Strategically Speaking- Justice is truth in action
The heading of this piece is a quote, chosen because the acute
relevance of it has never been more illustrated than in the first
verdict of the International Crimes Tribunal 2, delivered on Monday.
Truth has prevailed. The accused Abul Kalam Azad alias Bacchu was
charged with crimes against humanity and has been sentenced to death.
The message has been loud and clear -- crime will not pay. The only
regret for us all, perhaps with a few exceptions, is that the trial had
to be conducted in absentia, the accused having made his escape just
before he was about to be nabbed.
And this is what we must dwell
on first before we go further. It seems that he had many well wishers
within the administration. Otherwise, how is it that a person who was
under intense investigation could give a slip to everybody and disappear
into thin air just before he was about to be nabbed? And now there is
speculation that he is in Pakistan, trying to escape to one of the
Middle-Eastern countries.
It takes quite a doing to cross over
one international border illegally; and he managed to cross over two in
that manner, both of those heavily fenced, and one of which is the most
dangerous border on the planet, and be happily ensconced in a third
country…. how very convenient. There is good reason to believe that
the accused had truck with the Jihadis and the political extremists,
since it is they who venture across the Indo-Pak border regularly
risking their life and limbs. And it is perhaps they that helped him to
cross over to Pakistan. In spite of what the law minister says, it seems
unlikely that the verdict might be carried out any time soon.
The
sentence was bound to cause a flurry of comments. Given that the trial
has taken place after more than forty years of the crimes being
committed, and also the huge amount of money spent to garner
international support against the trial, the furore is only to be
expected. It must be mentioned that at one point in time, and
particularly after the first tribunal was established, it was made to
look as if not only putting the 1971 criminals on trial was a grave act
of impropriety, calling for their trial was very wrong too.
What
is surprising too is the way some western media have venerated the
culprit, as a popular cleric. No man who has been found guilty of the
kind of charges leveled against him deserves the appellation that
preceded his name, because no one that genuinely carries that
reverential title could ever have indulged in the acts that the accused
has been found guilty of.
It was not surprising to see certain
quarters laying red herrings to mislead the public. It was said of the
Court that there was nothing "international" about it. Of course there
was not, and it was not meant to be so. It was an indigenous tribunal
formed under the International Crimes Tribunal Act-1973. And one is not
certain as to what is the datum reference of "international standards"
and who defines it? As long the international covenants we have acceded
to have been upheld in the process, the fairness should not be
questioned.
It is said too that the charges leveled against the
accused could have been tried under the existing CrPC. I shall leave it
to the legal minds to answer this, but those who pose the question
perhaps forget the historical context in which the crimes were
committed. The crimes were committed to thwart the Liberation War, and
that is what lends a different dimension to the crimes.
What,
however, is for the tribunal to have ensured and satisfied all the
parties concerned is that the accused was given all the chances to
defend himself (something that he and his cohorts in the nine-months of
mayhem they perpetrated in Bangladesh in 1971, did not give their
helpless victims).
However, we could have done without the
so-called SKYPE controversy that came to be associated with the trial
because of the very injudicious act of the ex-chairman of the tribunal.
Discussing trial matters with somebody who was not directly associated
with the trial or a member of the tribunal, outside the court, was
flagrant violation of his oath. And this is what has given the scope to
some commentators to dub the tribunal as "controversial."
If
justice has come, albeit late, it comes as solace to the millions who
bear the pains of 1971. But hopefully, it is the beginning of the end of
the regime of impunity, because more than anything else this has been
the biggest impediment in establishing truth, and without truth justice
cannot prevail.
We would hope that the BNP would come out clearly
on the issue, and articulate their position on the trial and the verdict
clearly. Pettifogging will not do, nor will its facilitating Jamaat to
oppose the trials by according it the platform to do so. We would also
hope that this will not be used to make political hay by the ruling
coalition.
The writer is Editor, Op-ed and Strategic Issues, The Daily Star.
No comments:
Post a Comment