A law is being passed to regulate the online world and prevent abuse of the internet. Many use it to commit criminal acts, harass, intimidate and blackmail, particularly women. This is a good step and the authorities should be congratulated. The punishments are also more moderate and sensible than before. This is all good.

However, the proposed law also makes it a criminal offense to “say anything negatively or propagate against Bangabandhu and the 1971 war”. The sponsors have argued that it’s similar to the European Holocaust denial prevention law. But do we need such a law when the genocide of 1971 is not denied by anyone, including even the Pakistanis? Has any Bangladeshi denied that genocide took place in Bangladesh in 1971? The purpose seems more political than otherwise.

It appears to be designed to stop the BNP from making such claims. The BNP has said that Zia declared Independence first and Tarique Zia has said that he was also the first President. Nobody takes such claims seriously and they add nothing politically, except making the AL angrier. Khaleda Zia’s remark that the number of shaheeds was less than the 3 million that is claimed is another example. These three claims peaked last year, prompting the AL to make this law. But a law on national history basically saying what can be said and what not means sovereignty over national history is taken away from the people and causes damage to the national history production process further. It’s becoming a hostage to the AL-BNP conflict.

The problem is rooted in the BNP’s glorification of Zia campaign which began after 1976. Zia’s status as a war hero who led the resistance in Chittagong is beyond doubt. Some, including in the AL, have tried to trash him but his status remains unaffected in people’s eyes.

But in 1971, while he fought against Pakistan, he was not the leader of the war, it was Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. That Zia was the first President is an absurd and extreme claim which no one takes seriously, except the BNP and (sadly) AL partisans. No benefit grows out of such claims either and it is an indicator of the sorry state of our national politics, not much else. It neither contributes to popularity nor wins elections.

The government claims that the history of 1971 has been “substantially changed” and made controversial and hence this law. But as long as the AL is in power, nothing can change against its will. And if the BNP ever comes to power, it will change “history” anyway. So what is the point of this law?

There are only two “controversies” which are not even significant issues of history. One, Zia declared Independence first and the second is that 3 million people died in 1971.

The objective of the first is to make Zia as important as Sheikh Mujib and the second is to prove that the claims made by the first President are not correct. But in his lifetime, Zia never replaced Sheikh Mujib and inserted himself as the first President/ announcer/ which has very little historical value anyway. This claim business originated probably to prove Zia’s close connection to the 1971 war as a leader after he took power in 1975. It was also expected to help strengthen his reputation which was negatively affected by the rehabilitation of the Jamaat, the anti-1971 war party with which the BNP still walks.

Here is what professional academics of integrity think.

Sheikh Mujib was the leader of the nationalist movement which began even before Pakistan came into being in 1947. He was the leader of the party which led the nationalist movement. Whether he said/announced or did not say anything on the night of the 26th has little meaning, as the people fought under his leadership. No historian will even consider the idea that since General Zia made a declaration/ announcement, he is therefore the leader of the liberation war, except political partisans.

Mujib is the unquestioned leader of the movement and no law can dispose him from that identity and nor does he need a law to protect him or his status. Those who think that a national Independence movement requires a gazette notification to begin are of petty bureaucratic/clerical minds. It’s these people who are unable to comprehend a people’s war. The same mentality also insists on passing a law to protect history from a non-existent problem. The history of 1971 belongs to the people and not politicians, bureaucrats or lawyers. Only freedom of knowledge can protect the history of 1971.

The fight between the AL and BNP partisans is being conducted even as they say it is on behalf of the people.
Does the Holocaust law principle apply in Bangladesh? In Europe the law protects denial of the event, that is, when some say it never even happened. Many European Nazi parties often did that but the Holocaust law is about its denial, not about the number of people killed in the Holocaust. Many people quote many numbers on the Holocaust, including the Ved Vasham, the Jewish body that acts as the guardian of the Holocaust memorial.

But no one denies that a Holocaust/genocide took place in 1971 in Bangladesh. Who can deny that the Pak army and its collaborators killed Bangladeshis when even Pakistan doesn’t deny it and there are millions of witnesses? The Holocaust denial argument doesn’t apply because numbers do not make genocide but the act of killing a people does, no matter how small that number. Genocide is an act of killing a people for having an identity and not how many.
It is the number that has become a political issue and an unseemly one. Because such doubts are raised by the BNP-JI, the AL is making a law. But are courts qualified to decide on historical issues since the matter is not legal but historical? When BNP leader Khaleda Zia says the number of shaheeds is much less than 3 million, it’s a political attack on the AL number, not an issue of history. She should be asked to prove her claim. It should apply equally to those who are saying it. But protecting a number and preventing a denial of genocide are not the same. So why do we need to protect something which is not denied even by the BNP?

That number has great symbolic value as a measure of our suffering, not as the exact number of shaheeds. To protect that spirit of 1971, more evidence based research should be undertaken so that all information is gathered and no confusion remains. Putting a national symbolic memory under the custody of the law will not improve its health; it will make it controversial and a political bone of contention which is unnecessary and not the way to guard the history of 1971.

But who or what will moderate let alone prevent abuse of this law? What is to stop anyone from filing a case against another if he dislikes anything written by him on 1971? The Mahfuz Anam-DGFI episode showed how hundreds of court cases can be filed by partisans just to show their leader how loyal they are to the party.

Who decides what is transgression and what is research and how? Will historical narratives have to be approved by law or principles of academic freedom and integrity? Does this law mean historical facts and analyses now belong to the realm of courts and bureaucrats rather than academia and the people? There will be more discord than unity on the subject of 1971 history and resentment may grow amongst many due to the abuse of this law.

No law is necessary to protect the history of 1971 or the prestige of Sheikh Mujib. Bangladesh didn’t need laws to make it independent or for Mujib to become the founder of Bangladesh. These laws will only discourage an exploration of our greatest legacy – the history of 1971. It will become much less about recording the people’s struggle and much more about the endless squabbles between the AL and the BNP, about what is “correct” and “ incorrect” history and so on.

Such august issues didn’t deserve a law which makes legitimate issues of contemplation and exploration, analysis and research, matters of courts and conflict. One fears it will make the very issues we are all trying to hold high, less so.

Afsan Chowdhuryis a bdnews24.com columnist.

24 Responses to “Must laws protect Sheikh Mujib’s honour and 1971 history?”

  1. Fazlul Bari

    Sumit Mazumder is incorrect to say I mentioned Gandhi gave Muhammad Ali Jinnah as ‘Father of the Nation”. I did not said Mahatma Gandhi called Muhammad Ali Jinnah as Father of the Nation. Mahatma called him Qaed-e-Azam to make him the first Prime Minister of Independent India. But Patel, Desai Nehru and others vehemently opposed to anoint Jinnah as the Prime Minister. Qaed-e-Azam title does not mean ‘the two-nation theory’, it was the scheme of Mahatma to keep India united.

    Regarding 10 million East Pakistani/Bengali refugees to India during liberation war was totally false. Because, there were no transportation facilities to move such number to India in such a short time. Besides, in 1970 Bengali population in East Pakistan was 70 million. Move more than 10% of population was a gigantic task. Furthermore, where were those 10 million resided or camped ? Are there any records to proof that there were 10 million? Where UNCHR got the number from? Do they have any record to share with the world that there were ten millions move to India from East Pakistan/Bangladesh?
    Finally, one can speculate the number without scholarly research on these issues. Only thing I ask to get the correct number through un-bias scholarly research and put this controversy to final rest.

    • Sumit Mazumdar

      Mr Bari: You seem to believe that one who writes more must be also more knowledgable. “The title of Quaid e Azam was given to Mohammad Ali Jinnah by Maulana Mazharuddin Shaheed in 1938.” This is from the answer to civil service exam of Pakistan. Do google search you will find this out yourself.

      Number of refugees:
      http://oppenheimer.mcgill.ca/India-and-its-1971-Refugee-Problem

      Here are some quotes from
      http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/how-india-responded-the-influx-10-million-refugees

      “This was despite the US ambassador in New Delhi sending them this message in June: “The number of refugees is now 5.4 million and that rate of flow is increasing.”

      Note the date: JUNE! THE MESSAGE IS BEING SENT BY US AMBASSADOR NOT AN INDIAN More below

      “By the end of May, the average daily influx into India was over 100,000 and had reached a total of almost four million,”
      This is from UNHCR’s Pijnacker Hordijk. This is MAY.

      There is total agreement between US Ambasador’s message in June and UNHCR’s in May.

      Keep in mind the USA’s anti-Bangladesh anti-India stance of 1971.

      The refugees did not need transportation since the alternative to not running was death.

      Many have debated the number of dead and violated. You are the first one I see who is debating the number of refugees.,

      BTW, as Bangladesh’s friend for life Julian Francis has rightly pointed out, the responsibility for deaths of BD citizens in the Indian refugee camps due to poor health conditions lies also totally with the Pakistanis.

      • Fazlul Bari

        If you think google is the perfect media to collect information than I do not have to respond to you anymore. Because that is quite imperfect media and falsehood.

        There have been lots of speculative information floated about Bangladesh Liberation War from many venues that does not mean information is correct. How did google obtained and reviled the classified information of US Ambassador’s cable to Washington? If Ambassador’s estimate was correct, then question is how did he ascertain this estimate sitting in Delhi? Did he obtain from actual ledger of Refugee registration or got ‘head count’ from the US CIA helicopter flown over the refugee camp in various parts of India? I have many questions which can not be answered.

  2. Muslim

    Bangaldeshi history must include two types of killings in 1971 war: 1. bengalis killed by Pakistani army 2. bengalis killed by bengalis. It is not the same thing

  3. Motaleb

    After 1975, by the illegal military regime had there not been a deliberate attempt to distort and undo the glorious history of Freedom Movement and War of Bangladesh liberation, then such law of safeguarding of history would not have required. Those who are crying foul, they should know that Bangladesh and Bangabandhu are inseparable, this is one entity. In the name of freedom of expression one cannot resort to brazen lie, hence unfortunately at this moment in this regard there is no exception less than to a legislation protecting our magnificent past.

    • Fazlul Bari

      In 1980 illegal President General Zia came to Washington. On the gathering at the embassy I posed a question to General Zia ‘ why are you not pronounce Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the Father of the Nation?. He refused to answer my question by saying that I posed a political question. I did not know that I had to pose question other than political one as he was the head of government of Bangladesh.

      Henceforth, General Ershad, and Begum Khalida Zia attempted to belittle the Father of Nation and Liberation war information.

      During the Premiership of Begum Khalida Zia, Bangladesh embassy in Washington was instructed to take off ‘Bangabandhu Auditorium’ plaque which was placed by the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina when she opened the Embassy. When I asked the official of the Embassy about it I did get response that ‘ with the order of higher authority they had to remove it’.

      You see Mr. Motableb, BNP Jamaat always wanted to erase the name of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman even when they celebrated Liberation day and Victory day by omitting the name of a person who inspired 70 million Bengalis to fight for the liberation from Pakistan occupation. Therefore, saying ” After 1975, by the illegal military regime had there not been a deliberate attempt to distort and undo the glorious history of Freedom Movement and War of Bangladesh liberation, then such law of safeguarding of history would not have required.” is totally incorrect, but that does not mean government enact a law and Canonize Bangabandhu as a Saint.

  4. R Chowdhury

    A Rajuk official went to a house accusing its owners of renting the house commercially. Homeowner protested that it’s done all over Bangladesh so are all Bangladeshis guilty? The official responded back angerly , “You are making anti government statement. You need to be careful”.

    Is is the Independent Bangladesh that so many made the ultimate sacrifice for or are we still in East Pakistan or British India? Our fathers faught for the freedom struggle so we can be free thinking Bagha Bangalees. And not anything less.

  5. Taslima Islam

    I must admire the stupidity of this writer and the commentators writing and discussing this absurd topic. The law we are discussing is one only unbridled fascists can make. Like ,for instance, the North Korean dictator under the power he has in the country, has ordered a Vice Minister to be shot dead because he had fallen asleep while he was speaking! And Hitler and the Nazis had declared the supremacy of the Aryan race. So here the AL is doing pretty much a combo of the North Korean dictator and the Nazis and we are discussing rationality!!! Haha Mr. Afsan Chowdhury and the bunch of clowns discussing the stupid article. Mr. Chowdhury you and your friends in the media are very much like those freedom fighters of the country who ran for their lives to India in 1971….

  6. mohammad zaman

    power is but a dream … fugacity of power is appreciated only when it vanishes … history chronicles every event as it unfolds … it is being written …

  7. Fazlul Bari

    Reason I am writing today is to voice my concern about the proposed blasphemy law of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Liberation war. Sheikh Hasina’s Cabinet has approved this law to muzzle the people who wishes to criticize Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Liberation war and send them to jail.

    In my opinion, it would be a dangerous law like an indemnity law passed by Mustaq. I feel the flatterers of Sheikh Hasina is trying to please her by Canonizing Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and making him a Saint. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was not a Saint. He was saver of our national heritage by leading the liberation movement. But that does not make him a Saint. Therefore, no one should be stopped to criticize him for his action and mistake during his reign. It is also Liberation war information which is not above the criticism. There are many errors in Liberation War information. I believe at least there are four areas such as 1. Number of refugees moved to India during liberation war. 2. Number of Mukhti Bahini fought in the Liberation war 3. Number of people died in the war and 4. Number of women sexually abused by the Pakistani Occupation Army. These numbers are erroneous and controversial and should be ascertained the correct numbers before anyone can be punished by this proposed law for using different numbers. Let us discuss these speculative and controversial numbers.

    First, 10 million people moved to India during liberation war is highly speculative number. There is no one can produce any documentary proof that such number of people moved to India within nine months. Recently an aid worker Oxfam name Julian Francis wrote and opinion piece in BDNew24.net paper claiming that there were 600,000 refugees in India during the visit Senator Ted Kennedy on September 1971.

    Second number is Mukhti Bahini. Bangladesh Ministry of Liberation War Affairs published on its wave site that there were 340 thousand Mukhti fought and die for liberation war. It was impossible for any country including India could trained that may people as guerilla fighters within 4-6 six months. I do not know where these information came to the Ministry. But, I can speculate, these 340 thousand came from the certificates of Mukhtis submitted to them without verification whether those certificates were valid or genuine. However, during my time in Dhaka 1972-74, in a dinner with Foni Bushan Mojumder, General Osmani was frustrated knowing that there were million Mukhti Bahini certificates flooded in Bangladesh. All those people were claiming to be Mukhti. General Osmani commented with frustration that he did not know that many boys were working for him. Recently it has been discovered that few high level Bureaucrats have used their fake certificates for appointments and promotions in the government. The Ministry of the Liberation War Affairs has failed to detect those certificates; God knows how many there are in their database.

    Third, number of people who died in the liberation war. We all know that it was erroneous number of 3 million which was pronounced by our great leader in London. We all know that Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman erroneously pronounced 3 million instead 30 thousand or 300 thousand. But no one was willing to make the correction of his mistakes. So, it is etched in the minds of Bangalees and everyone grudgingly accept this erroneous number.

    Forth, number of 200,000 women who were sexually abused by the Pakistan occupation army. Do anyone actually know how many women were abused?. Again during my stay in Dhaka from 1972 to 1974 I had visited many times to one Birangana hostel which was established at the vacant house of Hamidul Haque Choudhury near Azimpur Colony. Only 7 women were kept in that hostel. I do not know how many other hostel were established in the other cities in Bangladesh. If there were, question should be raised where and how many Biranganas were kept until their relatives picked them up.

    Finally, if Sheikh Hasina’s government enact such a blasphemy law through which freedom of speech can be snatched away from the people. I predict this law will not last as the indemnity law did not last. Because there would a time when Awami League will not be in power and opposition party will form a government who will remove this law as Awami League removed the indemnity law. Should not the Government spend its time for better things such as trying to removing the rampant corruptions and terrorism in the country?

    If this law is enacted the people of Bangladesh, unnecessary, will suffer with such law before concrete information is found about the liberation war. As of now, as I understand that no independent scholar had research through Indian Army documents the number Mukhtis fought the war. It is there only require is scholarly studies of the information. Through international relief organization like OXFAM, CARE, Red Cross and International Rescue Committee, one can find out how many people had moved to India during liberation war time. About Birangana, it is a murky matter. Number of people killed in the liberation war, could have been ascertain through national survey or censuses in the year between 1972 to 1975. But Bangladesh Government failed to do that. Now it is difficult to establish actual number. But certainly not 3 million.

    • Shams

      Mr. Fazlul Bari:
      It is clear from your use of words that you are a so called buddhijibi wannabe. What is “Mukhti”? First of all, “Mukti” is a word that used to be used by Paki army referring to Mukti Bahini. I have never heard any Bangladeshi use this word before. Also, quoting your remarks (“We all know that it was erroneous number of 3 million which was pronounced by our great leader in London. We all know that Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman erroneously pronounced 3 million instead 30 thousand or 300 thousand”) I must ask you what do you mean by “We ALL KNOW”! No, we do not. You are just repeating what this law is trying to prevent. Bangabondhu did not mistakenly mention this number. The declassified reports from CIA clearly puts these number in between 2.7 million and 3.1 million. Furthermore, the number was derived from reports from various news agencies and other world renowned organizations. Do you thinks that Bangabandhu was ignorant and did not know the difference between 30 thousand and 300 thousand! You are very subtly trying to establish your own biased opinion and playing the same game that Jamat BNP has been playing all along. Please, stop this so called intellectual wanna be game and show your true colors like a man.

      • Fazlul Bari

        Mr. Shams,
        1. First of all Pakistani Army or officials in East Pakistan never called members of Mukhti Bahini as “Mukhti”. They called all of us as “Miscreants” if you are old enough to remember.

        2. Secondly, I am not trying to be ‘buddhijibi wannabe’. What I wrote in this article is to voice my concern and disappoint for such a blasphemy law is enacted to honor a person who beyond anyone’s power to be dishonored, no matter who try to do that.

        3. Regarding the number of people died in our liberation war is a erroneous number established in Bangladesh because of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman uttered on January 1972. There were two individuals who met Bangabandhu in the hotel in London when he arrived from Pakistan. They were Justice Abu Sayed Choudhury and Sirajul Islam. You probably know who Justice Abu Sayed Choudhury was. Do you know who Sirajul Islam was? He was one of the boyhood friends of Bangabandhu whom I met 1971 while he was one of the delegates to the United Nations to work for Bangladesh Liberation.

        It has been written that Mr. Sirajul Islam informed Bangabandhu about a news article he had read which was published on ‘Pravda’ that mentioned that about 3 lac(300,000) people killed in the liberation war. The reporter of ‘The Pravda’ did mentioned his source of that information. However, perhaps due to emotional outburst Bangabandhu uttered 3 million. Sayed Badrul Ahsan, one of the renowned columnist had written about Mr. Sirajul Islam and his conversation with Bangabandhu. However, in your reply to my concern you mentioned that ‘ The declassified reports from CIA clearly puts these number in between 2.7 million and 3.1 million. Furthermore, the number was derived from reports from various news agencies and other world renowned organizations’. You did not mentioned which news agencies and which renowned organizations reported such numbers.

        Let me ask you ‘do you think Bangabandhu had all these information on his finger tip on January 10, 1971 to ascertain that there were 3 million killed in the war of liberation. Bangabandhu was not a ignorant man; he was a human who just came out of Pakistan jail remained isolated for 10 months. So, he asked his friend Sirajul Islam what was the status of Bangladesh.

        4. I am neither member of BNP or Jamaat nor supporter of both organizations, therefore, I am not trying to establish any bias opinion. I am simply asking to reasonable people to do un-bias research and come up with the true numbers of killed in liberation war.

        Finally, let me tell you about me . I am one of those four people who organized first demonstrations at the steps of US Capital Building, The front of the White House, The World Bank and the US State Department on 29th March 1971 against Pakistani atrocities in Bangladesh. Since then I worked with Professor Rehman Sobhan, Justice Abu Sayed Choudhury and was part of 13 members Liberation office established in Washington by M.R. Siddiqui. along with Mr. Muhith; current Finance Minister, late Mr. Kibria, former Finance Minister of the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, Late Mr. Enayet Karim, first Foreign Secretary of Bangladesh and present High Commissioner of Bangladesh to India, Sayed Muzzam Ali.

        So, Mr. Shams, I was there in Dhaka 1972-1974 and have seen closely how those people who did not support our liberation war became closed to Bangabandhu and had sabotaged his honor. One day you will know how this enacted law became dangerous because it will not enhance the most honorable of Bengali people for thousands of years.

  8. Akteruzzaman Chowdhury

    Qaed-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi. The writer will agree to these titles and names. But the writer does not write Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib. (except when quoting from the law). The writer is conveying the feeling that he does not like the title Bangabandhu. Can you think of Pakistan without Qaed-e-Azam, India without Mahatma and Bangladesh without Bangabandhu. Pay the due respect and then feel free to criticize.

    • Fazlul Bari

      Do you know who gave the title ‘Qaed-e-Azam to Muhammad Ali Jinnah? It was Mahatma Gandhi. Also do you know who first called Mohan Das Gandhi as Mahatma? It was Jaharlal Nehru. And how did our great leader became Bangabandhu? There were four DUCSU leaders gave the title of Bangabandhu.

      • Sumit Mazumdar

        The overall theme of this article is of interest to Bangladeshis only, but this Indian Bengali has to object to three statements by Mr Fazlul Bari vigorously.

        (1) Mahatma Gandhi, did not, repeat did not “give” the title of “Qaed-e-Azam ”(sic) to Jinnah. He could not have – Gandhi did not believe in the two-nation theory and therefore could not have called Jinnah the Father of one of those nations. Also, Pakistanis would have never have accepted a title bestowed upon their leader by Gandhi. Literature survey also shows this to be untrue. I have never heard this statement before, from anyone.

        (2) As to the title “Mahatma” , this was bestowed upon Gandhi by Rabindranath. There is ample literature here. All Indians will agree to this. Many however still do not know that Rabindranath did not believe in Gandhi’s freedom movement. Tagore was certain that this would simply believe brown sahibs to lord over their fellow citizens which is exactly what happened over all of S Asia. But Tagore did recognize Gandhi’s personal integrity and courage – hence the conferring of the title.

        (3) Finally, I do not know how many Bangladeshis were killed by Pakistanis. But that there were 10 million refugees in India was recognized by UNHCR itself. The number in fact comes from UNHCR, and I distinctly remember the headlines on the Indian newspapers – Bangla and English – the day the 10 millionth refugee arrived.

  9. KGazi

    The alternative is a democratic government that is answerable to justice and equality of, by and for the people. There must be freedom of speech. We should not be under autocratic monarchy, we were freed from that system in 1947 and 1971.
    If we continue to allow failed fascist govts to do whatever they like, then we will NEVER have a SYSTEM of governance that will improve our country and people.

  10. Shahabuddin

    Dear Sir,
    My family is one of the victims.
    I am an admirer of your articles.
    But this time, you are missing the point. The point is, our enemies create controversy on our liberation war and its leaders. Their goal, in short, is ‘back to Pakistan’.
    That is not going to happen. But they try. Our job is to stop that.
    I want you to join this fight. Please do not allow any controversy on our liberation war. Number or whatever.
    If you do, I am your enemy.

    • Fazlul Bari

      There will not be ‘back to Pakistan’. Even Pakistanis knows that. So, stop worry about that. Bangladesh will remain Bangladesh. Only thing will happen when BNP and Jamaat seize the power and then Bangladesh will be closed to Pakistan and become its set a lite nation. Therefore, the people of Bangladesh should prevent them to form any government for the sake of liberation sentiment.

  11. Rubo

    As Father of the Nation , Bangabandhu is above criticism. But he was an elected member of Parliament. An MP is not above criticism. He was Prime Minister of the country , a PM is not above criticism. He was President of the country , a President is not above criticism. People has every right to evaluate his performances as President and Prime Minister of the country and praise his successes and criticize his failures. Please don’t take away this right.

  12. KGazi

    Next thing will be a law that nobody can make ANY comment or opinion that describes mistakes and failures of AL. Therefore I shall remain silent and not make ANY comment here.

    I will NOT make any suggestions or opinion for national improvement in fear of being punished. I will remain SILENT to exercise my freedom of speech.

  13. sadeque

    The other day I was reading a translation of ‘Kimia-e-Sa’adat”, a book by Imam Gajjali. He was describing the different kinds of danger while unnecessarily using one’s tongue (talk).

    One example he sites about the court of Khalifa Muabia (Rajiallahu Anhu).One day while all the people sitting in the court were talking and giving their opinion on varieties of subjects Khalifa noted that one of the Shahabi (Prophet’s (sm) companion) named Ahnaf was sitting silently. He was curious and asked him why he is remaining silent. The reply was very interesting and relevant one related to this excellent writing by Mr. Afsan Chowdhury.
    The shahabi replied: ” For fear of Allah I cannot tell false; and for fear of you all I cannot tell the truth”!!

  14. Khalid

    Out and out , a fascist government. But, what is the alternative? It is dynasty first, then the party. Unfortunately, শিক্ষিত ও অতিশিক্ষিত চাটুকারের অভাব নেই । দূর্ভাগা দেশ।

Comments are closed.