Subject:      Intellectual Collaborators: Reply to Rashiduzzaman's Questions
From:         "A.H. Jaffor Ullah" <jhankar@bellsouth.net>
Date:         1998/02/23
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.bangladesh

The chameleon is a strange creature.  The fascinating thing about it is that it changes its skin color, rather quickly, to fit the environment.  During the entire course of the debate "Intellectual Collaborator" professor Rashiduzzaman, like a typical chameleon, is changing the shade of his color to fit the prevalent mood.  In the beginning of the debate, the professor was a bit arrogant deriding anyone who would not agree with him.  Now that has changed because all the sympathetic voices supporting the "innocent" professor have left the debate arena.  When this debate of "Intellectual Collaborator" will end, as most debates do, we will see that the professor is a perfidious lover of Bangladesh liberation movement.

At the surface, we have been debating for the last two months the alleged role of Professor Rashiduzzaman during the nine-month period while he was at the Columbia University.  However, as the debate progressed a different picture was emanating from such probing.  First, the claim from the professor was that he became an "innocent" victim of professional jealousies from his colleagues at the Dacca University.  How could he obstruct the liberation struggle of Bangladesh during 1971 sitting so far away from the epicenter of trouble?  A reasonable claim, isn't it?  The gullible editor of News from Bangladesh (NFB) and some readers of the Internet daily believed this assertion of our professor.  The end result being expunging of Jamal Hasan’s original article on Professor Rashiduzzaman from the pages of NFB.

The NFB editor, Tanvir Chowdhury, wrote that the professor was nowhere close to East Pakistan throughout the liberation struggle period in 1971.  Therefore, he is not a collaborator as Jamal Hasan's article had portrayed.  Tanvir Chowdhury wrote me a personally to tell me that he even asked his elder brother, who was a DU student during later part of the sixties, whether Prof. Rashiduzzaman ever played any role against our liberation war as a collaborator.  Tanvir Chowdhury also asked the same question to some professors of DU.  The answer came negative because all naively argued -- how could this professor be a collaborator since he was far removed from Dacca throughout 1971?  Thus, the editorial board of NFB gave a hasty rejoinder giving the professor a clean bill of health.  I wrote immediately to Tanvir Chowdhury telling him that all they could have done was state that the professor was out of the country during those difficult days.  I also wrote to him about my suspicion that the professor would use NFB's certification to tell others that he had no complicity in anti-Bangladesh movement.  Well, my suspicion was right.  The good professor has already used a number of times this logic that if NFB's board of editors (remember, I'm one of them and I was never consulted on this) has found Rashiduzzaman's non-complicity in anti-Bangladesh activity why Jaffor Ullah and Jamal Hasan are still tormenting this honest soul?  A reasonable conclusion, isn't that right?  But as the probing became more intense, new revelations were unearthed, i.e., Enayetur Rahim's article "Bangladesh Liberation Movement in USA 1971: A Personal Recollection" in a book entitled "American Response to Bangladesh Liberation War "(edited by A.M.A. Muhith), Dr. Khondaker Alamgir's recollection of the events of '71 in New York, Rashiduzzaman's article on rejuvenation of Islam in modern-day Bangladesh, etc.  Well, one has to look at the individual trees to judge the nature of the forest.  That is exactly what we have been doing from the beginning of this debate.  As the time goes by, the critics of this professor are making more revelations.  Contrary to the characterization by Dr. M. Waheeduzzaman Dr. K. Alamgir, one of the critics of Rashiduzzaman, is a reasonable man.

Dr. Alamgir has nothing to gain from this debate whether Rashiduzzaman sided with Pakistani debate team in Columbia or not.  He told me that quite a few Bengalis were present in late May or early June 1971 in one of those debates sponsored by the student body of the Columbia.  Let me reiterate here that lucky for Bangladesh there were no major escalation of Vietnam War or any new crises going on in the globe during March through December 1971.  Bangladesh crisis was a hot topic of discussion all over the campuses in the US.  Thus, it was natural that Columbia students would be interested sponsoring a hot debate on Bangladesh issue.  According to Dr. Alamgir, the following Bengalis of the New York City witnessed this debate the professor was involved with: Dr. Baman Das, Dr. Moazzem Hussein, Nurul Amin, Shamsuddin Ahmed, Rafiq Ahmed, and late Faizur Rahman.  Therefore, if push comes to shove, we have others to verify the professor's complicity.  So far, Rashiduzzaman is deflecting this assertion by Dr. Alamgir.  It is mentionable that Dr. Alamgir is a person true to his words.  As a Dacca medical college student in 1952, he directly participated in the Language Movement, the "mother of all movements" in Bangla parlance.  Again, in 1971 he made a trip to the border between India and East Pakistan to hand-deliver some communication gears to General Osmany.  The Bengali General already knew the name of this expatriate Bengali because Dr. Alamgir was instrumental in supplying a very much-needed strategic terrain map of East Pakistan to the military commands of Mukti Bahini.  Incidentally, Dr. Alamgir obtained this important document from a sympathetic American who belonged to an intelligence community at the time.  Suffice it to say that even this American, who perhaps read in NY Times and other US newspapers all the accounts of Pakistani army-led genocide, poured his sympathy towards the cause of Bangladesh.  Out of conviction, he risked his intelligence carrier to supply a document he thought would be needed very much by the freedom fighters of Bangladesh.  Dr. Rashiduzzaman, unfortunately, never did see the urgency in Bangladesh crisis due to his deep-rooted political philosophy, which favored a united Pakistan at all cost.  The politics of pre- and post-independence Pakistan and his undying love for Jinnah, Ayub, Yahya, and other political bosses of Islamabad primarily shaped this myopic view.  "Got to save the united Pakistan at any cost!"  Thus, he and his backers often ask -- is non-participation in Bangladesh movement a tenable crime?

Another piece of information that Dr. Alamgir provided to me is noteworthy here.  During the later part of 1971, when it was becoming increasingly clear that an independent Bangladesh is almost an attainable goal Pakistani administrators, both inside and outside the country, were getting restive.  As a last-ditch effort Aga Shahi and his cohorts in the US were in a recruitment binge, to enlist the help of any sympathetic East Pakistanis to protect the union of the two wings.  And believe me, there were plenty of them in the US including Prof. Rashiduzzaman.  According to Dr. Alamgir, it was rumored that quite a few sympathetic East Pakistanis converged in New York City in late autumn to draw a plan of action.  These fifth columnists were secretly meeting with Aga Shahi or Aga Hilaly in the New York City or Washington DC.  One such betrayer was Dr. M. Iliyas Ali of Chicago.  Dr. Ali was a relative of Dr. Alamgir.  One day in late-November 1971, Dr. Alamgir ran into Dr. Ali by chance in a public place.  When asked, where Dr. and Mrs. Ali were staying in the city, the surprising revelation was not amazement anymore to Dr. Alamgir.  The couple was a houseguest of Prof. Rashiduzzaman.  Conjecturally, the adage "birds of same feather flock together" is quite appropriate here!

In my previous articles, I have copiously mentioned about the political rally of June 12, 1971, in front of the UN headquarters in New York City.  While freedom loving Bengalis came from miles around (some even came from as far Chicago) to join the rally, the professor never pontificates why he did not bother to conjoin the event being present only five-miles to the North of the UN plaza.  Professor, we were then demonstrating against the act of genocide by the Pakistani army.  Now please don't tell me that you were not aware of your compatriots being butchered by the evil army of Pakistan.  In simple terms, you have committed an incorrigible crime by not showing up in the event.  Professor, the least you could have done is join the rally to show your solidarity among expatriate Bengalis and pay a tribute to the fallen countrymen back home.  I simply wonder how in the world you could defend this accusation!

In his last posting ("M. Rashiduzzaman Replies to Saturation Lies of Jamal Hasan/Jaffor Ullah," Feb 21, 1998) the professor asks why I made "snide" remarks about his educational background.  I beg your pardon sir. Please do not take my phrase out of context, please!  I never did want to cast aspersions on your good name.  Go find a neutral reader and ask him/her to read your essays and mine.  Then ask the person who had indulged in self-promotion.  I don’t remember pontificating how good of a scholar I am or which one of my work was a "seminal" article on Bangladesh politics.  On the other hand, at every occasion you have riled me by substituting my name for "Dr. Know-it-all."  Is that what you've learned how to treat another fellow human being?  I find it very distasteful to brag about myself.  However, that never bothered you a bit.  I resorted to this unconventional technique of mentioning your alma mater to deflate your mile-high ego.  Don't forget I also mentioned side by side that we all do have humble origin.  And that includes me too.  For a complicated reason, I prefer not to discuss now, I end up being in Mymensingh in 1962 (I grew up in Dacca city).  I was at BAU from 1962-68 and received a B.Sc. degree in Agriculture.  I did do my M.Sc. in Radiation Genetics in Atomic Energy Center, Dacca in 1968-69.  In the year 1969, I came to the states with a scholarship from the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, to purse a doctoral degree in molecular biology, which I finished in 1974.  I did my stint as a postdoctoral fellow in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at SUNY, Stony Brook, 1974-1977, and as a research associate at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, 1977-1985.  I then moved to a Federal Research Laboratory in New Orleans to take up a research scientist position with the USDA in 1985.  Presently I hold a senior research biochemist position at GS-15 level, which is equivalent to a full professorship in Research University.

I'm highly indebted to my mother country for giving me a college education, which was virtually free.  My doctoral education was, however, financed totally by the University of Cincinnati.  My alma mater at Mymensingh was built in 1961 centering the then East Pakistan Veterinary College during Ayub Khan's rule.  Unlike, Prof. Rashiduzzaman who greatly admires Ayub Khan and his Basic Democracy, I hold a very different view about the Great Khan.  I used to attribute the decade as the "Decade of Decadence" while Ayub called the decade as the "Decade of Development." I have no doubts in my mind which one of the previous two assertions the professor would opt for to describe Ayub's reign.  I am still waiting to hear about the "great story" of Basic Democracy (BD) from Prof. Rashiduzzaman; whatever happened to that book of his on BD?

Let me remind our sapient professor here that our academic standings, stature, or qualifications are not the topics of scrutiny here.  I just mentioned it in this article so the professor would know my humble beginning.

I would ask Prof. Rashiduzzaman quite honestly this question: don't you feel remorseful for not supporting the cause of your motherland in 1971?  The other question: why would you say that Dr. K. Alamgir is lying when he asserts that you sided with Pakistanis in one of the debates at Columbia?

Professor, I will call it a quits if you simply say that it was naive of you not to support the ‘cri de coeur' of our people in 1971.  Why open the Pandora's box now?

Finally, is it all that wrong to say that you are the perfidious lover of our freedom movement?

Subject:      Re: Intellectual Collaborators: Reply to Rashiduzzaman's Questions
From:         Jamal Hasan <jhasan@acc.fau.edu>
Date:         1998/02/24
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.bangladesh

Twice Told Tale

If you can't beat the charges against you, then plead innocent to a charge that you can beat.  This seems to be the guiding philosophy behind Prof. Rashiduzzaman's desperate plea that he is not a collaborator  because he was not in either Bangladesh or in Pakistan during 1971.  I have pointed out that he did not have to be at the scene of the crime to be a collaborator.  He could collaborate with the army junta even while entertaining other collaborators at his Manhattan apartment or while attending seminars at Columbia University.

Anyway, I am reproducing the original article underneath so that the readers can see for themselves that there is no basis for the professor to claim that I had accused him of being in Dacca when his colleagues at Dacca University were being mercilessly murdered by the Pakistani army.

News from Bangladesh
(dated 20th November, 1997)

Commentary

By Jamal Hasan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

News From Bangladesh
February 25, 1998

Commentary
 

I reside in the highest mountainous prefecture of Japan.  The prefecture, known as Nagano, hosted Winter Olympics, 1998 which was
concluded just day before yesterday (Feb 22).  Once I visited a historical place near Nagano City, a  3-4 km long tunnel under a very
big mountain.  At the fag end of her vanquish in Word War II, headquarters of all important institutions of the Japanese government
were shifted in this hideout to escape possible attack of the opponents.  The hideout was created employing thousands of laborers
brought forcibly from occupied Korea and China.  The laborers had to excavate the tunnel manually and to work day and night.  Most of the
laborers were killed during the construction work for various reasons, like torture, lack of food, pressed by big chunk of rock and so on.

It gave me a sense of relief while I found that a big billboard erected just in front of the tunnel contained the facts of what happened to the
forced laborers and how.  The board also displayed the notes of contrition of the Japanese government for its past misdoing.  It was pledged that this type of heinous crime to the humanity would not recur in future.  Every year, when the anniversary of end of WW II nears, Japan Times (a English daily, I seldom read) publishes a lot of reminiscences of ex-soldiers of the then Imperial Army of Japan.  They do not hesitate to confess of the atrocities they perpetrated on their neighbors and pray forgiveness to the descendants of the victims.

I am reminded of my above experiences in Japan while reading one commentary of Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah in NFB, Feb 18, 1998.  The above-mentioned billboard or reminiscences are kinds of solaces to my Korean and Chinese friends.  Still they seem not fully satisfied with
the Japanese style of apology.  Then what is the solace for the survivors in our motherland, who had lost their loved ones in 1971,
especially in the hands of their fellow citizens- the local collaborators?  Therefore, I considered that Dr. Jaffor Ullah's article broached an important issue for Bangladesh quite appositely.  But some readers took it very differently.

Like his many other writings, this one has started creating commotion in NFB. yesterday?s edition of NFB (Feb 23) has published two letters: one written by Mr. Najm El Husayn and the other by Dr. Taj Hashmi.  I am puzzled by some arguments of both the letters.  One common argument is: since Dr. Jaffor Ullah has created uproars by initiating 'Jinnah Debate', he has no right to propose instituting "Truth and
Reconciliation Committee" for Bangladesh.  These two learned persons have tried to analyze the person "Dr. Jaffor Ullah" not his "proposal".
And to do that Dr. Hashmi has unethically denigrated Bangladesh Agricultural University, from where Dr. Jaffor Ullah has graduated.

Readers who followed 'Jinnah Debate' will also amuse Mr. Husayn's claim that Dr. Jaffor Ullah ever advocated for reunification of Bangladesh and India.  I did not find any relevance of Dr. Hashmi's citations about Dr. Zafrullah Chowdhury's joining in Liberation Movement or Prof. Syed Ali Ahsan's writing a column in Jamaat-I-Islami's "Sangram" or whether Dr. Jaffor Ullah thought himself to be a freedom fighter with the debate of "Truth and Reconciliation."

Dr. Hashmi has dragged the issue of Prof. Rashiduzzaman mainly in his response.  Prof. Zaman clarified his position to NFB readers on Dec 30, 1997.

If Dr. Jaffor Ullah, after all of his attack against Prof. Zaman in various forums, comes into conclusion that a South African style Truth and Reconciliation Commission can sort out "innocent and mislabeled" people (like Prof. Zaman) beyond any doubt, I do not find any wrong in
this proposal. Dr. Hashmi and Mr. Husayn could have taken it positively.  But due to their personal disliking for Dr. Jaffor Ullah, they have refuted his proposal without any explanation.

In my personal opinion, the concept of Truth and Reconciliation is very much workable in Bangladesh situation. I will elaborate in light of the
remarks of the above two letters.

I am confused what really Mr. Husayn wanted to say against the proposed Truth and Reconciliation for Bangladesh.  He cited different
perspectives of two countries as a problem. But I think the reconciliation is much easier in Bangladesh than that of South Africa.  The apartheid problem of South Africa dates back to 1652, the year of first arrival of white settlers.  The problem however culminated in 1948
when the National Party came into power. But our problem with local collaborators is a matter of 9 months.  There is basically no difference
between the basic situations of two countries, because two countries would deal with the crimes of their own citizens and the objective is to
heal the injury once caused by a section of people to another.

Mr. Husayn has put some contradictory statements in support of his remarks.  First he got very angry with those Bengalis who sided with Pakistan, but later understood that they did it for their ideology and they should not be blamed for that. I would be happy to know what that
ideology was.  Seikh Mujib was supposed to be the PM of Pakistan after AL's victory in 1970 general election.  It was denied and unarmed people were attacked by the brutal Pakistani army.  I am really bewildered to understand what might be the ideology to support Pakistan under such a circumstances.  Did the "ideology" mean that regardless of the election result, Pakistan should have been ruled by Bhutto instead of Mujib?  I find strange similarities in the remarks of Mr. Husayn with those by PW Botha (ex-apartheid ruler of South Africa) who did not find any problem with the ideology of "apartheid." Botha told that "apartheid is an Afrikaans word and can be replaced by a positive term -good neighborliness."  I will wait to hear the appropriate substitute of "ideology for siding with Pakistan in 1971."

Mr. Husayn is adamant to try (instead of choosing the way reconciliation) those who killed people for their (killers') ideology. Does not it mean that the very "ideology" forced them to commit such crimes?  Then how that "ideology" could be supported?  I would like to quote Deputy PM of South Africa Thabo Mbeki who told that "apartheid forced the individual to abdicate his or her personal morality."  The "ideology" to support Pakistan during our critical period might have some similarities with "apartheid", I surmise.

Dr. Hashmi has suspected that formation of a Truth and Reconciliation Committee would divide the country further.  He did not elaborate,
however.  I think it was a wrong suspicion.  Dr. Hashmi's letter itself had an example.  When he finds a collaborator as a minister in govt., it
is indicates that reconciliation is in progress.  I do not think it difficult for the said minister to appear before the Truth Commission and to explain why and how he collaborated and to apologize for his role.  That is what is going on in South Africa.  All, who are suspected should be appeared before the Commission to tell the truth and the incentive for them is that they would be given amnesty.  In this way it is different from "general" or "blanket" amnesty, as has been practiced in Bangladesh in 1973.

A police officer named Eugene de Kock, who has been nicknamed as "Prime Evil" for his repression (including several killings) during apartheid regime and was serving 212 years prison, also applied for amnesty in the Truth Commission and his application was under consideration.  The success of the Truth Commission of South Africa has been widely discussed in the international arena, when a group of five policemen approached to the Truth Commission to confess about their role in the killing of Steve Biko, a black consciousness leader and anti-apartheid activist, who was killed in 1977 and there was no witness.  Despite a lot of drawbacks, the Truth and Reconciliation is going ahead towards its ultimate objective of reunite the deeply divided society.

Most of the families of the victims are ready to forgive the repressors in exchange of knowing the truth.  Steve Biko's late mother in one of
his interview said: " Yes, I would forgive my son's killers.  I am a Christian, and we Christian do forgive.  But first I must know who to forgive and what to forgive, which means I must be told fully what happened and why." It will be wrong to think that our people are less forgiving than the South Africans.  If the collaborators express their genuine sorrow and contrition and apologize for their wrongdoing, our people will also forgive them.

Of course, the peril of such Truth Commission will be in the offing, if someone like PW Botha of South Africa boasts that he would only
apologize before God for his sin.  Botha has been labeled as 'unrepentant dinosaur' for such comments.  There are echoes like 'Ekatture Bhul Korini' ( I did not do any wrong in 1971) in Bangladesh. Then another option will remain in hand, i.e., who will defy Truth Commission, must face the retributive justice following the Nuremberg Model.  But the South African Model seems better, when we like to deal with the crimes of our own citizens and the objective is to unite the nation through healing the injuries caused in 1971 and to brush aside the issue once for all.
__________________
A. Latif Sarker writes from Shinshu University, Ina City, Nagano Prefecture, Japan.
His email is: sarkerl@gipmc.shinshu-u.ac.jp
 

Subject:      Re: Intellectual Collaborators: Reply to Rashiduzzaman's Questions
From:         Jamal Hasan <jhasan@acc.fau.edu>
Date:         1998/02/26
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.bangladesh

Thanks for your comments in SCB.

I am glad to see, you have agreed that Rashiduzzaman fits the profile of a collaborator (# 1 of Harun's criteria).  You might have noticed, I have proved that Rashiduzzaman provided political support to the notion of one Pakistan (# 2 criterion) and that he provided support to Yahya Khan's genocidal campaign (#3 criterion).

Perhaps you  think that to establish criteria 2 and 3, some one has to prove beyond all reasonable doubts as would be done in a court of law. But that was never my goal.  The Internet and the news media operate under different guidelines.  It is quite all right for them to show a pattern of allegations of sexual misconduct against Bill Clinton by quoting different sources.  It matters little at this point whether Paula Jones or Tripp will ever be able to face conviction in a court of law.

Rashiduzzaman's words and deeds are at variance with those of the witnesses we have referred to.  Among them are Enayetur Rahim, K.M.Alamgir and all those "jealous colleagues of DU" who caused the revocation of Rashiduzzaman’s citizenship.  Much of what they have alleged are already in the public domain.  I didn't publish the book "Ekattorer Ghatok O Dalalera Ke Kothai."  It wasn't my article that Muhith included in his book to hint that Rashiduzzaman had been helping Sajjad Hussein et al to do their dirty work.  In other words, I am merely repeating what is already available to the public.

I don't think it is wrong on some one's part to believe that there is no smoke without fire. It is not wrong to write of the account of different sources and witnesses.  It is not for me to prove them beyond all reasonable doubts.  That can be done by the proposed Truth and Reconciliation Committee if and when it comes into existence.

I have neither the power nor the authority to establish the truth beyond all reasonable doubt.  But the Committee can do so by examining, under oath, Rashiduzzaman as well as all the witnesses against him.  In the meantime, I have the right, and even the obligation, to bring to light all these allegations much as the New York Times has the right to publish everything they have heard of Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky.  I think I am doing a public service by publicizing the allegations.

Thank you for listening.

Truly yours,

Jamal Hasan

Subject: Re: Truth and Reconciliation Committee for Bangladesh   - A Proposal
From:  Ahmed Ziauddin <zia@kubrussel.ac.be>
Date: 1998/02/27
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.bangladesh

A regular contributor of News From Bangladesh has suggested setting up of a Truth and Reconciliation Committee (TRC) for Bangladesh to reconcile "the gratuitous merciless killing of the unarmed Bengalis by the Pakistani army during nine month period in '71" (see A.H. Jaffor Ullah, News From Bangladesh Editorial, 18 February,1998).  He said, despite mind boggling number of deaths, "not a single Pakistani army or a bona fide Razakar was brought for any trial."  Referring to South African example he concluded that "may be we need a truth and reconciliation committee in Bangladesh.  Our motherland has to go through the same torturous path as South Africa, to heal the wound."

The proposal attracted instant criticism, not on its merit though (see comments of Mr. Najim El Husayn and Prof. Dr. Hashmi Taj Ul-Islam, News From Bangladesh, Reader's Opinion, 23 February, 1998).  However, at least one of NFB's many valued reader has discussed the issue with the seriousness it deserves (see A. Latif Sarker, News From Bangladesh, Editorial, 25 February,1998).

Some months back, after the news of filing of a case with Ramna Police station by Ms. Farida Banu regarding the killing of her brother Dhaka University teacher Mr. Giasud-din Ahmed in 1971, I tried to ascertain how other countries and societies, which suffered genocide, occupation and collaboration etc., dealt with their past.

I began the search on the premise that a genocide was carried out by the Pakistanis and local Bangalee and Bihari collaborators, unlike others, including some of NFB's readers and contributors, who maintain that violations took place not in 1971 but after the emergence of Bangladesh.

The piece titled, "Justice After Genocide: Ways to Deal With the Past" was posted in News From Bangladesh on 27 October, 1997.

The various strategies adopted in different countries includes Truth Commission, Criminal Prosecution, Disqualification, Amnesty, Reparation, Documentation, Permanent Reminders etc. Thus, Dr. Jaffor Ullah's proposal for a Truth and Reconciliation Committee is a tested way out.

However, a brief elaboration on what the above strategies mean perhaps will be helpful.

To bring perpetrators and collaborators of genocide or gross violation of human rights to Court had been the most common feature.  Criminal prosecution serves many purposes; first of all, it reinforces the principle of rule of law, satisfies natural retribution of the survivors, friends and relatives of the victims to see that justice has been done.

At the end of Hitler's occupation of West European countries, collaborators suffered judicial proceedings and their numbers were staggering.  Belgium prosecuted 100.000 collaborators, Holland 110.000 and France 130.000.  The figures, considering the number of population, were astonishingly high in Belgium and Holland, where, in 1945, the population was 8.3 and 8.8 million respectively.   France meted out death penalty to 6.763, Belgium 2.940 and 152 in Holland.  Also, prison sentence were awarded to 53.000 in Belgium, 49.000 in Holland and 40.000 in France.  As we know, even today in France, criminal prosecution are underway of the collaborators.  Imprisonment was almost always accompanied by fine, confiscation of personal belongings etc.

Disqualification of perpetrators, collaborators and their agents from exercising some political, civil and professional rights had been the other way of addressing the question in a number countries in addition to criminal conviction.  For example, in post-war Belgium, France and Holland, collaborators were stripped of their citizenship, lost jobs, compelled to stay in certain town and faced public humiliation.

Amnesty puts post-genocide traumatized society into a dilemma between prosecution and reconciliation.  Amnesty essentially negates the principle of rule of law and discriminatory in nature, since criminals are awarded special privilege.  Genocide, which is a crime not only against the victims but humanity as a whole and against international law too, where States are obliged to apprehend and prosecute the perpetrators and collaborators wherever found; serious questions could be raised whether the crimes of genocide can be unilaterally forgiven even by a victim society.
 

Appropriateness of a Truth Commission for Bangladesh:

Bangladesh suffered in fact the second worst kind of genocide in this century, next to holocaust, which killed at least 6 million European Jews and million of others Romany Gypsies, homosexuals, handicaps etc.  For a detail account of genocide of this century, readers may find a recent book quite interesting ("Century of Genocide: Eye Witness Accounts and Critical Views," edited by: Samuel Totten, William S. Parsons, Israel W. Charny, Garland Publishing, Inc., New York & London, 1997), which has a whole chapter on Bangladesh genocide by Professor Rounaq Jahan, Senior Research Scholar of Southern Asia Institute at Columbia University.

The new government which took over power after the defeat of Pakistani genocidal and occupying force in December, 1971, did not have any well devised strategy to deal the perpetrators and collaborators of genocide.  Between the period of new government's gaining foothold, rough justices were meted out to some perceived collaborators, others surrendered to or arrested by the allied Indian army.

The government made first attempt by promulgating Bangladesh Collaborators (Special Tribunals) Order, 1972 (P.O.No.8 of 1972) to deal with the collaborators who had "participated with or aided or abetted the occupation army in maintaining, sustaining, strengthening, supporting or furthering the illegal occupation of Bangladesh by such army".  The primary defect of the law was, it did not provide punishment for planning or organizing genocide.

Over a year and half later, only in July 1973, the parliament passed the International Crimes Act (Tribunals) Act,1973 (Act No. XIX of 1973) to provide for detention, prosecution and punishment for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other crimes under international law.

As Dr. Jaffor Ullah observed, "not a single Pakistani army or a bona fide Razakar was brought for any trial against humanity" until now, he hopes that "a Truth and Reconciliation Committee, a la mode South Africa" first of all will provide a forum to resolve questions of alleged collaboration and reconcile the gratuitous merciless killings, a very tall order.

Let us first look at the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  The Truth Commission, not first of its kind (Chile had a National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation in 1990 and the United Nations also sponsored a Truth Commission in El Salvador), aimed at discovering the facts during apartheid period and provided the opportunity to reveal all the facts of human rights abuses by telling the truths to get amnesty from the Commission for the crimes.  Although the Commission is not a court of law, it has a right to subpoena any individual to testify before it and if required, the evidence thus uncovered can be referred to the State prosecutor for prosecution. Hence, the South African Commission has followed "carrot and stick" approach.

So far, the Commission headed by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, has heard middle ranking officers of apartheid who carried out orders, some generals, ministers and a former President.  Also, ANC leader Winne Mendala, President's former wife has appeared before the Commission.

As the process is still going on, any conclusive judgment, particularly how far it succeeded in achieving reconciliation between the former foes, remains to be seen.  Nevertheless, it must be pointed out with the demise of the apartheid regime, the predicted turmoil has largely been avoided so far.

In case of Bangladesh, much water has already been flown down.  The first government of Awami League messed up the issues; subsequent ones have instead rehabilitated the collaborators, returned their jobs, citizenship and positioned them into high State offices.  Even in the present Council of Ministers, confirmed collaborator has got a seat. Thus, collaborators have nothing to fear in Bangladesh now, rather, victims of genocide like Ms. Farida Banu, frustrated after years of waiting, now forced to come out for nothing but only justice.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission cannot work unless the option of prosecution hangs real.  When a perpetrator or a collaborator realizes that the only way to avoid death or imprisonment is to come out clean and ask forgiveness publicly, only then such a Commission can really be meaningful.  In Bangladesh, however, collaborators have no reason to confess or reveal sordid past or to say sorry because, their future are secured in the country they tried all out to abort before its birth.

Readers of News From Bangladesh, like others in Bangladesh, are familiar how collaboration has been intellectually justified on grounds of "ideology," "political belief," "personal friendship," "error of judgment" etc., on the one end of the spectrum to denial of the genocide, on the other.  Nevertheless, just for the sake to find out more about who did what during the genocide in 1971, any mechanism, however ineffective, is worth the consideration.

Subject:      Re: Intellectual Collaborators: Reply to Rashiduzzaman's Questions
From:         Jamal Hasan <jhasan@acc.fau.edu>
Date:         1998/03/04
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.bangladesh

The Collaborator Debate has been like a catharsis.  We are no longer in denial.  We have been forced to confront the past that we had ignored for a long time.  We are once again face to face with memories that are proving to be as painful to me as it is to the Professor.  And I am sure, that the sad saga of Professor Rashiduzzaman is proving to be just as painful to all the readers whether they have contributed anything in writing to the debate or not.  The debate is definitely a blessing in disguise. Painful as it may be to all the participants, it is a catharsis that will, in a small way, contribute to meet the goals of the proposed Truth and Reconciliation Committee.  It will provide a closure and go toward healing the wounds of history.

I wish to  reiterate that I am no Kenneth Starr and the Professor is no Bill Clinton. Kenneth Starr has his own agenda and will be distraught and deeply disappointed if he cannot build a case against the Democratic President.  I, on the other hand, will be delighted if it turns out that Prof. Rashiduzzaman had not actively collaborated with the Pak military junta. And so will be the readers.  After all, it is as much a source of shame as it is of indignation for any patriotic Bengali to be reminded that some of his compatriots had sided with the Pak army junta in the darkest  moments of his people.  I did not write the original Collaborator article to dig dirt on the Professor or to punish him.  I wanted the beginning of a healing process.  That is why I had specifically asked Dr. Rashiduzzaman if he had met the families of the martyred faculty members of Dacca University.

There are very few parallels to the cold-blooded murders of Dacca University professors. This is how Dr. Bilayet Hossain recalled the horror in a posting dated 17th February:
 

"Among all those institutions or establishments in Bangladesh that experienced the wrath of a savage army & their cohorts during those fateful months of 1971, Dacca University has to be at the top of the list.

In two phases ( 25th March & 13-15th Dec), over 20 of its distinguished faculty members were brutally killed, a dozen or so were kept captive & tortured in the Cantonment prison cells, several hundred of its students and class IV employees and their family members were killed & 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 & brutally killed bodies of some of its distinguished professors !"
 

I agree that non-action in 1971 is not a crime.  However, it is inexplicable that the Professor chose to be neutral in the safety of America when practically all other Bengalis in American universities had chosen to condemn the crimes of the Yahya Khan regime.  I really find it baffling that the professor could be neutral during those days of blood and tears.

Professor Rashiduzzaman could have joined other conscientious objectors in condemning the Pak brutality on Dacca University campus even as he continued to believe in the integrity of Pakistan.  Air Marshall Asghar Khan was not even a Bengali.  But the Air Marshall had a conscience. He was (and continues to be) among Pakistanis who condemned Pak brutality unequivocally and unambiguously.  So did Maulana Kausar Niazi and many other Pakistani politicians.  Dr. Rashiduzzaman's professed "neutrality" during 1971 is indefensible indeed.

The collaborator debate brought out a lot of facts to light.  I can see that it has affected the readers and participants in different ways.  The Professor's strongest critics have softened their stance while his erstwhile supporters are beginning to have doubts.

I had strongly criticized the Professor for his failing.  But now I see a tragedy in it as well.  My criticism is tinged with sympathy.  I was saddened to learn that the Professor could not come to Bangladesh to see his 85 year old father because his citizenship had been revoked.  I learnt that the Professor's younger brother had risked his life in 1971 as a valiant freedom fighter.  I realized that this may have been as much a source of family-pride as of self-pity for the Professor for the last quarter of a century.

I can have only sympathy for the Professor if it turns out that he had wrongly been accused of assisting the lobbyists for the Pak army junta in 1971.  But in that case I must comment that the Professor is totally lacking in PR skills.  If he had been just as hospitable to pro-Bangladesh activists like Dr. A. R. Mullick and Fakir Shahabuddin in 1971, couldn't he have approached them, after liberation, for help in removing his name from the list of collaborators?  Even Yahya's press secretary, Mizanur Rahman Shelly, could clear his name.  Furthermore, the Professor's younger brother was a freedom fighter who must have had ties with the nationalist forces.  Why didn't the Professor seek his brother's intervention to clear his name?  After all, anyone, who has been following the debate on SCB, is well aware that the Professor's brother would have gladly and loyally stood by him in his hour of need.

After the liberation Bangladesh, did Prof. Rashiduzzaman make any effort for a rapprochement with the Bengali nationalists?  Or did he instinctively shy away from them?  Somehow, in the course of time, Dr. Rashiduzzaman had been demonized in the eyes of Bengali expatriates in USA.  The Professor seems to have had no clue about the problem with his image.  At worst, I have been like the little boy who told the king, to his face, that he had no clothes.

I would consider this debate truly worthwhile if it finally galvanizes Dr. Rashiduzzaman to tell the public his side of the story, something  he had not been able to do for the last quarter of a century.  That might ensure that never again in the future he will be alluded to in derision or contempt as he had been in the book edited by Muhith.  I might very well be the person that the Professor had always needed to be galvanized into clearing his own name.  Howsoever painful this debate might have been for the Professor, it would turn out to be a blessing in disguise if he can finally redeem himself.

Once again, I renew my request to the Professor to reach out to the Shaheed families.  This is sure to initiate the healing process.

Subject: M. Rashiduzzaman/Jamal Hasan/Jaffor Ullah
From: <faria@voicenet.corn>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh
Date: March 5, 1998

Again, I have to respond to my accusers!

In his last few postings, Jamal Hasan's venality has been transmuted into a Kangaroo court!  And Jamal Hasan is the judge; prosecutor, witness and executioner of that self-appointed lynch tribunal, all wrapped in one!  Through the pages of the Amitech, the vilifier is screaming hysterically!  No wonder!  Jamal Hasan is desperate to put his hate and innuendo to work.  I don't know his expertise, but he has unleashed his fraudulent criterion for profiling individuals!  He alleges that I fit into a "pro-Pakistani" profile, and he cites Dr. Harunuzzaman to support his character assassination.  Jamal Hasan always wants an alibi to support his preposterous allegations.  This has been the familiar odor of his recent Deja postings.

I leave it up to Harunuzzaman to explain what he meant in his posting.  Is there anything called "pro-Pakistani" profile?  Is there any objective way to call someone "pro-Pakistani", "pro-Bakshal" or "pro-Indian" or pro-anything?  We know that Hitler worked on a "Jewish profile", and sent millions to the gas chamber?  Will Jamal Hasan (and his mentor Jaffor Ullah) send the so-called "pro-Pakistanis" to the prospective "Bangladesh gas chamber", stoked by their hate and revenge?  Does Jamal Hasan want "pro-Pakistani" cleansing not only from Bangladesh but also from North America?  If his witch-hunt, tormenting, malicious defamation and unprovoked invectives are not a form of "ethnic cleansing",  I have no idea what else it implies.

To call someone "pro-Pakistani" or "pro-Indian" is a recipe for reprehensible derogation, which deserves condemnation from all sensible persons.  Jamal Hasan's sense of history has gone mad!  His idea of "profiling" people and condemning them for unspecified crimes possibly came from Goebbel's infamous theory of propaganda: "if you tell a lie again and again, people will at the end accept the falsehood over the truth"!  Jamal Hasan has re-posted his original canard that I actively participated in the Pakistani military crackdown in Bangladesh, and then I immigrated into the United States!  From all the protests and rebuttals, it is known that I was in the United States since October 1970.  Amitech (NFB) rejected Jamal Hasan's accusation and removed the posting after their own investigation.  Still, Jamal Hasan does not give up!  His true character has been revealed!  He is out with a crusade to tarnish me!  Need I tell this to the SCB readers?  He is fantasizing that he is succeeding in this nefarious goal, and he is under the illusion of doing a public service.

Jamal Hasan has been shifting the grounds of my "collaboration" from the killing fields of Dhaka University to the corridors of Columbia University.  He hasn't come up with a dime of evidence of any "collaboration" with the Pakistani regime.  Let him come up with a verifiable criterion of collaborating with Pakistan military in 1971 while someone was not even present in Bangladesh.  And then let him present his proof of such reprehensible action.  Above all, let him start with a conceptual distinction between a non-action and pro-military action in 1971.  Neither Jamal Hasan nor his accomplices did any one of those objective assessments.  But he keeps on harping his unfounded accusation hoping that he will pick up some following. Jamal Hasan thinks he can punish me through his insult, invectives and libel spread through the speed and intensity of the Internet.  Did I write anything in support of Pakistani military crackdown and brutalities in 1971?  No.   Did I lobby for Pakistan anywhere?  No.  Did I represent Pakistan anywhere?  Not in 1971 and never before!  I have already explained how I met three of my colleagues and friends who came to New York for pro-Pakistani lobbying.  But I also met those who came for pro-Bangladesh lobbying!  Jamal Hasan (and his Guru Jaffor Ullah) even ran out canards against me!  He has been floating his dead horse to scarecrow me!  Perhaps I am too old to panic!  I know where he belongs!  I can afford to respond.  Now I know what's DEJANEWS, I also know where to post my rebuttals!  I don't lose any sleep by his posting!  I also know that saturation lies will never make a drop of truth!

Jamal Hasan feigns modesty!  Such pretensions carry the stench of his hypocrisy.  He says he is no Kenneth Starr!  I am no Clinton, I know that! But he is more powerful than Kenneth Starr is!  Poor Kenneth Starr has to respect the law, and rules and regulations that bind him.  But Jamal Hasan has no qualms for any such norms.  His deception and chicanery couldn't care less about a code of conduct and a modicum of decency! All that he cares about is a Deja posting to malign me with his lies!  Dejanews is his bug-pit where he wants to dump his "enemies"!

Both Jamal Hasan's and his friend Jaffor Ullah's allegations thrive on deception and prevarication.  They charge people without knowing the truth!  Their gross misrepresentation litters the Internet high way!  Jamal Hasan says that Dr. Mizanur Rahman Shelly was Yahya Khan's press secretary!  Is he sure about it?  How much does he know about Dr. Shelly?  To the best of my knowledge, he was another victim of circumstances, while he was still a Ph.D. student in London!  It has been alleged that Dr. Z. Brezenski gave Dr. G.W. Choudhury a position at Columbia University.  That is also factually wrong!  Dr. Choudhury came to Columbia University while I was leaving for my New Jersey job.  He came to the Southern Asian institute, as a visiting senior fellow.  So much for Jamal Hasan's (and his cronies) authenticity.  People like Jamal Hasan seldom verify before they accuse of something.  The grist of their hateful campaign is rumor and falsehood.  So much for their credibility!

May I ask how does he know that I did not care for those who were killed in Dhaka University!  I have condemned such killings and brutalities in more than one forum.  Jamal Hasan (and his friends) has been looking for "evidence" against me, and he has been knocking from door to door to gather every whisper and sly gossip against me.  If there were anything incriminating, he would have flaunted it in the columns of the Amitech or Dejanews.  Selective quotations from my writing, the height of intellectual back stabbing that they specialize in, is one of their weapon against me.

Professor Ghiasuddin's, (brutally killed in 1971), name has been mentioned by some of my accusers to inspire emotion against me.  Did Jamal Hasan know Ghiasuddin?  I don't know.  We used live in the same University Bachelors Quarter.  Ghiasuddin ( I used to call him Ghias Bhai since he was one year senior to me) and myself came from the same area outside Dhaka City, and his father and mine were good friends way back from their college days around World War I.  Dr. Govinda Dev, Professor Munir Choudhury and Professor Mofazzal Haider Chowdhury were teachers as well as colleagues.  Munir Bhai and myself were jointly invited to visit West Germany in 1967.

How does Jamal Hasan know that I did not clear my name in Bangladesh?  How did I get BD Passport? How did I get my citizenship invalidation order rescinded?  How could I work in different GOB projects as a consultant?  How do I participate in seminars, conferences and give lectures in Bangladesh?  I have explained those in my earlier rejoinders.  Jamal Hasan does not care for the truth!  May I remind that Jamal Hasan talks with his foot on his mouth?

I suffer from no self pity; it is the preserve of those who consciously do something terribly wrong.  Nor do I suffer from free floating hostility to my detractors.  I have asked this before, and I do it again: Who is Jamal Hasan?  What authority does he (or his accomplices) command to question my patriotism?  Who has given him the right to torment others?  What is his locus standi as an Internet Inquisitor?  What is his moral claim to do what is he doing?  Which public opinion forum has sanctioned his non-stop of heckling?  I still reserve the right of asking him these questions under the eyes of the law!  I will not knuckle under his deception, distortion and outright lies.  Meanwhile, I can meet him in the Internet!  Mughur will always be ready whenever my revilers bark!

In a signed article, Mahfuz Anam, Editor, Daily Star wrote: "A specter is haunting our future - the specter of hatred!"  Mahfuz Anam, the well known Bangladeshi journalist, has the guts and honesty of his father Abul Mansoor Ahmed, who, I believe, was one of the few statesmen in independent Bangladesh.  I would add that a specter is also haunting the expatriate Bangladeshi community in the United States.  It's the specter of Jamal Hasan's (and Jaffor Ullah's) hatred, gross distortion and deception for those whom they consider less patriotic than their own brand of patriotism!

Jamal Hasan (and his cohorts) speaks in polarized terms!  Their drums of accusation never stop!  They do not understand that politics is not a zero-sum game!  No body (I repeat: NO BODY) holds the ultimate truth in politics.  He does not understand that in politics one could be caught between the two ends.  Malediction and revenge has intoxicated Jamal Hasan; he is unable to separate the truth from the unfounded allegations. His appetite for vengeance is not on the wane; he has not yet apologized and atoned for an unprovoked and continuing assault on me.  Jamal Hasan's vicious heckling comes from the lunatic fringe!

Subject: Intellectual Collaborators: Reply to Rashiduzzaman's Questions

From: "A.H. Jaffor Ullah" <jhankar@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, Mar 9, 1998

How long are you going to rattle your rusty saber, professor?

The readers who are following this 'Intellectual Collaborator' debate are now becoming tired of Rashiduzzaman's tirades.  In the beginning of this debate, some of his old students tried in vain to resurrect his "good" name.  However, realizing how pathetic the state of the affair is, one by one they all exited the virtual debate hall.  Now he is left alone to defend his "good" name.  It's not a pretty picture!  However, it has not escaped my attention altogether that his misguided brother launched a pathetic "one-man crusade" to malign my academic credentials and he is throwing dirt and debris at anyone who would utter the 'C' word to depict his brother's action while he was at the Columbia during our liberation struggle.

The purpose of this article is to show the readers bluntly that Rashiduzzaman often misinterprets other's assertions only to promote his pitiful case.

In his last posting in SCB, Prof. Rashiduzzaman wrote as follows:

"Both Jamal Hasan's and his friend Jaffor Ullah's allegations thrive on deception and prevarication.  They charge people without knowing the truth!  Their gross misrepresentation litters the Internet high way!  Jamal Hasan says that Dr. Mizanur Rahman Shelly was Yahya Khan's press secretary!  Is he sure about it?  How much does he know about Dr. Shelly?  To the best of my knowledge, he was another victim of circumstances, while he was still a Ph.D. student in London!  It has been alleged that Dr. Z. Brezenski gave Dr. G.W. Choudhury a position at Columbia University.  That is also factually wrong!  Dr. Choudhury came to Columbia University while I was leaving for my New Jersey job.  He came to the Southern Asian Institute, as a visiting senior fellow.  So much for Jamal Hasan's (and his cronies) authenticity.  People like Jamal Hasan seldom verify before they accuse of something.  The grist of their hateful campaign is rumor and falsehood.  So much for their credibility!"

Dr. Khosruzzaman Chowdhury, a professor of Public Administration at the Southern University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, is an ex-CSP and a batch mate of Dr. Mizanur Rahman Shelly in the CSP cadre.  He told me that Mr. Shelly was indeed in Islamabad during 1969-70 serving as an officer on special duty.  It was "rumored" among CSP circle in Dacca that Mr. Shelly used to draft letters, memorandum, communiqué, etc. for General Yahya Khan.  Dr. G.W. Choudhury was instrumental in bringing his student, Mr. Shelly, to Islamabad.  Mr. Shelly later went to England to pursue a doctoral degree sometime in late 1970 or early 1971.  Thus, Jamal Hasan was not off the mark while he characterized Mr. Shelly to be the press secretary to Yahya Khan.

On the issue of Prof. Z. Brzezinski helping Dr. G.W. Choudhury secure a fellowship at the Research Institute of Communist Affairs at Columbia University, Rashiduzzaman characteristically made a mistake again.  Let me quote directly from Dr. Choudhury's book "The Last Days of United Pakistan."

In the Preface (page ix) Dr. Choudhury writes as follows: "I began the present work in October 1972 when I joined Columbia University, my Alma Mater, for research and teaching.  I am grateful to Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski for appointing me a Fellow of the Research Institute on Communist Affairs at Columbia University, and for arranging for me to receive a research grant."

Well, Rashiduzzaman!  Who's right?  You owe a big apology to Jamal Hasan (and his "cronies") for your slanderous remarks.

I would like to draw attention to another article written by Mr. Farhad Idris entitled "Misquoting, Misreading, Misrepresenting: The Case of M. Rashiduzzaman" (February 9, 1998).

In that article Mr. Idris wrote, "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."

In the above three examples, namely, Dr. Shelly being the script-writer for Yahya during 1969-70, Prof. Zbigniew Brzezinski aiding Dr. G.W. Choudhury to secure a fellowship at Columbia University, and misquoting Dr. Samuel Johnson's statement, Prof. Rashiduzzaman proved to the world that indeed he is a credible "scholar."  I now feel sorry for the students majoring in Political Sciences at Rowans College.

If this pedagogue has so much difficulty dealing with the facts, how can one trust him with anything he blurts out?

So far, Rashiduzzaman has not addressed my primary allegations regarding his activities during the nine-month period in 1971.  Why didn't he support and join the protest rally on June 12, 1971, in front of the UN headquarters?  Does he have any credible witness who would testify on his behalf to say that he did not mingle with people who supported the united Pakistan after March 26, 1971?   Can Rashiduzzaman say that Dr. Khondokar Alamgir is a liar when Dr. Alamgir alleges that in one public debate Rashiduzzaman supported the united Pakistan while Dr. Alamgir spoke in favor of independent Bangladesh?  Furthermore, according to Dr. Alamgir, Rashiduzzaman aided a number of Bengalis who supported the stance for united Pakistan.

I request Rashiduzzaman to come forward with witnesses.  His brother, Dr. Waheeduzzaman was fighting a liberation war on the other side of the globe.  Thus, his testimonials have no bearing on the outcome of this probing.  We need some honest Bengalis who lived in NYC during the 1971 to come forward and give the professor a clean bill of health.  Is that so difficult to arrange?  How come no one thus far is willing to corroborate Rashiduzzaman's account?

Let me finish this essay by giving the SCB readers two examples of the good reputation of Prof. Rashiduzzaman.  On December 26, 1997, I was attending a wedding ceremony in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  I happen to meet two Bengali professors at the festivity.  They asked me how I was passing my X-mass break.  When I mentioned to them about the ensuing ‘Intellectual Collaborator' debate in the SCB, one of them remarked as follows: "We heard about the misdeeds of Rashiduzzaman during 1971 as far away as in England." (Professor S.K. Bashar). The other professor quipped, "Wasn't Rashiduzzaman a Pakistani Dalal?" (Professor Zahurul Haque).  Dr. Bashar was the General Secretary of Bangladesh Resistance Movement in England, while Dr. Haque was very active in the Bangladesh movement in '71 in the Southern States of America.

Those were not my words, folks!  Rashiduzzaman should come to his senses and realize that people who know him do not have a high opinion about him.  These people are his peers.

One more thing, Jamal Hasan, Jaffor Ullah, Ahmed Ziauddin, Farhad Idris, Mozzamel Haque Khan, and many more think the collaborators, Dalals, Razakars of 1971 should be exposed so that the parents and siblings of the victims know who aided Pakistani authorities in occupied Bangladesh, West Pakistan and in abroad.  Without the help of these collaborators, the Pakistani authority could not have annihilated about 3 millions Bengalis within a short period of nine-month.

No matter how unpleasant it may be, the truth should come out at long last!

Subject: M. Rashiduzzaman/Jaffor Ullah/Jamal Hasan
From: <faria@voicenet.com>
Date: Tue,' Mar 10, 1998 10:53 AM

Jaffor Ullah does not stop blaming me!  To say something and to write something for the Dejanews, no matter how untenable are his assertions, is the obsession he suffers from!  He relishes slandering others, and calls it a debate!  He also thinks that this is a public service that he has been rendering!  A real megalomaniac!

Let me start with the authenticity of his accusation that Dr. Mizanur Rahman Shelly was President Yahya Khan's press secretary.  In 1970-71, Shelly was too junior (C.S.P. officer) to be Yahya's press secretary, I believe.  Jaffor Ullah is a name dropper, and he drops Dr. Khasruzzaman Chowdhury's name to substantiate his allegation against Shelly.  What Shelly did as an Officer on Special Duty was not the issue!  I challenged the assertion that Shelly was Yahya Khan's press secretary.  Did Khasruzzaman say that Shelly held that position.? Or, Jaffor Ullah put his own fabrication into Khasruzzaman's mouth!  That's Jaffor Ullah's modus operandi!  Shelly visits USA couple of times a year.  If Jaffor Ullah has the moral courage, he can ask Shelly!  Does he want to verify on this?

Namedroppers suffer from a serious credibility gap!  They are not sure of what they say or do.  But Jaffor Ullah thinks otherwise!  For whatever allegation he makes against me, he quotes faceless accusers.  As I said before, I don't respond to veiled allusion!

Now let's come to his claim about Dr. G.W. Choudhury!  I said that at the beginning he started his job as the Visiting Senior Fellow, Southern Asian Institute, Columbia University, New York.  I am familiar with the book if it is the same book that Jaffor Ullah mentions.  Dr. Choudhury started his book (1971) at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London before he moved to Columbia University.  Later, Dr. Choudhury received couple of other grants to complete his work.  If Jaffor Ullah is really after the truth (I doubt it!), he can verify it from the Southern Asian Institute, Columbia University.  Dr. Choudhury passed away recently; otherwise, Jaffor Ullah could have asked him!

It's a lie, again, to say that people haven't come out to support me!  Not only they upheld me in a number of postings and letters, but also they questioned Jaffor Ullah's credibility; some implored him not to pursue the mud slinging, which he (and Jamal Hasan) started.  But he (and his accomplice) did not heed !  Jaffor Ullah (and Jamal Hasan) keeps on attacking me with the same old trash, and I am left with no choice but to respond.

Jaffor Ullah is after my brother for challenging his canard (and Jamal Hasan's).  First he abuses my brother as my "clone", a despicable characterization about one's brother! [Does he call his brother/sister a clone?]   Now he calls my brother a "crusader" on my behalf!   If any one is a crusader in this Internet Inquisition, it is Jaffor Ullah [and his cohort Jamal Hasan]!  After months of slimy invectives, my brother started posting his rebuttals.  I am using this opportunity to say that I never wanted my brother to get involved.  I knew little about Dejanews, nor did I know how to post materials there!  My brother also did not know much about the Internet activities.  We are not computer junkies!  If I wish to write, there are other forums to write!  Jaffor Ullah is angry because now he is being paid back in his own coins!  He is mad because we can expose his lies!  But we are only responding!

I don't need Jaffor Ullah (or any else's) certification for my patriotism!  I have said that many times on the Internet!  To question other people's patriotism is a dangerous avocation!  In a way, it's like digging your grave!  What is patriotism today may not last tomorrow!  What's "politically correct" today, may not remain so in the future!  That's the lesson of human history!

Will Jaffor Ullah recapitulate what some of his readers have said about him?  He has been compared with infamous Mir Jafor, who sold his country to the East India Company!  What did they mean?  Does he know what it implies?  Readers have been wondering if he might be working for India!  In the light of some of his remarks and postings, his readers want to know if Jaffor Ullah would like Bangladesh to become a part of India!  He has been challenged about the future of Muslim identity in Bangladesh.  Such questions are not lost in his "bug-pit" of Dejanews!  Shining they came through the columns of NFB, of which Jaffor Ullah is one of the editors.  A barrage of such questions has been waiting for him!  When will he answer them? Those are not my questions!  I did not dispute his patriotism although he has been doing this to me for months now!

If he has the right to question me (and others) about what I did or did not in 1971, people may have a moral claim to know the nature of his own "patriotism" in 1998.  Some of his postings, comments and vilification have raised concerns among the Internet readers; they want to know about Jaffor Ullah's own standing about the future of Bangladesh as a sovereign nation.  Jaffor Ullah should have the courage to face those questions from his readers.  Let him clear his name!  Instead of responding to those "tough" questions, Jaffor Ullah discovered a "soft target" in me to dump his odious self-righteousness!  By keeping on attacking me, Jaffor Ullah is deflecting those critical queries from his readers.

I don't need Jaffor Ullah's validation for my scholarship!  Let him not worry about my students!  They are not indulging in human cloning!  Not yet!  If any one has been castigated for displaying shoddy scholarship, dishing out fake expertise and spinning ignorance after ignorance about Bangladesh history and politics, it's Jaffor Ullah.  Not me!  Instead of begging from door to door to pick up innuendo to smear me, he should browse through the litany of charges and nagging perceptions against him.  Doubts and questions about Jaffor Ullah are plastered all over the Internet!  Let him clean up his own image before he finds fault with others!

Subject:      Intellectual Collaborators: Reply to Rashiduzzaman's Questions
From:         Jamal Hasan <jhasan@acc.fau.edu>
Date:         1998/03/20
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.bangladesh

The Collaborator Debate had started on 20th November, 1997 with my article, "Bengali Intellectual Collaborators: Remnants of a Dark Past" on NFB. While NFB ceased to host the debate (at least explicitly) by last December, it has continued on SCB till now.  I am afraid that the debate has degenerated to the point where I am persistently failing to communicate with the Professor. A young SCBite, Mr. Sohel Q. Khan, had commented sarcastically on what he no doubt viewed as "buro khokader kando."  But it was the posting by Dr. Rashiduzzaman on Friday the 13th (of March) that is making me rethink the value of continuing with this debate.

Hack, heckler, prostitute, scavenger, slanderer, vandal, vagabond and vilifier are among the hateful epithets relentlessly hurled at me during the debate.  But it is the Professor's bitter posting of Friday the 13th that has finally convinced me that we are now locked in a situation that is generating far more heat than light.  The 13th March posting catalogued what the Professor perceives as flaws in my character but, as usual, failed to address the issues I had raised.

Professor, I apologize for any mental anguish that I might have inflicted on you by bringing up the topic. But, believe me, the debate has been at least as painful for me as it has been for you.

While I apologize to Dr. Rashiduzzaman for his mental anguish, I wish to continue to discuss an issue that is far more important than either me or the Professor.  I do so by drawing the readers attention to an interesting thread on SCB, "Some Gondogols Are Simply Worth Having."  Mr. Mahmud Farooque was most perspicacious when he concluded from his personal experiences that "...some 'insafs' are not just and some 'gondogols' are simply worth having."

Dr. K.M.Maniruzzaman (of B.U.E.T) expounded on Mr. Farooque's conclusion in his posting of 15th March on the same thread.  This veteran SCBite wrote, "...Whenever we talk about collaborators and their misdeeds, and demand their punishment, we hear their advocates (or themselves) whining about conspiracies to undermine 'national unity' and divide the nation 'so many years after the war(or gondogol, or whatever).'  To them I say, if we could wage  a brutal and savage war against a much better equipped and trained professional army, and win it, while a section of our own people was busy aiding them in genocide and mass destruction, who needs unity with those collaborators now?  This is particularly true for those who have only grudgingly accepted the independence of the country and have shown no remorse for what they did (some even try to justify their actions)...".

Dr. Maniruzzaman's stand on the issue of collaborators is self-explanatory.  It was a telling confirmation that I am not alone in wanting to address the issue. There are millions like Prof. Maniruzzaman who have the deepest feeling for our War of Liberation.  They, at least, can readily make out that "slandering" or "vilifying" is not my game.

I apologize once again to the Professor if I have caused him any pain by engaging him in this debate.  But let us make a fresh start. Let us communicate.  I emphatically reassure you that this is not a personal vendetta.  I have nothing to gain by vilifying you.  Nor do I have anything to lose if it turns out that you are not a collaborator.  In fact, I will be happy if you turn out to be innocent because nothing hurts me more than the thought that there are Bengalis who betrayed their own people in the darkest hour of our history.

I initiated the debate only because there were enough accusations in the public domain to warrant one.  Dr. Rashiduzzaman, as a Senior Fellow at Columbia University, was among the most accomplished Bengalis in America during the Muktijuddho of 1971.  He was conspicuous in the aftermath of the massacre at the Dacca University as a man who had taught at that university for well over a decade.  Prominent people like him are always under public scrutiny.

As I watched the 60 Minutes interview of Kathleen Willey last Sunday, I realized that not even the President of the United States is immune from such scrutiny.  What can exceed President Clinton's embarrassment today?  It matters little that he might actually be innocent.  He has been "vilified" in public. This is the price he is having to pay for his prominence in public life.

I have always felt very strongly about our liberation struggle that cost us 3 million lives.  If it is of any consolation to the Professor, let me assure him that I did not single him out as the object of "vilification." I had "vilified" and  "slandered" Nixon and Kissinger long before this Collaborator Debate.  I have been writing on Ekattur issues for a long time.  One of my short pieces, "vilifying and slandering" Nixon and Kissinger, was mailed to many a Senator and Congressman.  I am proud and happy that I have had the opportunity to fill in Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel and historian Stanley Wolpert on the genocide in Bangladesh.

I have been trying to be in touch with the policy makers and academicians of this country to make them aware of the crimes against humanity during those Ekatturer Dinguli.  I was in touch with Late Jahanara Imam when she was in the USA.  I am happy that she liked my idea of organizing a Congressional hearing on the 1971 genocide.  I am happier still that when the Golam Azam trial was going on in Bangladesh, the lawyer sent from USA had carried some of my articles on the Bangladesh genocide in his briefcase.  Many an activist in USA had found my writings quite handy at that time.

Dr. Waheeduzzaman's entry into the debate had put me on the spot.  I have great respect for all those that had fought valiantly in the Muktijuddho of 1971.  Dr. Waheeduzzaman is among them.  I realize that as the younger  brother, he feels duty bound to stand by the Professor in his hour of reckoning.  Inevitably, he has had to write against me even though, ideologically speaking,  I am his brother.  I haven't had the heart to challenge a Muktijoddha like Dr. Waheeduzzaman.   I was especially affected by Dr. Waheeduzzaman's posting of March 9 on Bangabandhu.  I am not a blind supporter of Bangabandhu but I have always acknowledged his positive contribution to our nationhood.  As I read Dr. Waheeduzzaman's posting, I realized that he and I share the same regard and respect for the Spirit of Ekattur.

It will please the Jamaatis and the anti-liberation forces to no end if Dr. Waheeduzzaman and I were to engage in a public squabble.  There is a proverb in Bengal, "crow does not eat crow's meat." I  haven't the stomach for confronting Dr. Waheeduzzaman.  It would be tragic if I have to lose the younger brother, I am in political agreement with, in the act of confronting the older brother with whom I am not.  That is why, inspite of all the harsh postings by Dr. Waheeduzzaman, I have never once written anything critical of him.

Unlike Dr. Waheeduzzaman, I have not written much about Bangabandhu and his political career.  But in recent past I have been accused on NFB of soft-selling Bangabandhu.  It all started with a series of postings in SCB very critical of Bangabandhu.  An agent of Col. Rashid (one of the murderers of Bangabandhu), using the screen name of Diego Herrera, was the person behind these hateful postings.  These postings not only maligned Bangabandhu but glorified Col. Rashid in the bargain.  I posted a rebuttal titled "Col. Rashid's Friend With A Spanish Facade" under the thread "The CIA & Mujib & Allende & Lumumba" on 20th June, 1997. Later on Tanvir Chowdhury of NFB put it on-line on NFB.  That was when a reader opined on NFB that I had tried to soft-sell Bangabandhu.

We have heatedly debated the collaborator issue for the last four months, first on NFB and then on SCB.  Right now it has turned quite ugly, generating far more heat than light.  We might need a cooling off period.  After that, we can start afresh to discuss issues that are of interest to the readers.
.................................................................

I wrote the following piece some ten years ago. It was published in three separate South Asian newspapers published from the east coast, the west coast and the Midwest.  I also mailed it to many a Senator and Congressman including Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Edward Kennedy.
.................................................................

As the Soviet and the East Europeans are moving forward to open societies, we notice unparalleled examples of repentance for past mistakes.  It is amazing to see the Soviet Foreign Minister admitting that it was a mistake to invade Afghanistan.

In 1971, the Pakistani army launched an attack on unarmed civilians to quell the essence of Bengali nationalism. On March 25th of that year, the Pakistani soldiers cordoned off the Dhaka University campus. They selectively went on to kill all the non-Moslem faculty and also the professors and staff  who were perceived to be threats to the integrity of Islamic Pakistan.  This happened under the command of Lt. General Tikka Khan (at present, the General Secretary of Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party).  What occurred on that night in the Bangladesh capital can only be matched with the Nazi brutalities during the Holocaust. Richard M. Nixon, the President, and Henry A. Kissinger, the powerful National Security Adviser, did not bother to put the necessary pressure on their supposedly favorite geopolitical ally, the Pakistani dictator Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan, to stop further bloodshed.  This is how the pogrom went on for nine months, the Bengal nation lost three million precious lives.

As the liberation of Bangladesh became imminent, members of the pro-Saudi Islamic fundamentalist party, Jamat-e-Islami quietly slaughtered thousands of Bengali professionals and intellectuals in a number of cities.  Their objective could have been to empty the nation of any intelligentsia.

Later on, it was revealed the Jamat-e-Islami maintained strategic and operational relationship with some influential Pakistani army officers, including Major General Rao Farman Ali and Brigadier Bashir Ahmed. The  magnitude of the brutalities of this repressive occupying force can be exemplified by a single instance.  After liberation, in the torture rooms of the Physical Training College in Dhaka which was usually utilized by the  Pakistani army and the Jamat-e-Islami, investigators were startled with a shocking discovery.  They found two big metal drums that contained nothing  but human eyes.  It was a disgrace to humanity, those latter-day Nazis escaped the punishment they deserved.  It is a shame, Nixon and Kissinger never repented for their continued support for the brutal and oppressive Pakistani military junta one and a half decades ago.

I think, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger owe the Bengalis an apology.

Subject: M.Rashiduzzaman/Jamal Hasan
From: <faria@voicenet.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh
 

March 21, 1998

I believe I see a change of tenor in Jamal Hasan's posting, although a shadow of his doubt and accusatory drift lingers on!  Hoping that this also signifies a change of heart on his behalf, I welcome it!  Let me say this unequivocally that my participation in the NFB JINNAH DEBATE had nothing to do with my alleged love for Jinnah/Pakistan, nor was it an expression of my political beliefs.  I was just sharing my personal thought and reading on the subject.

My current research interests don't include Jinnah.  But during my earlier doctoral work on British Indian legislative politics (1921-47), I had read about most top Indian/Pakistani leaders (both Muslim and Hindu) and I had seriously studied the political process which led to the 1947 religious partition of India.  I also try to keep myself in touch with the latest publications of pre-1947 Indian political history.  With that background, I thought that I had something to contribute to the debate.

I never expected such a vicious and relentless attack from Jamal Hasan and Jaffor Ullah but I thought that the acrimony would die down after my December Deja posting.  But Jaffor Ullah and Jamal Hasan continued slanderous posting for about 2 months, but I did not respond.  I posted my response in February; indeed, it was a follow up of my earlier December posting.  Again I thought that the on-going dispute, slander and accusation would come to an end; but it did not.  I did answer all the allegations except admitting a guilt, which I did not commit!  Let me say it again that I never ever condoned or supported the Pakistani military atrocities in Bangladesh during 1971.  My research and writing on the subject are in the public domain, and they have been mentioned more than once through this forum.  I hope Jamal Hasan can make some time to browse through a few of my articles, and get back to me for an academic discussion!

I did not encourage my brother to participate in the debate, and when he did, the vilification campaign was about 4 months old.  I don't need my younger brother for my defense!  Truth and moral-confidence have been on my side, no matter what a few slanderers may say or do.  For whatever it's worth, Jamal Hasan and Jaffor Ullah are entitled to have their political beliefs, and I don't have any secret agenda to fight them. That's not my way life.  On the other side, Jamal Hasan claims to be an activist (who usually has an agenda)!  Still, he can choose whatever he wants to be.  But he cannot turn his  activism into unending volleys of invectives against people who are, in his eyes, political suspects.

It seems Jamal Hasan's (and Jaffor Ullah) training, intellectual orientations, political inclinations, professions and age are different from mine, but I hold no monopoly to the subject I write or talk about.  I am not an activist writer!  Nor do I wish to be one.  If I have used strong words and hurt feelings, I have done it with utmost reluctance.  Human expressions are influenced by circumstances, and I am no exception!  Hateful writing is the domain of the activists and the slanderous journalists.  Most academic articles that I have published went through a distilling process of one to four years.  Still, I could be wrong on my facts and observation.  I cannot expect all the readers to agree with me.

The Internet writings obviously don't go through any peer evaluation, and the audience represents a diverse spectrum across the continents.  So a posting can face differing views, which, I believe, should be accepted in good grace.  Recently, I posted a piece on the Chittagong Hill Tracts in the NFB as well as the Holiday, Dhaka.  One of my readers sent me a personal e-mail pointing out a factual error about the number of military cantonments (6 instead of 3) to be allowed under the "peace treaty."  Immediately, I responded to the reader, and accepted that correction of the unintended error. So Jamal Hasan and Jaffor Ullah's disagreement with my writing does not bother me, but what has happened since November 1997 was no professional debate!

Jaffor Ullah's analogy of his slanderous campaign with the constitutionally mandated inquest of public officials like Nixon or Clinton is misplaced and conceptually unacceptable.  "I am no Clinton", didn't I say that?  [Jamal  Hasan also said that!] I am not seeking any public office [or even a regular job] in Bangladesh for which I should be scrutinized!  What I have been doing in Bangladesh for years is more of a professional service, either paid by the international funding agencies or absolutely free of charge.  To the best of  my
knowledge, Bangladesh government has not authorized Jamal Hasan, or any one else to "investigate" me! During the whole wrangling (NFB postings, the Deja News and mass mailings of unfounded personal accusation), it was abundantly clear that Jamal Hasan and Jaffor Ullah were deliberately tarnishing me instead of differing with my writings.  Actually, Jamal Hasan claimed that he was rendering a public service! Their "secret agenda" was unmistakable!  I feel that there should be some ground rules for the Internet debating thread, without which any intellectual deliberation could degenerate into personal attack and political maligning.

Not only I fought Jamal Hasan/Jaffor Ullah on the Internet, but years before, I also refused to capitulate under the miscarriage of justice that was meted out to me in Bangladesh.  I have already narrated that story! It has cost me very dearly!  Much more than this unwarranted Internet version of personal slander!  Nothing can compensate that kind of loss!  Although I have reason to be bitter, I am not!  The only profession I ever cared for was to continue teaching at Dhaka University, but even that was taken away for me!  The Alma Mater that I served for 12 years did not even notify that I was removed from my job.  Before taking such a drastic step, they did not even care to ask me to show cause.  And I have told you that I was not alone to suffer such injustice!

My father was critically ill, but I could not go and see him before he died.  I feel that my father and I deserved better!  As the eldest son, I had genuine obligations to my family, which became difficult for me to carry out.  I never wanted to settle in the United States but I did; and even today, I call myself a "reluctant American"!  A few of my friends who were close to the Awami League government in those days wanted me to petition Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, for the restitution of my citizenship and job.  I refused!  It was wrong of the Bangladesh government and Dhaka University to punish me without the due process, and I refused to legitimize their illegitimate action!  Some years later, when the opportunity to return and permanently settle in Bangladesh came, my mind, and the personal and professional circumstances had changed.  However, I tried my best to find out what was at the bottom of all the wrongdoing of Bangladesh authorities and Dhaka University that was assigned to me. Even recently, I asked an influential Awami Leaguer to explain what led the punishment that was dished out to me. I could find nothing except hearsay! At least, I have the satisfaction that my friend admitted that such "irregular" acts were committed in the early years of Bangladesh, which they regretted!

After two decades of rancor, Bangladesh needs a consensus and harmony, which cannot be achieved by mud slinging and vigilante activism.  There are many inconclusive and acrimonious facets of our political history, which will probably remain so even after Jamal Hasan/Jaffor Ullah's "public service" to "correct" the past narratives.  Rarely a nation inherits a neat and uncontroversial legacy. If we politicize and personalize the history, we are in deep trouble! Look at the dispute over Badruddin Umar's article on the language movement, expunged by the Desh, presumably under the Awami League government pressure.  I don't subscribe to Badruddin Umar's political inclinations, but I respect him as an accomplished intellectual, despite his ideological overtones.  In fact, I provided him with some background materials when he was working on the language movement book [BHASHA ANDHOLON O TATKALIN RAJNITI], the first edition of which had an acknowledgment to me.  With due respect to the author's seminal contribution on the subject, I feel that an analytical historiography of the language movement is yet to come.  Let more people, irrespective of their political differences, speak on the subject, without any fear or favor!

From the very beginning of this debate, I have been saying that all events and actors of history cannot be telescopically connected.  Nor can you characterize individuals and their political views in totally black and white terms.  I have said this before, and I take the liberty of repeating it: "Witch-hunt is not history writing"!  Activist denigration of your political foes is not a sound history either!  I refuse to "stand for trial" before Jamal Hasan and Jaffor Ullah (or any one else), who have no right to question my patriotism!  As long as they understand this and respect that norm, I have no quarrel with them, and I wish them success and prosperity in life!  And may be we could continue a debate, in the true professional sense of the term!

Subject:      Re: Intellectual Collaborators: Reply to Rashiduzzaman's Questions
From:         "A.H. Jaffor Ullah" <jhankar@bellsouth.net>
Date:         1998/03/22
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.bangladesh

On March 21, 1998, Prof. Rashiduzzaman posted one of his latest defense ever in SCB giving it the title " Let's have a professional debate without personal slander."  It was essentially a reply to Jamal Hasan's latest postings in the SCB entitled "Probing the Rashiduzzaman Riddle. Part X.  Epilogue: Professor, let's talk."

The professor's exercise in futility just reminded me the trite East Bengali Grameen expression whose translation would be -- "After killing seven and a half-century mice, the cat is now on his way to perform the Hajj."

The professor now wants to debate – a professional one – of all the places in cyberspace! Wow!

Rashiduzzaman's professional life is all but strewn with examples of Bengali-betrayal incidents.  These incidents are manifested in his participation in  Jinnah-loving, Islamabad-loving, Basic Democracy-loving, and above all anti-Six points formula debates in the Addas of  DU's Teachers' Club.  So when he came to Columbia University in 1970, he already had the legacy of a person who always belonged to the "other" camp.  Folks, these are not my assertions!  Go find a pedagogue from the DU who taught during the 60s and who was familiar with the brand of politics Rashiduzzaman was practicing those days.  Our activist professor knew very well the direction political wind was blowing in the land at the time.  The professors belonging to this camp were beneficiaries of receiving all the "morsels" from Islamabad.  They were the one who were promoted in the ranks and files of the university.  Selling one's soul for the sole purpose of self-promotion is nothing new in the parlance of Bangalee culture!

The political science department, where Rashiduzzaman taught in the 60s, was the most politicized department in the University.  It was headed by none other than Prof. G.W. Choudhury, an acknowledged Paki-lover of the time.  Fortunate for Bangladesh, we also had Prof. Muzzaffar Ahmed Chowdhury (MAC), one of the architect of Awami League's Six-Point-Formula.  Thus, there were two camps in the department, one being the lover of the united Pakistan, the other being the champion of self-rule by the Bengalis.  Can this perfidious lover of our liberation war and independence will step forward now and admit conclusively, which camp he belonged to?

Oh, no!  That will be a disaster!

This has an important bearing on the "Intellectual Collaborator" debate that had been raging over the last four months.  There is a preponderance of evidences to indicate that Prof. Rashiduzzaman was indeed a supporter of united Pakistan throughout the 1971.  But the dilemma is that he won't admit to it.

The readers have already gone through a voluminous amount of information, both from the accuser's side and from Prof. Rashiduzzaman, on the issue whether he indeed was a collaborator who sided with Pakistani repressive regime.  This pedagogue had always maintained that he wrote profusely on politics of Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.  But how funny it is that he never did find time to write anything worthwhile on the gratuitous merciless killing of Pakistani army throughout 1971. Ironically, he never protested then, as we all did in the US and abroad, or later when he had ample opportunities to write on resurgence of Islam during the reign of two army tyrants in Bangladesh.  Does this mean that he is all but a nonchalant human being?

He must have liked what General Tikka Khan or Gen. Rao Farman Ali and their cohorts were doing to our defenseless people.  Or else, how could he be mum all these years?  Do morality, conscience, and fair play mean anything to this obdurate person?  Probably not by any fair chance!

Reading Prof. Rashiduzzaman's debate write-ups in the SCB, I got the feeling that somehow he was able to desensitize the issue of merciless killing of about 2-3 million Bengalis, who share the same culture, dream, aspirations as does the professor, but nevertheless, he supported the debate team favoring a united Pakistan in Columbia University.  The same obdurateness also allowed him to turndown an invitation to attend the rally on June 12, 1971, to vociferously protest the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the military of his Shangri-La.  Now after 27-long year we see that the professor is very eager to join his compatriots in the cyberspace discussing issues related to Bangladesh.  But true to his colors, he again sides with the wrong side (see Jinnah debate write-ups by Rashiduzzaman in NFB, October - November 1997).  From
the Adda room of Teacher Club in DU, through the debate chamber of Columbia, Rashiduzzaman preferred to take the unpopular stand, that is, siding with his masters from Islamabad.  Now that a 27-years period has passed by, he still finds him duty-bound not to utter anything bad about his "dreamy" Pakistan or about his old political masters.  Now, it must give the professor a mental anguish to see that united Pakistan, his utopia, is all but reduced to a dusty land plagued with sectarian quibbles.  The dream suddenly became a nightmare!  Among 130 millions Bengalis living today in the globe, how cruel it is that the professor may be duty-bound again this time to lend his hand to Ghulam Azam (the leader of Jamaat-i-Islami) to bury the two-nation theory of Chaudhury Rahmat Ali of Cambridge, England. Oh, what a pity!

May I now sincerely ask our perfidious lover of our liberation struggle -- with his proven record of oratory -- can't he please write an article or two in NFB or SCB denouncing the Pakistani authority to take the blame for all of those merciless killings of 1971?  Or better yet, ask the Pakistani authority to apologize for their misdeeds done by her soldiers all throughout 1971.  This will be one of the ways he could redeem himself from the proactive roles played by him for a united Pakistan all through his adult life.

Professor, if you beg to disagree with me on the issue that you were a Pakistani sympathizer through and through, please ask others who had debated with you in Dacca during the 60s or ask someone who knows your past activity while you were at Columbia. The old expression -- "It is easy to see through people who makes spectacles of themselves" takes a whole new meaning while reviewing your follies of the 60s and 70s.

Subject:      Re: Intellectual Collaborators: Reply to Rashiduzzaman's Questions
From:         "A.H. Jaffor Ullah" <jhankar@bellsouth.net>
Date:         1998/03/31
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.bangladesh

The controversies relating to Dr. Rashiduzzaman's alleged collaboration in 1971 continues unabated since the question was first raised in November last year in News From Bangladesh, a daily Internet news forum.  When the editors of News From Bangladesh expunged the contribution of the first questioner followed by an unprecedented apology, which even the alleged victim Dr. Rashiduzzaman himself did not demand from the editors that I expressed my concern, through Reader's opinion column, for such an apology since I considered the editors role merely as facilitators of a forum.  I also believed that participants are quite capable to argue their respective views and the readers competent to judge.

Dr. Rashiduzzaman almost instantly came out with a rejoinder where he pretty much failed to address the principal issue; his alleged collaboration; instead, he adopted diversionary strategy and threw a number of questions at me, amongst others.  As the News From Bangladesh editors decided to discontinue the issue on News From Bangladesh, which they formally informed me, that my response to Dr. Rashiduzzaman's questions remained unanswered.

COLLABORATION-AN IMPORTANT RELEVANT MATTER: Pakistani military and government could not have carried out the genocide and rapes in 1971 without the helping hands of a segment of local population, commonly described as “collaborators.”

Collaboration in Bangladesh, like other countries, had many forms and shapes, which subsequently the law, Bangladesh Collaborators (Special Tribunals) Order, 1972 (P.O.No.8 of 1972) merely attempted to redress, without much success.  As a result, collaboration as an issue has not been settled, largely because of the government's failure.

If the tumultuous events like revolution, genocide, collaboration etc. are not reconciled properly and are sacrificed for political expediency, the country and the nation remain deeply scared (check it), which manifest even decades later.

Unlike other genocides, Bangladesh genocide was papered over by successive governments in various different ways. The first government of Awami League pursued a botched policy of dealing with the perpetrators and collaborators of genocide, on the one hand and their victims on the other.  Subsequent governments attempted to distort the history, ignored the genocide totally and tried to erase the cruel facts. Even the present government appears to have no strategy to deal with the past horrors.

WHO CAN RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COLLABORATORS ?  Any individual having any interest in the issues of collaboration in Bangladesh can investigate, discuss, write-about etc.  Even the person do not have to be Bangladeshi origin.  As a legitimate subject matter, interested non-Bangladeshi may also study the issue, compare collaboration between countries etc.  And the person do not have to have any authorization.  When faced an alleged collaborator, who naturally would not like a probing eye, certainly would ask questions such as, who gave you the right to inquire, are you the government ? or the prosecutor ? or divinely appointed ?  In response, one should point out legitimate interest in the past, in what happened in 1971 and who did what, which resulted in such colossal casualties.

DR.RASHIDUZZAMAN IN COLLABORATION PARADIGM: The first contributor of News From Bangladesh who raised Dr. Rashiduzzaman's alleged collaboration got the clue, according to him, from publication Ekatturer Ghatok Dalalera Ke Kothai published by the Muktijuddho Chetona Bikash Kendro. In fact, the said book did not accuse Dr. Rashiduzzaman of any act of collaboration. It merely referred to a news item of 3 October, 1973 edition of Dainik Bangla, where it was reported that Dr. Rashiduzzaman had been given forced leave on grounds of collaboration.

In subsequent rejoinders, Dr. Rashiduzzaman did not deny the fact of  "forced leave" or "dismissal" ( two different matters though) from the university of Dhaka, but forcefully denied the reasons behind the measure, collaboration. But he did not offer sumptuous explanations to his claim that he was an innocent victim of personal vendetta, professional jealousies, university politics and unverified accusations.   Dr. Rashiduzzaman, however, singularly failed to provide in his defense facts showing that how he became a victim, as he claimed, of personal vendetta, jealousy and politics and more importantly, why him.  If he would have come out with detail facts, which led such punitive measures against such a senior teacher, he would have done some justice to him.

Professional jealousy or university politics, in a large organization like Dhaka university, would not be a news to even to a casual observer.  However, dismissal for jealousy or politics, without any substance, is hard to believe now and even back then, more so, when he maintains that he was not offered any opportunity to answer the allegations.  If the way Dr. Rashiduzzaman has reacted to questions relating to his alleged collaboration in the Internet, accessible to limited number of people, is anything to go by, it is hard to believe that he would not have fought vigorously in all fronts, including in the court of law, to restore his job and honor.

In his rejoinder he has mentioned about a writ application but discontinued it on his lawyers advise because of "costs".  A person living in USA having a dignified job in the university could not afford a High Court case to restore his good name is hardly probable.  Here too, he has not revealed all the facts.

In a rejoinder, Dr. Rashiduzzaman himself revealed that after 1975, meaning, with the removal of Awami League regime, the government readily restored his citizenship on his representation.  Here too, he wrote several pages, but did not apprise the readers of the circumstances and reasons of cancellation of his citizenship, nor did he provide his side of the story, giving rise to more questions.

After liberation of Bangladesh from the hands of Pakistani occupying forces, the new government unilaterally took executive decisions to revoke citizenship of 39 individuals.  The decision was taken at the highest political level involving the Cabinet.  Even if one give some credence to Dr. Rashiduzzaman's claim that he was a victim of professional jealousy or university politics regarding Dhaka university job, it is highly improbable that the new Cabinet of the Awami League government was also jealous of him, particularly when he was not even physically present in Bangladesh over the period in question.

One should assume, without evidence to the contrary, that the Cabinet had information and good reason to select 39 individuals, out of total population of 75 million people, for cancellation of their citizenship for alleged collaboration.  Whether the cancellation was legal or not is a separate question.

The fact that 39 “surjo santans,” to borrow a phrase from Khundker Mushtaque Ahmad about the killers of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, were chosen out of the millions, speaks for itself.  Here again, Dr. Rashiduzzaman did not reveal what measures he took, if any, to get immediate justice.  Instead, he got back citizenship, so to say, through back doors.  In a way, in this sense, he was worse than Gulam Azam, who never regretted for a moment about his past and still challenged the illegality of cancellation of his citizenship and was vindicated to that extent.

From all the information he has put in his postings and his earlier academic works, particularly the one on Awami League, and considering his important position in Dhaka University’s one of the prominent department, he was known to many Cabinet members.  Moreover, one of his famous student, who is mentioned in his rejoinder, was a very influential person then as he is now.  Having been personally known to many, it is doubly difficult to accept that Dr. Rashiduzzaman was singled out for no fault of his own.  They were all aware of what he did, which he described as "non-action", and regardless, was stripped of his citizenship, against which, he could have exonerated himself in a court of law.

SELECTIVE AMNESIA: As one reads numerous postings of Dr. Rashiduzzaman about all other matters except of his own may find him to be suffering from what can only be described as “selective amnesia