The controversy over the verdict of Ghulam Azam is still raging in the mind of the people in Bangladesh. BNP very cleverly has almost kept mum. Jamaat’s protest was not as furious as it was after Delwar Hossain Sayeedi’s verdict. Awami League, though rallied behind their leader Sheikh Hasina,

has expressed their satisfaction over the verdict, the younger section of the leadership and the progressive young generation at large are not happy with the verdict. The subsequent verdict against Ali Mujahidi was a death sentence but that did not satisfy the majority people of the country especially the young ones. Though Prime minister Sheikh Hasina told the parliament that she was satisfied with the verdict but the grass-root Awami League leaderships are still searching for a suitable logic to justify their satisfaction over the verdict. They did not get one yet.

The vast majority of younger generation are still clamouring for a death sentence. Their reason is that- Ghulam was the mastermind behind the creation of killing squads and made the country a killing field in 1971, how could he of all people escape the ultimate punishment when his associates were getting that for lesser roles. The old age cannot be a ground to show leniency to a war-criminal. When Eichmann, the mastermind behind the killing of millions of Jews during Second World War was caught by Israel’s Official Intelligence Agency long after the war, he was quite old. But he could not escape the trial and death sentence. In one verdict The International Court of Justice of Hague said without any ambiguity that a war criminal should be judged by his crime against humanity, his age would not deter his punishment. In Ghulam Azam’s case in Bangladesh the tribunal showed leniency on the ground of his old age, this did not satisfy public mind. They suspect that there is a political motif which inspires Awami League government to retreat from their original stand that the leader of the killer’s squad of 1971 should get the highest punishment for his heinous crimes. The other partners of the Awami League led Mohajot are not also satisfied with the logic of the verdict. Their dissatisfaction and discontent may gradually create a crack in the Mohajot unity.

A senior Awami League leader from Dhaka told me over telephone that Ghulam Azam who deserves higher punishment for his crimes than his other associates who got death sentences could not be given the same punishment for two reasons. One reason was- he was too old and the older generation of the country would not be happy to see an old man was being hanged. The second reason was- some Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Malaysia were pressurizing Bangladesh government to save the life of Ghulam Azam. There was also a threat from Saudi Arabia if their request was not accommodated; they might oust the thousands of Bangladeshi workers from their country. Our government had to accommodate some of these requests. The Awami League Leader claimed that by saving Ghulam Azam’s life it seems that a significant number of illegal Bangladeshi workers in Saudi Arabia are going to be legalized soon. So this was our diplomatic victory.

I do not know how far this claim is true. I knew that there was a prevailing pressure on Bangladesh government from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other countries not to try the war criminals of 1971 at all. Hasina Government courageously stood against that pressure and started the trial. Now it’s unbelievable that those countries have minimized their pressure and are trying to save only one war criminal who was the ring leader. If this was true government could make a deal with those countries in a subtle way. During 1950s, Maulana Abul A’la Maududi, the leader of Jamaat, instigated an anti-Quadiyani riot in Punjaab and 50,000 Muslims were massacred in that riot. Maududi was accused of igniting mass-slaughter and put on trial. Lahore High Court gave him death penalty. As usual, the patron of Jamaat, Saudi Arabia started pressurizing on Pakistan government to revoke his death sentence. At first the parliamentary government of Pakistan did not dare to revoke the sentence for fear of backlash from the people. But after coming to power, the military government of Ayyub was accused of making a deal with Saudi government. At first it was not made public at that time, afterwards the news was revealed by a Karachi English daily. According to that published news, the deal was that the government will uphold the death penalty to control the outcry of the public. Afterwards the Jamaat leader (he was also very old by that time) would make a mercy petition to the president and the president with his discretionary power will accept the prayer. In Ghulam Azam’s case in Bangladesh the death sentence for the gang leader of ‘71 massacre, could be announced to satisfy the great expectation of people countrywide. Then Ghulam Azam could make a mercy petition to the president and the president could revoke the death penalty. This way the government could honour the previous verdict of the Gono-Adalat (People’s Court) which announced death sentence for Ghulam Azam about 2 decades ago.

The Awami leader with whom I had a telephone conversation told me that people of the older generation might not accept the death sentence of Ghulam Azam as he is too old. I drew his attention to the fact when death sentence was pronounced against Ghulam Azam in a mock-trial two decades ago, the whole country was jubilant irrespective of generations. People are so angry with Ghulam Azam because of his leading role in the atrocities of 1971, they could not forgive him. If his all other partners in crime get death sentence now, people will not be happy because of the lenient verdict of Ghulam Azam, the main culprit. The government unnecessarily created suspicion that they had a secret deal with Jamaat and Hefazot camp. This verdict was the proof of their appeasement policy. For this policy, Awami League may lose mango and gunny bag both.

I don’t know how far this suspicion in public mind is correct. I fear that after the defeat of five city corporation elections, Awami League High Command has lost its nerves. The rightist section of Awami League prevailed upon the prime minister and perhaps convinced her that by appeasing Hefazot they can make both Jamaat and Hefazot less aggressive and avoid the feared debacle in the next election. It will lead Awami League nowhere.

The taming of fundamentalists in Bangladesh politics was a failed policy for Awami League for a long time. If they continue this divisive policy neither they will win the communal and fundamentalist camp in their favour, nor they will be able to retain the solid support of minorities, working women and progressive young generation. This verdict concerning Ghulam Azam may lose its present effect for some time, but it will not go away. It will reshape the Bangladesh politics in near future. If the democratic and progressive forces are not united, they will have to pay a heavy price for their present political failure. Awami league may have to bear the major responsibility of this failure.

London