Shahidul Alam’s intentional misrepresentation of Bangladesh

Internationally renowned photographer Shahidul Alam has been arrested by the government of Bangladesh. He was dragged away from his home at night. The matter was heavily covered in the media. Some protested the arrest on social media. Some also tried to justify the arrest.

While some highlighted his relation with Sabur Khan, one of those who collaborated with Pakistan during the Liberation War in 1971, others were talking about his freedom fighter cousin. A few highlighted his mother Anowara Monsur receiving the Independence Award on behalf of her husband from the government while others referred to Jahanara Imam's book 'Ekatturer Dinguli', where the author reminisced about the strong connection between Anowara Monsur and the Pakistan military during the Liberation War.

While some were highlighting his support of David Bergman, a journalist and blogger who has written critically about the war crimes tribunal in Bangladesh, others were referring to his write-up in the New York Times as proof of his stance in favour of Shahbagh movement.

Many things can be said of the issues mentioned above. But we may remember that it is not necessary to dig into anyone's past in order to criticise his misdeeds, nor is there any need to canonise them to protest their detention.

So, rather than getting into those topics, this article will try to share some instances of Shahidul Alam's intentional and relentless efforts in defaming the image of Bangladesh and to fish in troubled waters during popular movements in Bangladesh such as the Shahbagh movement and the recent road safety movement, both of which received backing and support from most of the populace. Shahidul Alam misrepresented both of the movements on domestic as well as international media.

This article is an attempt to shed light on the fabrications he made in a New York Times article on Feb 28, 2013. However, before that it is necessary to clarify why an article that was published five years ago is relevant here. The reason is that the article has been referred to on the social media by both the camp espousing Alam's greatness and those touting his dishonesty after his arrest.

Effort – 1

In the article 'A 40-year quest for Justice', Shahidul Alam wrote:

"Bangladesh's founding leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, set up special tribunals to try the collaborators. Several thousand cases were filed, but the quest for justice was derailed in late 1973 when Sheikh Mujibur declared a general amnesty for the collaborators against whom trials had not yet been initiated."

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman declared the general amnesty, which is true, but did that derail the trials as claimed by Shahidul Alam? Let us see what history tells us.

The Bangladesh Collaborators (special Tribunal) order 1972 was enacted on Jan 24, 1972 and 73 tribunals were formed all over the country. Trials not only began, but 2,884 verdicts were announced under the ordinance until October 1973. A total of 752 war criminals were convicted and sentenced to death, life imprisonment or other prison terms.

On Nov 30, 1973, Bangabandhu declared a general amnesty applying only to those who did not have any specific war crime allegations against them such as killing, rape and looting (for details please read: https://mygoldenbengal.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/bangabandhus-general-amnesty-declaration/ )

A total of 11,000 war criminals were still confined to jail even after the proclamation of general amnesty and the trials continued until the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. That neither justifies nor establishes the claims made by Shahidul Alam and his followers.

For further evidence the following are some newspaper headlines from the time.

Lifetime imprisonments for two Al-Badars (The Dainik Ittefaq, 05 December 1973), 14 get death sentences for collaborating (Dainik Purbodesh, 02 April 1974) & Two lifetime imprisonment sentences for collaborating with Pakistan (Dainik Sangbad, 20 April 1975).

Effort – 2

Shahidul Alam also wrote:

"Only in 2010 was a tribunal at last established to investigate the 1971 war crimes."

By saying that he has not only denied the truth but also misrepresented history. He bypassed the real history of what happened to the collaborator ordinance and who stopped the trials against Razakars and the Al-Badr forces. Let us look to history once more.

Sheikh Mujib was assassinated along with his family members on Aug 15, 1975 and the ordinance was dismissed on Dec 31, 1975 by then President Abu Sadat Mohammad Sayem; and the trial of Razakars and Al-Badrs was stopped.  All the prisoners, including 20 marked for execution and 752 for other forms of punishment were set free. Now, the question is who derailed the quest for justice? Sheikh Mujib? Or President Sayem who actually was representing Ziaur Rahman?

Effort – 3

Shahidul Alam wrote:

"Bangladesh's original Constitution had four basic principles: nationalism, democracy, socialism and secularism. Military dictators replaced that with 'absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah as the basis of all actions' in 1977, and made another change in 1988 that led to our once-secular nation's being redefined as an Islamist one. Martial law, amnesty and political deals allowed the collaborators to go free and Jamaat-e-Islami to gradually rejoin the political mainstream."

It is another fabrication that obscures the real context of how the Jamaat-e-Islami rejoined mainstream politics. Let's look to history again.

Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman banned the Jamaat-e-Islami along with all religion-based political parties according to Article 38 of the 1972 constitution.

Then in 1976 the Political Parties Regulation Ordinance was passed and the Islamic Democratic League (IDL) led by Maulana Abdur Rahim obtained permission from the government to form a party. Jamaat activists began to operate under the banner of IDL. Some Jamaat leaders contested in the general elections of 1979 as nominees of the Democratic League, and six of them were elected. In 1979, the ban on religion-based political parties was withdrawn by General Ziaur Rahman's government, and thus Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh was reinstated.

Khaleda Zia took Jamaat to a new height by appointing two Jamaat leaders as cabinet ministers (they were later executed after being convicted of war crimes).

The most interesting part is, though the general amnesty had nothing to do with religion-based politics, Shahidul Alam identified the general amnesty as one of the key reasons of Jamaat-e-Islam's revival in mainstream politics in Bangladesh.

On the other hand, it seems like he consciously did not mention who changed the basic principles of the constitution in 1977 and 1988. And the truth of Jamaat-e-Islam's rehabilitation in 1979 by Ziaur Rahman was completely dodged.

Effort – 4

Shahidul Alam again wrote:

"Years of kleptocratic rule, nepotism, corruption and abuse of power have eroded trust in the government in Bangladesh. People feel that the system is so corrupt that change cannot possibly emerge in the electoral arena. That's why hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshis have gathered in the past month in a spontaneous movement that quickly spread across the country."

There is nothing new to say about the Shahbagh movement here. The fact is known by all. Different parties demanded that Shahbagh should protest against other issues as well. And the protestors decided to stick to the original demand as the Shahbagh movement wasn't against corruption or any other irregularities of the government, but instead, the quest for justice.

Effort – 5

Shahidul Alam also wrote:

"Young kids baying for blood will make many justifiably uncomfortable. And no court should be forced to alter a verdict because of popular pressure."

Shahidul Alam could finally contradict the people's democratic outcry with this statement. I will keep it open to the protestors involved in the Shahbagh movement to respond accordingly. Shahbagh did not ask for revenge. Instead they demanded rights by the state to appeal against the verdict. The same sentiment as expressed by Alam could be found in other pro-Jamaat write-ups by Bergman, Toby Cadman and the Amar Desh newspaper.

The true history of the moment was unavailable for a long time in Bangladesh. But many bloggers including Omi Rahman Pial revealed the truth in 2013. Those writings are also available on the net now.

Now let us turn to Shahidul Alam's comments in in the interview with Al-Jazeera.

Effort – 6

The Al-Jazeera interviewer began with a leading question: "Is this all about road safety or is there something larger going on there?"

Shahidul Alam's reply was, "Very much larger. This has been going on very, very long time. It's a non-elected government, they do not really have a mandate to rule but they have been taking on by brute force."

And then after providing the account of governments corruption, bank looting, extra judicial killing etc. he said that, "So, it really is that pent-up energy, emotion, anger that has been let loose this particular incident."

So, what was the purpose of the road safety movement? Why then were children protesting in the streets? Did they raise any concerns about the government's mandate, corruption, bank looting, etc? Did they come out to the streets on the backs of this "pent-up energy, emotion and anger"? The same old strategy: intentional fabrication. The same intention – to misrepresent the road safety movement as he did the Shahbagh movement.

Effort – 7

Then Shahidul Alam talked, out of the blue, about the quota movement and said, "… the quota system is rigged in such a way that only the people close to the party in power get government jobs and a disproportionate amount of jobs go to them."

What an utter lie! Even the leaders of quota movement will think twice before making such claims.

Effort – 8

At last, now we come to the arrest of Shahidul Alam. It was claimed that he had been tortured ruthlessly after being detained. He said that his Panjabi was soaked with blood and that he was given the blood-stained Panjabi to wear again after it was washed. The High Court directed the concerned authorities of the government and police to immediately send Shahidul Alam to Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU) for treatment. In response to a writ petition, the court also ordered the BSMMU authorities to examine Shahidul's physical condition and submit a report before the court. But the medical board could not find any sign of torture. Meanwhile another video clip of Shahidul Alam was found on social media where he was seen walking normally and laughing alongside two DB police officers (link: https://www.facebook.com/banglanewspost/videos/1028061994065353/). Again, immediately after the medical examination he was seen on TV sick and leaning on his partners' shoulder and was unable to walk without any support. People who believed in him and protested against the torture during detention felt cheated.

However, this article is merely an effort to present some evidence-based refutations of Shahidul Alam's intentional efforts in defaming Bangladesh. This article does not seek to justify nor protest the arrest.

The preceding is an expression of my own views and do not represent the views of my employer. – Shashwatee Biplob