but neglects to include any evidence of whatever he means by "challenged."  In his second piece, he does state that he was consulted by several journalists of well known US-based dailies and weeklies for his view on the Bangladesh struggle.  Then he adds, "It was difficult to be quoted publicly in those days," which suggests that those journalists didn't include his name in whatever they wrote about Bangladesh--hence his failure to come up with any such evidence.  But is this a credible reason? He was in the US at that time, when many of his compatriots were braving snow, rain, and storm in the streets to proclaim to the world their support for Bangladesh--presumably, Dr. Jaffor Ullah among them.  Why was it so "difficult" for Rashiduzzaman to declare openly his support for his country?  (As usual, Rashiduzzaman never misses an opportunity to gloat about his status as a "scholar."  Right after he mentions that he was visited by those journalists for what seems to have been his "informed opinion" on Bangladesh, he is quick to add, "How come they did not go to Jaffor Ullah?"  Here the name is spelled right.)

Such lapses in his reasoning led me to write my first article on him. While I pointed those out to him, I also wondered if a logical explanation does exist for his mysterious role in 1971-- the man only needs to clarify it.  That, however, was fond hope.  He has responded with another salvo of vituperation, clouding the whole issue of collaboration with twisted logic embellished with outlandish analogies and improbable scenarios (Sylhet seceding from Bangladesh!).  Specifically referring to that piece of mine, he writes,
 

"I have had difficulty in making out what Mr. 'Farid' Idris wanted to say in his rambling DEJANEWS posting except that he supported Jaffor Ullah and Jamal Hasan, my vilifiers.  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 reminds me of what the Americans call FILIBUSTERING that amounts to talking and talking, zig zagging, jumping up and down when you have little convincing to say."

Among all the meanings of "filibustering" he offers, he neglects to include the primary one, which is delivering a tedious argument to delay a decision a legislative body (for example, the parliament) is about to make.  However, that description of my earlier piece, I confess, is perhaps not all that inaccurate, for I did delay my pronouncement on his role, believing of course that he would come forward and speak in his defense.  So far, though, he has failed to do it convincingly.

Subject:      From Rashiduzzaman: Reply to Intellectual Hacks
From:         ifahmad@erols.com
Date:         1998/02/10
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.bangladesh
(I am posting this on behalf of Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman)

Jamal Hasan and Jaffor Ullah pick up every garbage, trash, grime, rumors and innuendoes from their stinking "memory lanes" to make preposterous allegations against me.  They are the crude and rude ones, joined by Nibir Datta, the subtle pundit, who sometimes mitigates the invectives of his friends, and sometimes comes with his own harangue of a history!

Following a historical debate on Jinnah, Jamal Hasan started assaulting me, without any personal provocation on my part, by his absolutely false and malicious accusation that in 1971, as a Dhaka University faculty, I supported the brutal killings of the teachers, students and civilians following the military crackdown there.  Since I left Dhaka in October 1970, and had been working at Columbia University, New York throughout 1971, without ever going anywhere near Bangladesh/Pakistan during that period, Jamal Hasan's allegations proved to be nothing but preposterous lies.  His scornful vilification, posted in the Amitech's NEWS FROM Bangladesh (NFB) was removed by its editors in Bangladesh, who had conducted their own investigations and found that Jamal Hasan's accusations were a total fabrication. Several respectable readers, across the continents, passionately condemned Jamal Hasan and Jaffor Ullah , and asked them to apologize to me for their deliberate libel against me.  Any normal, honest and decent human being would have done so, and bury the hatchet.  For a while Jamal Hasan hunkered down, but his Guru Jaffor Ullah came out of his cover, and two of them, have been dumping their dirt first by mass mailing, and then through the columns of the DEJANEWS.   As a tactical maneuver, the tormenters have been shifting their charges, from one baseless accusation to another; but neither the intensity nor the velocity of the Internet can convert the falsehood into a truth!  All that I have done since November is to defend myself by occasional postings.  After December 19, 97, I  posted nothing  but Jamal Hasan and Jaffor Ullah continued to attack me, with the same old garbage!   Again they are the aggressors, as it was before!  I believe it's my turn to act in response.

Electronic media was invented and popularized to exchange information and views but Jamal Hasan and Jaffor Ullah have made a sewer of the information super high way!  This is a mockery of the freedom of speech!  "Liar-explosion" and "filth-overflow", thanks to a bunch of hacks and vilifiers, have afflicted the Internet now!  How sad!

Subject:      From Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman: Reply to Jaffor Ullah/Jamal Hasan’s Distortion
From:         ifahmad@erols.com
Date:         1998/02/10
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.bangladesh
(I am submitting this on behalf of Dr. M. Rashiduzzaman)

Look at Jamal Hasan's desperation to prove that I am a pro-Jamati, a pro-Pakistani!  He claims that the JOURNAL OF SOUT ASIAN AND MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES where I published an article (ISLAM, MUSLIM IDENTITY AND NATIONALISM IN BANGLADESH) is a Pakistani publication.  His plethora of allegations is pathetically shoddy, and his intellectual vision is so paper-thin! Jamal Hasan's frenzied attack has backfired when he claimed that the Journal is a Pakistn-based publication.  That is utterly false and a palpable defamation against a respectable academic/referee magazine of many years standing.  My paper was published in the Fall 1994 issue of that Journal.  This purely academic journal published by the Villanova University, Pa under the auspices of the Pakistan American Foundation (an educational organization, registered in the United States and sustained by those who promote Pakistan studies, like many other area studies, in the United States).  Its editor (Hafeez Malik, a native of Pakistan) happens to be a naturalized American with a long teaching record at Villanova from the 1960's.  Since I published that article in that particular Journal, Jamal Hasan's deduction is that I am pro-Pakistani and pro-Jamaat!

This  Journal's major objective is "to provide a forum of scholars engaged in study of modern Islamic and non-Islamic societies in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa", and its editorial board consists of highly regarded academics with South Asian and Middle Eastern expertise in the United States universities. An article submitted to that JOURNAL, like any other scholarly magazine, goes to independent readers to review it before it's accepted for publication.  The articles appearing in that Journal are abstracted and indexed in HISTORICAL ABSTRACTS AND AMERICA: HISTORY AND LIFE.

The article in question is an open book which does not require any reproduction here but for the awareness of the Internet readers, let me sketch my prime theses and conclusion of that paper:
 

1. Nearly two decades after its independence, Islam has slowly reemerged as a political and cultural force in Bangladesh, which confirms that Muslim identity, will remain a component of Bangladeshi nationalism.

2. A variety of arguments have been made including the circumstances which, I feel, contributed to the political transformation in Bangladesh. Although Jamaat leads the political Islam in Bangladesh, I said that the Islamic rejuvenation in that country was not a storm of zealotry, but rather a widely diffused phenomenon. "The Jamaat itself had a steady constituency of supporters but did not have a wider base because it represented a possible rule by the Islamic fundamentalists, which many Bangladeshis disliked", I wrote. (p.51). Furthermore, I said that the Islamic awakening and a general support for Muslim identity is an "on-the ground-reality" in Bangladesh, which cannot be disregarded.  May I ask the readers: Does it make it a pro-Jamaat article (or me a pro-Jamaat writer)?  Those who write for scholarly forums are well aware that grossly partisan articles are not acceptable to an academic publication.

3. I have 31 footnotes, and about 40 sources to substantiate what I said.

I am not a specialist on the core Islamic issues but I study political Islam, and so far I have published three articles about which I have nothing to hide.  A similar article (to the Muslim Identity article that Jamal Hasan & Co  talk about), "The Liberals and the Religious Right in Bangladesh" was published in Asian Survey, University of  California, Berkeley, November 1994. Jaffor Ullah, Jamal Hasan and Nibir Datta seem to be silent on that!  More recently, my article "The Dichotomy of Islam and Development: NGOs, women's development and fatawa in Bangladesh" was published in the Contemporary South Asia, Carfax, U.K. (November 1997) 6(3), 239-246).  I expect one more article to be published by the Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies in the near future.  By the way, I also published an article on the Awami League (The Awami League in the Political Development of Pakistan", Asian Survey, July, 1970). Does it make me a Awami Leaguer?  And I have also published an article on the National Awami Party in the Pacific Affairs, University of British Columbia.  Does it make me pro-NAP?  Based on my research on the liberation movement in 1971 (which I presented a number of seminars), I published an article "Leadership, Organization, Strategies and Tactics of Bangladesh Movement" in Asian Survey, March, 1972.  Does it make me a freedom fighter, of some sort?

Whether I write a piece on Jinnah or publish an article on the Muslim identity in Bangladesh, Jamal Hasan and his accomplices smell Pakistan in my work.  Even after two decades of Bangladesh independence, they see the Pakistan apparition all over! They don't make any analytical distinction between an academic analysis and their mud slinging.  Whatever tragic events took place at the hands of the Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh in 1971 cannot change what happened, say, in 1947 or earlier or later.

Historical narratives cannot be telescopically connected, no matter how intensely we may try to do it. That's what Jamal Hasan and Jaffor Ullah don't understand!  They have neither the mental attitude, nor the training for a free and fair debate!  Their self-serving myths play havoc with historical truths!  When they can't deal with that, they come down with hate and malicious falsehood.

If  they really mean to write and talk about history, they have to separate their fascistic patriotism and false ego from the true events of history.  Those pro-Pakistanis, who had directly supported the genocidal killing by the military in 1971, were grossly wrong but the Bengali nationalists were also wrong in suppressing and repressing the suspected collaborators, without the due process of law.  Until and unless we come to terms with our past, we'll remain divided as a nation, and never make it to a better future.  And people like Jaffor Ullah and Jamal Hasan, their deceptions and distortions, their belligerence and arrogant patriotism will continue to split us!

Recently, the US Department of State has published a list of serious human rights violation in Bangladesh. There were far worse reports of gross human rights violations from 1972 to 1975.  The brutalities of the Pakistani army in 1971 cannot justify the miscarriage of justice after Bangladesh became independent. That's what I have catalogued in a couple of my articles.  And I am not alone!  There are quite a few Bangladeshi and foreign political scientists, human rights observers, journalists and historians who have done the same.

There is a deluge of memoirs and books, mostly in Bengali, narrating what happened in 1971.  If I had written anything close to such revealing stories and criticism of the highest nationalist leaders, Jaffor Ullah/Jamal Hasan would possibly have chanted Death to me.  Whatever I have said or observed were purely academic, and substantiated by documents.  But, according to Jaffor Ullah/Jamal Hasan, that tantamount to Pakistani collaboration!  A mournful and paranoid view of the past enables Jamal Hasan and Jaffor Ullah to blame everyone but them for whatever went wrong.

I don't know if  Jamal Hasan's allegations about Tofazzal Hossain Manik Mia's sons and Abul Mansoor Ahmed's son are correct.  But I have heard such stories about many prominent leaders, active in the liberation movement, whose family got their properties, jobs, salaries and business back through lobbying with the military rulers in 1971. Possibly, they did not have any other choice!

There were dissensions, disagreements and doubts about their ultimate goals even among the most dedicated freedom fighters and leaders of the liberation war.  Several books, by respectable writers/politicians/freedom fighters (not the pseudo ones!), have been published recently which identify some of the prominent leaders  (not just Mushtaque and Co) of the liberation war, who were uncertain about severing completely with Pakistan.  They had hesitations about the direct Indian military involvement, and the future viability of Bangladesh, under New Delhi's hegemony.  Bangladesh has been a reality for two decades, which few can deny, and, hopefully, we can debate those historical issues as an academic inquest without hurling personal invectives.  Can we?

Nibir Datta debated with me on a couple of issues, and he disagreed with me.  Some of his arguments were not only at variance with mine but also against numerous historical accounts on the subject.  I know that he was in league with two of my slanderers, though with a semblance of occasional fairness, but I did not go into personal attacks on him following disagreements over those historical topics.  Time is here, now, to point out his subtle culpability in the on-line inquisition unleashed by two of my non-stop accusers.

Jamal Hasan , Jaffor Ullah and Nibir Datta, baptized in the cult of revenge and self praise, want to be left unchallenged in their erroneous and one-sided punditry of history.  You won't have that luxury, I can assure you!

I have never suggested that Jamal Hasan/Jaffor Ullah/Nibir Datt cannot express their opinion about what I write but why do they take it to a level of  fabrication and personal insult.   I hold no monopoly of historical truth, but I did not indulge in any personal attack for disagreeing with me!  As long as they don't abuse their freedom of speech, they are entitled to their opinion, although personal views are not the embodiment of verified knowledge.  I want the readers to ponder about it.   Why don't they write a challenging article and publish it in the same journal or in a comparable one?   Will they take this challenge?  Do they possess the acumen, honesty and courage to take this challenge?  Jamal Hasan and his cronies will not do this because their goal was never to make an academic point and an honest debate!  Their purpose is to vilify me, and, like the intellectual hoodlums, they selectively quote from my publications, to support their railing!

Subject:      Rashiduzzaman
From:         faria@voicenet.com
Date:         1998/02/11
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.bangladesh

Jamal Hasan  and Jaffor Ullah  are running like a locomotive billowing one false accusation after another. They have picked up another issue!  Now, they are painting me a Tagore-hater.  In my Muslim Identity. Article (discussed in my earlier posting on February 10), I mentioned that in Bangladesh there was a doubt about a Tagore song being accepted as the national anthem of Bangladesh, a Muslim-majority country.  I was just recording a prevailing reservation about a particular Tagore song, which is our national anthem.  I am not a Tagore-basher, but I don't think that Tagore's place is only next to Allah, as some people may claim it to be so.  I like Tagore  poems and songs, and respect him as a great poet, but I am not willing to worship him as a sort of God.  Even in West Bengal, Tagore is critically appreciated, but in Bangladesh some people get furious with any  compunction about the poet.  There is a controversy raging in Bangladesh now since a person allegedly said that Tagore was only next to Allah!

It has been suggested that I am critical of post-Bangladesh events because I had suffered injustice at the hands of my previous employer, and the GOB.  I can't say that I don't feel hurt by what happened to me personally.  Because of the circumstances, I was unable to go and see my ailing father who died at the age of 85  in 1975.  But still, I bear no ill will for my native country, culture and people whose traditions I cherish very much.  From 1976, I have been involved with about a dozen action-research and consulting activities in institution building, rural development, local government and public administration training in Bangladesh. Whenever I visit Bangladesh, the well  regarded institutions invite me to speak and present my views.  Occasionally, I write for Bangladeshi newspapers, including a recent one in Holiday.  Couple of years back, I wrote an upbeat article for the Asian Studies, a magazine in Jahangirnagar University, and a friend there remarked that I was rather too optimistic about Bangladesh!  As long as I am alive, I wish only the very best for my native land, and the people who live there.  I don't live or work permanently in Bangladesh anymore, but I still call it home, which I visit annually.  But my personal emotions should not compromise my scholarly analysis and objective reporting of what I observe.

Jaffor Ullah and Jamal Hassan's personal attacks hit the lowest depth when they asked what am I doing in a modest college if I were such a great scholar!  In order to insult me, these people don't know where to stop!  I never claimed to be a great scholar or great anything!  When I was charged with false accusation, I named some institutions and forums where I presented papers and published articles since 1970.  I challenged them to prove if I had ever written or spoken anything against Bangladesh movement in 1971; I asked them to prove if I had ever lobbied for Pakistan in 1971 or later.  Did they find anything in my writings to prove that I supported Pakistan in 1971 or condoned the military atrocities?  Do they have any proof except rumor and unverified listing on which I have already made plenty of comments?

All right, I am a humble teacher working at a modest institution!  Making a living!  So what?  I have been teaching and writing for a long time, and I am proud of what I have been doing. I kept myself to my own professional arena.  Unlike them, I did not mimic to be what am I not.  But what about Jaffor Ullah and Jamal Hasan!  It will be better if they stick to whatever they are doing for a living instead of masquerading as a historian, economist, and Dr. Know All!  Paita does not make you a Brahmin!  Spreading filth on the  Internet will  never make you a writer!

Subject: Rashiduzzaman
From: faria@voicenet.com
Date: Wed, Feb 11, 1998 8:37 PM

It is regrettable that you have jumped into Jaffor Ullah/Hasan's carriage of deception and prevarication! What you have charged me with could have been clarified without joining those intellectual hoodlums who are out to malign me.  You could have asked the same questions without gluing yourselves with a couple of slanderers.

Your alleged that Mr. Muhith, in his book AMERICAN RESPONSE TO BANGLADESH LIBERATION WAR, University Press Ltd., Dhaka, 1996, mentioned me as one who, in 1971, helped his pro-Pakistani colleagues (from Dhaka University) in getting some appointments and forums in the United States.  In fact this was the exact quotation: "It was rumored that a Bengali visiting fellow at Columbia University from Dhaka University, Professor Rashiduzzaman took upon himself the shameful responsibility of providing his visiting colleagues some appointments and forums". (p.147).  There was another reference (from the same source) in your posting about a meeting of the Asian Studies Conference in Washington, D.C. in March, 1971, immediately after the military crackdown in Dhaka but there was no direct allegation against me.  I did respond to your accusations.  Didn't I?  Yes, my response was part of a larger message responding to all the malicious lies.

In my reply, I made 3 important points.  First, I said that whether Muhith wrote it, or anyone else did it, those particular statements were concocted lies, based on innuendo and motivated gossip!  Moreover, I described, in detail, the circumstances, which led me to meet those Dhaka University colleagues, and personal friends.  Did you read those?  If you refuse to believe in what I said and sojourn at Jaffor Ullah/Jamal Hasan's  filthy "memory lanes", that's your problem, not mine!  I made it clear that I did not even know that those colleagues were coming to New York in 1971.  It was a senior Bangladeshi diplomat, still working for the Pakistan Mission then, who sought my help to persuade my colleagues to go back without lobbying for Pakistan.  That's what I explained to you, and the readers of the Dejanews.  Secondly, I said that Muhith, the "author" of that book, was two year senior to me.  We have known each other for the last 40 years, and I have personal regard for his honesty and integrity.  Thirdly, I said that my final response to your allegations should wait until I see a copy of that book, and I get an opportunity to talk to Muhith.

Recently, I have obtained a copy of that book and also I have talked to Muhith about the book you quoted. Since you are so aggressive about the "rumor" quoted in that publication, let me make some corrections in your assertions. YOU HAVE MISQUOTED AND MISREPRESENTED THAT BOOK!  Muhith is the editor, NOT the sole author of the book with a number of pieces written by different writers and numerous documents reproduced there.  Although the editor had the ultimate responsibility of what went into the book, there is a difference between the editor of a book and the author of a particular accusatory piece.  You quoted that book from Item V: "Bangladesh Liberation Movement in USA 1971: A personal Recollection" (pp. 410-422), and its author is Enayetur Rahim, not Muhith.  Was this a misquotation or a contrived collaboration with Jamal Hasan/Jaffor Ullah's malicious falsehood against me?

I have been telling that my meetings with Dr. Sajjad Hussein and two other Dhaka University colleagues in 1971 were misunderstood and misconstrued, and I made some "enemies" out of it, who reported against me to the Bangladesh government at that time and spread rumors about me.  Clearly, Enayetur Rahim has published an unverified "rumor" with malice against me.  But I am not at all surprised that Enayetur Rahim came up with such a canard!  At a suitable time, I'll talk more on this.  It was also Muhith's responsibility (as the sole editor of the book) to check it before it went to the press.  Obviously they haven't done it!

However, I have brought the rumor-based false libel to the notice of  Muhith for necessary correction, and  I reserve the right of doing whatever I consider appropriate in the future.  It was also an occasion to tell Muhith the circumstances of my meeting with my Dhaka University colleagues, who came to lobby for Pakistan in 1971.  He assured me that he would certainly look into the matter, and, so far, I believe that he will.

It was also an opportune time for me to ask Muhith (I have asked the same question to Jaffor Ullah & Co.) if non-participation in the 1971 liberation struggle was a punishable or a condemnable offense.  His answer was a categorical NO!  He told me that some of his colleagues in the civil service were not involved in the Bangladesh movement but he did not level any collaboration charge against them.  However, he asked me if I obtained the Bangladesh Passport soon after independence.  He raised this point since I did not approach him for the BD Passport.  I told him that I applied and received the BD passport early in 1972. Since I lived in New York at that time, I got my Passport form the BD Mission at the United Nations in New York.

In his edited volume, Muhith mentioned and admired an American diplomat/academic for his article on the liberation movement, which he published in 1971 with an assumed name in Asian Survey.  I asked Muhith why did he ignore my article (which I presented at the same seminars) on the same subject, and also published in Asian Survey.  He was surprised, and said that the article, somehow, escaped his notice, and asked me to send him a copy.

I am not  obliged to explain all these to you, but since you raised the issue, I promised to get back to you, only after seeing the publication and talking to Muhith. I believe I have kept my word.

Subject:      Intellectual Collaborators: Reply to Rashiduzzaman's Questions
From:         "A.H. Jaffor Ullah" <jhankar@Bellsouth.net>
Date:         1998/02/12
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.bangladesh

We all know that the clone of Rashiduzzaman (henceforth, the "clone") wrote two letters to Nibir Datta prior to posting the letters under the heading "Intellectual Vandal."  The "clone" presupposes that Nibir Datta is somehow involved with a group of Bengalis who launched a campaign to discredit the "sapient" professor from the East.  Like a criminal lawyer, the "clone" hurls innumerable questions to Nibir Datta.  All those questions deal with the status of Rashiduzzaman as a professor of Dacca University or citizen of the newly formed nation of Bangladesh for the time period 1972-74.

Unfortunately, those questions should be asked to Rashiduzzaman's colleagues at the Dacca University.  I understand Dr. Bilayet Hussein, an ex-professor from Dacca University, is in Oklahoma.   May be he can shed some light on these delicate matters, i.e., why the ‘sage’ was sacked from the academic position or why his citizenship was revoked in the first place?  From the letter written by the "clone," we hear a heart-rending story of injustice done to this "important" professor.  But the "clone" does not ask the pertinent question what in the world the professor was doing from April to December 1971 in New York City?

I cannot place the professor mingling with staunch Pakistani supporters or Pakistani diplomat or high officials in the debate hall of the Columbia.  I was in Ohio at the time.  However, I was in New York City attending the historic protest rally in front of the UN headquarters on June 12, 1971.  I had with me Dr. Jamal Khan (now a professor in Barbados, WI) a direct student of Rashiduzzaman.  Jamal was my housemate at the campus of University of Cincinnati, Ohio.  Dr. Hasan Ali (now residing at Columbus, Ohio), another housemate of mine also accompanied me to the rally.   In our group from Ohio, we had some senior Bengalis one of them was Professor Aminul Islam of Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio and the other was Mr. Sanat Barua, a veteran engineer, who still lives in Columbus, Ohio.  When we arrived in front of the UN plaza, we heard from Jamal Khan that his teacher was nowhere to be found in the vicinity and in all honesty, the professor wouldn’t be attending the rally.

The Bengalis residing in New York City had known, from the beginning of our liberation struggle, that Rashiduzzaman would not cooperate with the fellow Bengalis to promote the cause of an independent Bangladesh.  Thus, he was conspicuously absent in the historic rally.  Till this day, I remember vividly, how sad was Jamal Khan on that auspicious moment.  One of the organizers of the protest rally was Dr. K.M. Alamgir, a reputed physician from the area.  Dr. Alamgir is now living in the town of Freeport, the neighboring Long Island suburb of New York City.  His memory is still fresh with the events of the turbulent days of 1971.

I talked to Dr. Alamgir very recently to confirm whether Rashiduzzaman ever attended the protest rally.  He became very upset hearing the name of Rashiduzzaman.  He said, "Of all the Bengalis present in New York City, Rashiduzzaman gave us the most trouble."

Dr. Alamgir still remembers vividly going to one of the debate on Bangladesh, organized by Columbia University.  He actively participated in the debate to support an independent Bangladesh.   According to him, Rashiduzzaman invariably supported the Pakistani group who voiced for status quo, i.e., united Pakistan.  The Pakistani team comprised of quite a few debaters among them were two Aga brothers, Aga Shahi, and Aga Hilali, one the ambassador to the US and the other permanent representative to the UN.  Professor Gordon of Columbia University was also present in that historic debate.

Rashiduzzaman may suffer from amnesia, but Dr. Alamgir does not intend to forget those memorable events of the bygone days.  Another Bengali person by the name Baman Das, the then graduate student of Columbia, was also present in the debate hall, according to Dr. Alamgir.

I hope Rashiduzzaman will not label Drs. Alamgir and Das as conniving coconspirators of Jaffor Ullah-Jamal Hasan and the gang.   I never met Dr. Alamgir or Dr. Das in my lifetime.  Therefore, the conspiracy charge will not stick to bring any fruition.

Dr. Alamgir also told me that Rashiduzzaman wrote a book glorifying the "success" of Basic Democracy of Ayub Khan.  Dr. Alamgir is now curious to know whatever happened to that magnum opus of our "respectable" professor.   He speculated that with the demise of Ayub’s regime in early 1969 Rashiduzzaman probably scrapped the idea of publishing his manuscript on the dubious concept of Basic Democracy.

One of the hallmark of this great sage is to write on contemporary political developments of his motherland.  Whether the developments are faddish or temporary in nature are not germane to the writings of this scholar. We still see the same tendency in his writings even to this date.

In the last two decades we have witnessed the mingling of Islam with nationalistic fervor throughout Bangladesh.  This has happened for a number of reasons, i.e., political dictators patronizing the movement, money pouring from Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Sheikdom, and rise of communalism in neighboring India.  The demolition of Babri Mosque in Ayodha also played a pivotal role in the rise of popularity of Islam in Bangladesh.

The most unfortunate aspect of Rashiduzzaman's writings is that he is not the neutral chronicler of this phenomenon.  He is a partisan writer.  I beg others to read his article entitled "Islam, Muslim Identity, and Nationalism in Bangladesh."  It was an eye opener for me to read such a propagandist article.  There was no objectivity or an ounce of neutrality in the entire article.  No wonder, the article was published by a foundation linked to Pakistan!

Over and over again, I have witnessed in the last three months the naked claim by this professor that his works are as if "seminal" writings on contemporary Bangladesh and every professor who comes to his aid are nothing less than a famous man.  In the same tradition, the "clone" also blabbers that Rashiduzzaman is a very respected pedagogue.  I request SCB readers to read the "clone's" two articles where he brazenly attacked my academic achievements while showering undue adulation to a man with checkered past.  You will also find that humbleness is an alien concept to Rashiduzzaman or to his "clone."

In order to understand the man and his psyche, one has to analyze his modus operandi.  In every opportunity that he gets, he props up his image.  Is this is to be expected of a man who received his post-secondary education in the classrooms of Jagannath College?   We very well know the quality of education one used to get from the alma mater of Rashiduzzaman. In the fifties and sixties, the college used to be dubbed fondly as "Jagu Babur Pathsala." Is that right, professor?

But our professor is wise and sapient.  Through patronization from Pakistani government he was able to secure the most coveted prize, a commonwealth scholarship, to go to England for higher studies in the early sixties.  It’s no wonder why this professor owes a great deal of allegiance to Pakistan for his personal development and why he joined Aga brothers in the debate hall of Columbia.  No one really twisted his arm to make him join the anti-Bangladesh force in the dark days of seventy-one.  Is that correct, professor?

I beg others to read Mr. Farhad Idris’ posting under the head "Intellectual Collaborators: Reply to Rashiduzzaman's Questions."  You will see how conversant this professor is in world literature!

Have you noticed throughout the debate how shabbily I was treated by Rashiduzzaman and his ‘clone’?  They personally attacked me for my recent writings in the Amitech Forum.  Well professor, my life is not under scrutiny here.  No one pointed finger at me telling that I was a Pakistani Dalal or I harbored servile attitude to our masters throughout 1971.  It was you who were alleged to have cooperated with the Aga brothers.  And now you are crying foul because someone opened the proverbial can.

Let me now get back to the main theme of this article.  Considering the professor's main culpability, i.e., openly opposing the creation of Bangladesh in the turbulent days of 1971, he has two choices, really.

One, to refute Dr. Alamgir’s assertion and thereby declare the septuagenarian to be a big liar.  Two, admit that indeed he was a Pakistani Dalal during our difficult days.  There is no harm telling the truth now.  We all understand -- everyone makes mistakes onetime or the other.

I can assure the professor that I'm not enjoying this ‘brawl’ a bit. The sooner we close the chapter, the better off we all will be in the coming days.  For, it’s taking a great deal of time and energy on everyone's part.  If, however, the professor wants to continue this ruction for an indefinite period, I can assure him that those of us who take his past activities seriously will not cave in to his or the "clone's" smear tactics.

Subject: Intellectual Collaborators: Reply to Rashiduzzaman's Questions
From: "A.H. Jaffor Ullah" <jhankar@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, Feb 12, 1998 10:26 PM

Mr. Tanveer, I don’t have any clues as to how much you know about this debate of "Intellectual Collaborators."  I urge you to visit Amitech's site and read the progression of Jinnah debate, which was
started sometime in November last year.  Mr. Rashiduzzaman joined the debate later only to pontificate the viewpoint of arch Muslim Leaguers.  He even praised the Lucknow pact of 1916, which undermined the interest of Muslim Bengalis.  In that debate if anyone uttered some kind words about secularism or vilified Mr. Jinnah, Mr. Rashiduzzaman considered it sacramental to defend Jinnah's good name at any cost.

While this was going on, Mr. Jamal Hasan wrote a piece on Intellectual Collaborators: Remnant of a dark past’ asking Mr. Rashiduzzaman point blank whether he was the same Rashiduzzaman whose name was listed as intellectual collaborator in a book entitled "Ekaturer Ghatak dalalra Ke Kothai?"  Mr. Hasan also asked Mr. Rashiduzzaman to clear his good name in the event he was the person whose name ended up in that book published by Muktijoddha Chetona kendro.

Mr. Rashiduzzaman wrote two rebuttals in the pages of New from Bangladesh (NFB).  He squarely blamed his colleagues at DU citing professional jealousy as the main reason for his dismissal from the university.  He also abhorred the witch-hunt of post-liberation period blaming it to be the other important cause for loss of his job at the DU.

The professor, however, was not volunteering any information to tell the readers of NFB his activities at the Columbia University during our liberation period.  The whole debate would have come to a screeching halt if Rashiduzzaman spoke openly about his two activities, namely, aiding Pro-Pakistani Bengali professors visiting the US (during 1971) and debating in favor of united Pakistan (alongside with Aga brothers). But then, Rashiduzzaman has his pride!  Perhaps he thought – 1971 is long gone; most people have forgotten those episodes, anyway.

How wrong was he!  Fortunately, not everyone is as forgetful as Rashiduzzaman.  We still have people with good and sound memory.

Mr. Tanveer, do you realize how many lives were sacrificed to achieve our freedom?  I don't think you will ever find in the annals of history any instance where over a million lives (a very conservative estimate) was butchered in a short span of nine months!  I don’t get the impression reading your posting whether you seemed to care about this humongous tragedy!  How about those thousands of young girls who were violated by the occupied forces?

Dr. Rashiduzzaman never talks about the victims of this army-led genocide.  The news of violated Bengali girls never made any impression on him.  To add insult to the injury, through his recent writings in Amitech and SCB, I was horrified to learn that he considers the Biharis the victim of our liberation movement.  It must be a twisted and bizarre logic of this pedagogue to call the casualties suffered by a small number of Razakars (at most few thousands) in the wake of our victory celebration.  Like our professor, do you think the Biharis were the real victims?

Mr. Tanveer, could you please tell me frankly, why you are so "soft" on Mr. Rashiduzzaman?  I urge you to go through his postings in NFB and SCB.  You will see that he resorted to unkind language to describe me from the very first rebuttal he wrote.  His bellicose writings paint a glum picture of him.  Or is it a picture of doubtful veracity of this pedagogue?

At every opportunity, he calls me Dr. Know-it-all.  I have written countless articles in NFB in the last 12 months.  Nevertheless, that does not mean that I know it all!  His covetousness is not going to elevate his status, I presume.   Rashiduzzaman’s younger brother now has joined the bandwagon of smear campaign.  His tactic is very simple – glorify his brother while throw dirt at Jamal Hasan or me.  In my last posting, I intentionally mentioned the humble beginning of our professor.  In fact, we all do have humble beginning.  It was just a gentle reminder to Rashiduzzaman.  About the professor's place of employment – he chooses to work there; no one really forced him to take up a faculty position at a no-name-brand college.

Mr. Tanveer, please be objective while judging the past activities of Rashiduzzaman.  He is not forthcoming with any relevant information about his past.  He needs little prodding.  You may characterize our exercise as "Bengali Inquisition" but I think it is very much needed in this case.  We owe it to our fallen heroes, the unsung heroes of our liberation war.  The staggering number of genocidal victim (SIX ZEROS AFTER THE DIGIT 1) deserves an inquisition.

Bangladesh never had a "Truth and Reconciliation Committee" a la mode South Africa, Mr. Tanvir.  May be we need one for the sake of all the pain the nation had endured throughout the liberation period.
----------------------------

Mr. Saleh Tanveer wrote:

"Suppose for arguments sake, Dr Rashiduzzaman  was not sympathetic towards the Bangladesh movement during '71, whatever may be his reasons. His pro-Pakistani role does not seem to have gone beyond
playing host to a group of active pro-Pakistani Bengalis, who he had known personally and felt indebted to.

I do not see how failure to actively support a movement can be an indictable offense. You certainly are not accusing him of participating in genocide or human rights violation.  From what you say, you can at best establish his sympathies towards a Pakistan ideology prior to '71, or  perhaps his inclination to identify
Bangladesh more with its Muslim rather than Bengali heritage. Such positions  were/are widely held by many in  Bangladesh.  Included among them are erstwhile freedom fighters. Thus while you and I may disagree with the view points, I do not see much rationale in a continuing this thread that is turning increasingly bitter and personal. If you have things to say against his philosophy, the thread could have been pursued in a more impersonal manner.  Support for a specific ideology should not be equated to support of all that is done in the name of that ideology.

Also,  though not a central issue, I fail to understand why you automatically presuppose the following:
 

(1)  Jagannath College student , therefore must be mediocre

(2)  Small college faculty, therefore must not all that good intellectually.

(3) Being somebody's brother means that you share the same viewpoints.

While these suppositions may be invariably true (statistically speaking), there are exceptions to this.  I don't understand how an intellectual such as yourself could not shed such prejudices.

In today's Bangladesh, it appears meaningful  matters of public policy is being constantly vitiated by vitriolic emanating from a constant barrage of Pakistani   collaborator/Indian agent accusations associated with the political viewpoints of each party.  Things are not being judged on their own merits, except by
association with an all encompassing philosophy that cannot accommodate the other side. It is sad to see that some of the best and brightest in Bangladesh cannot do better, even when they are put in a position of Minimal contact and individual conflict of interest."

---

Dr. Saleh Tanveer wrote :
 

"I agree that this would have given those who suffered much loss during the liberation war a sense of closure. I am not sure that the party in power after '71 felt a compelling need for such a commission [Truth Commission].  After all, it was much more convenient to label your political opponents Razakars, merely because of their past political views."

My apology for the digression, as my comments here are not related to the main topic of discussion, but to your observation and comments regarding a "Truth and Reconciliation Committee."  You seem to imply (tell me if I am wrong) that the formation of a some kind of  "Truth and Reconciliation Committee" was an option for 'the party in power after '71',  -- and instead of this high moral/practical  road, they chose the vindictive path of  'label your political opponents' etc.

To me such assumption not only ignores the objective reality of Bangladesh in  its early days, but also underrates the scale of barbarity that occurred during the nine months of 1971.

In South Africa, where a powerful, colonial minority who oppressed the great majority through a vicious, racial state machinery for decades, finally surrendered peacefully, renouncing their hateful state philosophy, and apologizing for their past mistakes,  handed over the power to the leader of their adversaries, voluntarily joined the new leaders to serve the country unitedly.  Even then, the peace & reconciliation committee came into existence some two years after !

In contrast, even though they were militarily defeated and forced to surrender the power in Bangladesh, from the day one, Pakistan carried on diplomatic and clandestine hostilities against Bangladesh in full force with the active support of their Bengali quislings living in West Pakistan.  Pakistan not only withheld its own recognition of Bangladesh ( over 3 years), but influenced China and some of the Muslim countries to bar Bangladesh's entry into the United Nations for years! Millions of dollars were spent by Bhutto government to destabilize Bangladesh govt  through their agents in Bangladesh and abroad!

I realize that South African reference is brought in by Dr Jaffor Ullah and not you, but I think he suggested  forming a committee now.  I would support such a move.  The point I am trying to make here is this : in 1972 there was no condition for such a move and Bangladesh was not responsible for it. If Pakistan would have accepted its defeat, recognised Bangladesh, expressed its regrets for mistakes and misdeeds, there would have been a place for your observation.

As for the barbarity of the Pakistan Army, if someone thinks that the exaggerated figures confused them, let me challenge them with this : find me a parallel( in barbarity) in the whole world history where a govt army  acting under a designed plan butchered over a dozen faculty members of the prime University of the country inside their own residence -within a few hours!

Best wishes,

Bilayet Hossain.

Subject: Re: Intellectual Collaborators : Reply to Rashiduzzaman etc.
From: mbhossain@aardvark.ou.edu
Date: 1998/02/17
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh

I have so far kept myself away from this acrimonious debate mainly because of its tone which has gradually degenerated almost exclusively into personal exchanges  of invectives and mud-slinging from both sides.  However, I feel some obligation to clarify a few things related to ‘collaboration'’ and  ‘Dhaka University,’ particularly when asked to do so in a public forum and also because I feel that there are widespread misconceptions among many of the contributors about the role of Dhaka University authority and teachers in dealing with the collaborators, and about the general atmosphere of the time.

As these are recollections mostly from a fading memory of events occurred more than two decades back, I apologize for any misrepresentation.  If there are any,  I give the assurance that they are not intentional.

First of all, it need to be emphasized that 'collaboration' has a special and a sensitive meaning as it relates to Dhaka University.

Among all those institutions or establishments in Bangladesh that experienced the wrath of a savage army and their cohorts during those fateful months of 1971, Dhaka University has to be at the top of the list.  In two phases ( 25th March and 13-15th Dec), over 20 of its distinguished faculty members were brutally killed, a dozen or so were kept captive and tortured in the Cantonment prison cells, several hundred of its students and class IV employees and their family members were killed and buried in mass graves within the campus.  At the top of that, came the news of the findings in a ditch in Rayerbazar of the systematically mutilated and brutally killed bodies of some of its distinguished professors !

For these reasons, right after the liberation, in particular, after many of the student leaders those who participated in the war returned  to the campus, the tension was running high.  Many sought to take revenge and 'law and order' within the campus became a concern  for the University authority. It was under such circumstances, the University authority decided to give 'forced leave' to a number of teachers who were 'accused of collaboration'.  This was done, as I recall, more for the safety of these teachers and for establishing peace and tranquillity within the campus.  A few well-known among the 'accused' teachers voluntarily surrendered to the Indian Army -- earlier, and were technically ‘arrested,’ a few others were absconding  since 16th Dec and never returned to the campus.  The University authority  had no  power or authority to either pass a judgment on or punish any collaborator.

The accusation against these teachers came mainly from other teachers and students who were in the campus during the war period, family members of some of the victims and others with University connections.  These accusations, some in written form and some verbal, contained names of many more teachers than the 30/35 who were finally given the 'forced leave'.  [ I distinctly remember one very agitated teacher gave me a copy of a list he compiled along with allegations, which had some 120 names !--with the reminder that if I did not use my influence to help punish all of these people I would be guilty of aiding the collaborators !].  I do not remember positively how the 'final list' was decided.  My vague recollection is, the vice-chancellor in consultation with an advising committee of some sort took the decision.

During the forced leave period, many of these accused teachers used to visit the campus ( when situation cooled down), inquiring and lobbying about  their future etc. Later, Screening Boards were set up by the Government to examine each of these accused teachers to evaluate the merit of the accusation against them.  Some among these 30/35 were found 'innocent' by the Screening Board, and a few were sent for trial.  Much later, the University Syndicate took the decision to sack the absconding teachers and those who were found guilty of collaboration by the Government

Dr. Rashiduzzaman's case is uniquely different.  He was not in any of the lists of the accused teachers mainly for the fact that he was not in the campus or in the country during 1971.  Consequently, he did not face the Screening Board or the trial.  My understanding is that he was included in the list of sacked teachers - because of the fact that earlier( I do not remember the exact date) his citizenship was revoked by the Government of Bangladesh on charge of collaboration.  Why and under whose recommendation the Government revoked his citizenship?  I have no definite answer to that.

It is unfortunate that in this debate even the known facts were not presented in a straight forward way and that may have heightened the confusion and diversion.   I urge everyone involved in this to leave out the irrelevant personal attacks and produce the factual and relevant points.

Best wishes,

Bilayet Hossain

From AMITECH website:
http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news

News From Bangladesh
Daily Internet Edition

Commentary (18th February, 1998)

Tranquillity may have descended on Amitech Forum ever since the banishment of Intellectual Collaboration' debate in early December 1997.  However, this cannot be said about another Internet forum, the Social Culture Bangladesh,' or SCB.

The ambient temperature of certain debate chambers of SCB has risen beyond the limit one would consider it to be safe.  Suffice it to say that emotions are running high among the participants of "Intellectual Collaborators" debate.  To my bewilderment, the debate had been continuing for quite sometime.

However, there was lull in activity during the X-mass break, but then it was due to the absence of certain key participant who decided to bask in sunny Dhaka rather than facing the harsh cold winter of Northeastern USA and the cold rhetoric of his opponents.  The dynamics of that debate, however, have changed since the beginning of February 1998 when all the casts and characters returned from their brief hiatus.  Like misguided missiles, all kinds of allegations and counter allegations started popping up from both sides.  The lack of a credible moderator in the SCB forum did not help alleviate the tension; rather it worsened the situation.  Under this hopeless backdrop, I tried to widen the subject matter of the debate to include the pain and agony of the surviving family members of the victims of army-led genocide of Seventy-one.

Very recently I proposed in the SCB forum that perhaps a Truth and Reconciliation Committee,' a la mode South Africa, was very much needed in Bangladesh.  The prime reason for proposing such a committee stems from our difficulty, even at this time, reconciling the gratuitous merciless killing of the unarmed Bengalis by the Pakistani army during nine-month period in '71.  A handful of Bengalis loyal to Pak army and a few mercenaries, Biharis, aided the killing machine of Gen. Tikka Khan, Rao Farman Ali, and General "Tiger" Niazi. Those very "loyal" Bengalis and Biharis wore the label "Razakar" or "Dalal" depending upon the severity of charges.  While most of the allegations had merits worthy of concern, occasionally, innocent citizens were mislabeled as Pakistani collaborators for whatever reasons.  Truth and fiction did interweave during the post-victory period throughout 1972 and 1973.

The newly born nation of Bangladesh never did have the luxury of sorting out "pucca" Razakars and Dalals from the alleged innocent citizens.

Firstly, too much blood was spilled throughout the liberation period.

I'm not going to debate the exact number of casualties, but a conservative estimate puts the death toll well over a million.  Now, by any estimate this is too high a number.  Mind boggling and numbing, to put it mildly. The merciless killing of Pak army and their loyal accomplices traumatized the entire nation. Secondly, the economic and physical infrastructure of the newly liberated nation was all but devastated. Thirdly, the new administration of the country had other major worries like disarming hundreds and thousands of freedom fighters, both enlisted and self-proclaimed, and refilling the food inventories in the government warehouse.  Fourthly, on the diplomatic front Pakistan was causing unnecessary trouble for the newly formed nation of ours.

Pakistan was bent on influencing other Muslim nations so that they would withhold diplomatic recognition, which was very much needed for the recognition and possible humanitarian aids.  Furthermore, Pakistan at the time was engaged in a vicious plot to block Bangladesh's entry into the world body, the United Nations.

Chiefly for the reasons mentioned above, Bangladesh could never launch any inquisition to sort out genuine Razakars and Pakistani Dalals from the alleged ones.  And the nation indeed paid very dearly for not investigating the alleged misdeeds of these riffraffs.  It gives me a chill to realize that so many parent  of the dead victims of our liberation war may have gone to their graves with a broken heart. The nation had deprived them from their rights knowing who were instrumental in giving the orders and who executed their sons and daughters.

The other perils of not having a full-scale inquiry to the alleged cases of collaborations were reinstatement of quite a large number of these criminals into our society.  Some of these alleged Razakars found their way to rise in ranks and files in certain political parties.  According to well-publicized news account, one of these alleged Razakar had even served as the president of the nation not too long ago.

Apart from the issue of merciless killing of Bengalis, there are other issues to be considered.  What about the pain and anguish of hundred thousand or so women who were violated by the Pak army soldiers and their cronies?  What about the destruction and looting of properties by the army and their accomplice to help enforce a scorched-earth policy of Pakistani regime?

When one considers all of the above points, and notice that not a single Pakistani army or a bona fide Razakar was brought for any trial against humanity one wonders why the system had failed.  I think it is still not too late to have an inquisition concerning the war crime committed twenty-seven long years ago.

The concept for having a "Truth and Reconciliation Committee" is really the contribution of South Africa. Bishop Desmond Tutu, an anti-apartheid activist, was named the chairman of the South African "Truth Commission."  No one is immune from telling the truth as mandated by this commission.  Even Mr. F.W. de Klerk, the ex-president of South Africa who was resp