Why the Guardian got it wrong

Published : 18 April 2016, 03:00 AM
Updated : 18 April 2016, 03:00 AM

One of the leading "liberal" newspapers of UK, the Guardian, came out with an Editorial Opinion on 8 April, 2016 ("The Guardian View on the Bangladesh History Debate: Distorted By Politics") where they took a shot at teaching Bangladeshis a lesson or two about their own history. Although the overall tone of the opinion was patronizing to say the least, several points in particular struck out as being quite objectionable from the point of view of the Bangladeshis. In particular, the comments regarding the proposed law against denial of the Liberation War history stands out as something, which needs to be strongly protested and responded to.

It was unfair of the Guardian to single out Bangladesh for wanting to enact such a law. The principle premise of this proposed law, which is only currently in the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs stage having been sent there from the Law Commission, is the desire to stop the tendency of some vested and known quarters to trivialize the genocide which was perpetrated in 1971 by calling into question the death toll, sometimes under academic guise and sometimes under a journalistic façade.

Is Bangladesh unique in this regard? The simple answer is no. Fourteen countries in Europe have laws criminalizing denial of the Holocaust. Many other countries have broader laws that outlaw genocide denial in general, such as Rwanda. To the best of our knowledge, the Guardian has not yet come out with any opinion or editorial against the continued existence of these laws, although around 70 years have passed since the end of the World War II. Yet, the Guardian feels that it would be "muddle headed" for Bangladesh to enact such a law, simply because 45 years have passed in the meantime.

It should also be noted that the calls for enacting such a law did not emanate from the current government in Bangladesh. In fact, the calls have come consistently over the years from activists and organizations that have campaigned for bringing the criminals of 1971 to justice. Journalists, columnists, academics, children of the martyred intellectuals and those killed in 1971 and the intelligentsia have time and time again highlighted the need for such a law. Thus, the Guardian is very much off the mark when it says that the "truth is that the real argument is not academic but political".

The Guardian, and anyone for that matter with an interest in the subject, should note that 3 million people died in Bangladesh during the 1971 Liberation War at the hands of the Pakistan Army and their local collaborators. Around 200,000-400,000 women were sexually violated and millions were displaced.

In Bangladesh, those who were on the wrong side of history in 1971, have been very active since 1971, and especially since the assassination of the Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in August 1975, to erase or at the very least dilute the history of the Liberation War, given the magnitude of the crimes committed and their explicit role in such a dark chapter of the history.

Bangladesh is therefore, fully justified in wanting to enact a law which seeks to counter attempts to trivialize, maliciously distort or deny the very high price the country paid for its independence.

The Guardian was also palpably wrong to suggest that the Awami League (AL) wants to assume total ownership of the Liberation War. It is a historical fact that AL was the political force in Bangladesh in 1971 that led the ideological struggle against oppression and for independence. The leader of AL, Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, served as the figurehead of that struggle.

However, the non-communal and pro-Liberation tradition and ideology of the party is also shared by a number of other left and center of left parties in the country, many of whom are currently part of the Grand Alliance Government in Bangladesh led by AL. AL has never shied away from recognizing the contribution of other political parties and the various student organizations to the country's liberation struggle.

Additionally, post-independence, and especially under the leadership of Honorable Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the party has been extremely mindful of doing the most it can for the surviving freedom fighters, veterans, war heroines (Birangonas), and families and children of those killed during the war. It has also awarded several foreign dignitaries, journalists, aid workers and activists who were instrumental in bringing the attention of the world to Bangladesh's plight in 1971 as well as standing by us during our worst of times. AL has the proven track record of showing the highest respect to the contributions of all concerned during that struggle.

To say therefore, that AL wants to "assume ownership" of the war is untrue, demeaning and insulting not only to the party but also to those who made the supreme sacrifices during the struggle. It is unclear how the Guardian came to such a conclusion and based on what evidence.

Lastly, the Guardian made a severe error of comparing AL to Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) in terms of the seriousness of condemning the recent killings by extremists of bloggers and religious minorities in Bangladesh. AL is an avowedly non-communal party who have guaranteed freedom of religion in Bangladesh. After the military regimes of Ziaur Rahman (founder of BNP) and HM Ershad removed secularism from the constitution and inserted Islam as the state religion of the country, it was only when HPM Sheikh Hasina-led AL was voted to power by an overwhelming mandate, that the constitution was amended to bring back secularism as one of the operating principles of the country.

The AL government under HPM Sheikh Hasina's leadership has been performing remarkably well to prevent, and/or combat terrorism, militancy, and violent extremism in this country since taking office in 2009. If the Guardian is too superior to take our word for it, they would be better advised to look at the comments made by the US State Department's Country Reports on Terrorism from 2013 onwards, where the AL government's role and steps have been highly praised in no uncertain terms. Various foreign governments too, in recent years, have commended HPM Sheikh Hasina's "zero-tolerance" policy towards terrorism and violent extremism, including the United Kingdom.

HPM Sheikh Hasina has time and time again expressed her resolve not to allow any sort of violence whatsoever using the name of religion in Bangladesh, including specifically killing of bloggers and minorities by the violent extremists. AL, as a party bound by its charter, believes and upholds the founding principles of the country, including secularism and freedom of religion.

Let us also not forget that religious minorities in Bangladesh, especially the Hindus, have time and again come under attack from the BNP and Jamaat as a result of their perceived inclination towards supporting the AL. This happened in 1971, was repeated most starkly during the BNP-Jamaat tenure of 2001-06 and most recently following the war crimes verdicts of Jamaat's war criminal leaders and the post-January 2014 election. Media, both national and international, have regularly highlighted this issue.

Thus, nothing can be further from the truth when the Guardian says: "it is unfortunate that neither of the main parties has been vigorous in its opposition to such acts". It is intellectually dishonest and criminally naïve for anyone to compare the AL and BNP-Jamaat in the same tone, especially when it comes to commitment to a religiously plural society.

One can only hope that the Guardian, for its own sake of credibility, does not come out with any more of such "enlightening" perspectives on Bangladesh's historical and contemporary events without researching and reading up more on the topics. Otherwise, it is a waste of valuable news space on their part, and time on ours.