President Ziaur Rahman (1936-1981): In Memoriam
On the anniversary of Ziaur Rahman’s death, by tacitaeterno…
I hear… of your recent saying that both the Army and the Government needed a Dictator. Only those generals who gain success can set up military dictatorships. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship.”
- Abraham Lincoln, message to General Joseph Hooker, Army of the Potomac
May 30 is the 28th anniversary of President Ziaur Rahman’s death. It came approximately 10 years and 2 months after he gave a radio announcement, from Chittagong, declaring the Independence of Bangladesh on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, then in the custody of the Pakistani Army.
During our Independence War, he was Sector Commander over much of today’s Chittagong Division, and commander of Bangladesh Army’s ‘Z” brigade. At the end of the war, with Pakistani forces crumbling before the assault of joint Indo-Bangladeshi forces and surrendering on 16 December 1971, he was awarded the Bir Uttom. At the onset of independence, Zia became one of the senior-most officers of the Bangladesh Army. His performance during the nine-month war and his radio announcement at the onset of the war marked him as different from his fellow officers. He was made Brigade Commander of Comilla, close to where his force had done most of the fighting during the war… ( More at In the Middle of Nowhere)
The best thing that I respect about this man is the fact that while in power he didn’t entertain any nepotism.
May he rest in peace.
[Reply]
Zia was just one of those seven sector commanders. No one new him before March 27, 1971. He shot into limelight after the brutal assassination of Mujib.
He struck a deal with the assassins of Sheikh Mujib ensuring a safe passage for them out of the country which allowed him to take over as one of those third world blockheads like Mobuto or Charles Taylor. He didn’t hesitate to bring back the defeated forces of 1971 into power. His harvest included notorious killers and Razaakars like Shah Aziz and Abdul Alim.
He died in the hands of his own men who could not accept his acquiescence of the war criminals.
He may have been a freedom fighter himself but he was responsible for death of thousands of ordinary soldiers and many freedom fighters within the army. He and later his wife and sons kept the tradition going by allying with rogue criminals like Golam Azam, Mujahidi and Nizami.
History will remember Zia as just one of those failed thirld world despotic blockheads.
[Reply]
sensible Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:13 am
“He died in the hands of his own men who could not accept his acquiescence of the war criminals.”
In all these years, I have never heard this excuse for killing of Zia that he was killed because his fellow partymen didnot like his relationship with the war criminals! What is the source of this info? Or is this another one of those statements so often made in Bangladesh to bend the truth to a new direction?
[Reply]
sopa Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
he didnt get killed by his fellow army?
[Reply]
sensible Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:06 pm
He did. But I have never heard that this particular reason for his killing. I was asking about the reason given for his killiing not the fact that he was killed by army. I think for any such unfortunate event, “who” as well as “why” are important. We all know who killed Zia. But “why” part, the one given here, is new to me.
Very well written, Thanks.
-Sharmin
[Reply]
Well articulated. But one thing missing from the piece is-what happened to Col. Taher? Zia is the beneficiary of one of the most heinous crimes against humanity and he solely is responsible for the rehabilitation of the razakars.
[Reply]
Badal Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
This is a post on Ziaur Rahman, so Col Taher’s life history may not, rightly, be part of it.
Col Taher was tried in a military court for crimes Col Taher himself confessed with great pride. He organized and led a soldier revolt in Bangladesh Armed forces. Indoctrined in Kambodia’s Polpot style agrerarian/ scientific communism-socialism, Taher plotted to kill senior army leadership and take over power. His coup succeeded in killing then army chief Khaled Musharraf. The same coup also killed Senior Officials like Col Huda and Col Haider. All three are decorated leaders of our armed struggle of independece. Also killed in that melee were wives and kids of military officers.
When a man is tried in a court martial and does not deny the above allegations, rather take pride in all those, on what law, a court can not but serve him with death sentence?
[Reply]
Sujin Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:58 am
I know its on Zia, not on Taher. but Taher’s last few days are a part if Zia’s first few days of prominance-no denying that!
[Reply]
Zia simply was a poseur. He posed as a nationalist and dismantled all the principal foundations of the nation. He posed as a freedom fighter and slaughtered as many of his colleagues as he could. He posed as a darling of democracy and simply politicized and misused the army. He posed as a dynamic dude but accelerated the cultural and social regression of Bangladesh. His harmful effects on the body of the nation is still seething everywhere.
[Reply]
Col Taher is a selk confessed revolte for which there is one punishment in Military force. Death.
For Zia – Yes Sopa – he got killed by his fellow army. Like the way Mujib got killed by his fellow countryman.
Sujin – had rajakars been tried during 1971-75 or post liberation, Zia’s role in rehabilitatingh this rajakars would not have had any scope to be discussed. To judge one event it is a must to judge what preceded before.
Just a guess, Might Zia had asked himself – “Hey wait, why didn’t Bongobondhu held the Razakars liable!” Bottom line whatever excuse is given by pro-liberation beneficiary of power not to have served justice to rajakars does leave a big hole in the argument.
Bottom line, it is right to ask question why the rajakars were rehabilitated during Zia! But it is even more important to ask why the rajakars were not served punishment by the man who was leader to be and leader in charge and whose daughter today is trying to serve the same justice that her father didn”t.
Not serving justice to rajakars / allowing the real war criminals to repatriate (If not 91000 pak soldiers but at least their political and military masters) made todays justice for rajakars very critical. While we want it, there will be many hindrance.
None of this would have happened and today we would not have blamed Zia for rehabilitating rajakars had they been punished duly during Mujib’s rule.
The rajakars were let go some way or the other without punishment. Some argues “o wait, Mujib didn’t pardon rajakars… and da da da…”
For me, it is the deeds that matter not words.
And here are two.
Words: Oops – rajakars were never pardoned by Mujib
Deeds: Mujib didn’t punish any rajakar or sent any to gallow during his lifetime presidentship.
I judge by deeds that impact life and not by word that pales into insignificance when compared to deeds.
better late than never.
[Reply]
sujin Reply:
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:44 am
Yeah..Better late than never. Whatever happened, happened..we are going to serve justice to the war criminals.
[Reply]
Borsha Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 4:09 am
“Deeds: Mujib didn’t punish any rajakar or sent any to gallow during his lifetime presidentship.” This is half truth. Before sending someone to gallow, you need a process of trial; Mujib’s Govt is the only Govt that took some initiative to try the war criminals and rajakars. No one was sent to gallow during that period but Mujib atleast started the process that was halted after his death. This is from a Daily Star article:
“In January, 1972, Bangabandhu had formulated the Collaborators Act to
try the collaborators and war criminals. The Act covers those
individuals or organisations, who helped the Pakistani army in mass
killings, conducted crimes against humanity, unleashed torture on men,
women and children, destroyed property, or fought against the People’s
Republic of Bangladesh siding with the occupying forces. It also
explained how 11 tribunals would be set up to punish them.
The Collaborators Act that was published in a gazette notification on
November 30, 1973 however says none of the war criminals had been
pardoned. The same was true for Golam Azam.
Section two of the Act said, “Those who were punished for or accused
of rape, murder, attempt to murder or arson will not come under
general amnesty under the section one.
Out of 37,000 sent to jail on charges of collaboration, some 26,000
were freed after announcement of the general amnesty.
Around 11,000 were still in the prison when the government of Justice
Sayem and General Zia repealed the Collaboration Act on December 31,
1975. After the scrapping, those behind bars for war atrocities
appealed and eventually got released. “
The fact that no one was punished during Mujib’s regime made Zia believe that
all these people behind the bars are innocent and should be freed ! I don’t think Zia was that kind of a fool. He could have continued with the trial process. Just admit that Zia rehabilitated razakars for his own political ambition.
Golam Azam left BD on November, 1971 and Nizami left BD after 16th December. Both came back when Zia was in power. Golam Azam entered Bangladesh with temporary visa and Jamat, a banned fundamentalist party was legalized by Zia for the sake of multi-party democracy .Like Golam Azam and Nizami, many other war criminals and razakars left Bangladesh right after the war in fear of facing trial and punishment. If Muijb did nothing for the trial of razakars, why did these people leave Bangladesh at that time?
“To judge one event it is a must to judge what preceded before.”
Don’t forget to judge what happened before and after Zia ascended to power, Murder of all top AL leaders including Mujib and then rewards for the killers who committed the crime.
[Reply]
This was the funniest line in this for me – he “graciously accepted” Sheikh Hasina’s return. As opposed to what? Excuse me, how is allowing the lawful return of a citizen to her country, who is not convicted or accused of any crime a “gracious act”? Maybe what you meant to say is, given that Zia reward her father’s killers not just with a wink and a look the other way but with riches and prestige and appointments at the highest councils of the world stage, he could have bumped her off or somesuch, but chose not to. Wonderful, I bow my head in reverence.
What of the “muscular” foreign policy? I think by that you mean crawling on bended knee to countries which supported the genocidal forces in 1971 and never apologized, blocked our entry to UN, prevented food shipments when we were suffering famine and sosuch. We are still paying the price for that lying in prostrate precedent set up by the weak and embarassing foreign policy established by Zia – our women are humiliated in the middle east, our boys are taped to camels and our men fall off of construction sites without any compensation and we are labeled illegal immigrants while builidng the global economy. Hmm – sorry, I forgot, muscular posturing.
And to your original quote (which is actually incorrectly reproduced) – we dont hear the end of BAKSAL – an attempt to resolve the very discipline and anarchy issues you mention, but Zia as a one-party dictatorship is ok, it is heroic even. Mujib, who spent his life in jail fighting for democracy, is to be faulted for the temoporary restriction on the democtatic order (did he live to have the opportunity to demonstrate how shortlived this would be?) but ZIa’s dictatorship, and making politics difficult for politicians is celebrated as multiparty democracy.
You write well, but what you write is nonsense.
[Reply]
tacit Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
So temporary restrictions on democratic orders are to be presented as lifetime dictatorships? I think Moeen U. Ahmed missed that memo; he would have highly appreciated your input. I compare Sheikh Mujib’s trajectory to Ziaur Rahman’s, and it is clear to me which one of them was moving in the right direction. I respect Sheikh Mujib’s fight for our rights to self-determination, but to my mind, what you do with power once you actually have it is the true measure of a person.
Your criticism of Zia’s foreign policy is strange; it seems like the height of naivete to sit and hope for food-shipments from a government that, as we know, opposed us during 1971. Also, if I recall, it was Sk. Mujib who hosted Bhutto and went to attend the OIC summit in Pakistan.
The humiliation and degradation that our men and women face in the Middle East, and in India, and in parts of Europe, are a matter of great shame for all of us. I don’t know through which leap of logic you determine that Zia is to blame for all of this. I don’t think, except as a very last measure, the answer is to ban all labor migration to vast swathes of the world; instead, we have to better educate our migrants, make Bangladeshi embassies abroad responsive to the needs and concerns of local communities, and be responsive to these concerns at the national policy level.
[Reply]
Strange Rebuttal Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Lets take point by point:
1. ….he “graciously accepted” Sheikh Hasina’s return. – Yes, because with misuse of power he could have barred her from returning. He didn’t exploit power like Ershad to oppose oppsing party.
2. “What of the “muscular” foreign policy?” – For a country termed bottom less basket is to move away from it. SAARC was his brainchild, if I am not mistaken. His effort in middle-east diplomacy was very respectable by the standard of a country termed as bottomless basket. Many more………
3. “…………crawling on bended knee to countries which supported the genocidal forces in 1971 and never apologized, blocked our entry to UN, prevented food shipments when we were suffering famine and sosuch…………..” Now compare this : The relation between Vietnam and US, Japan and US, US and German, UK and France — list goes one. Channakkay’s comment; In international relation there is no permanent friend or foe. What is there is permanent interest. Example: India helped us in 71. Should we be grateful! Yes. But it was also in their interest. And if India screws us today, should we be garteful to them just because they helped us in 71 in their interest as much and tell come and screw us!
Now compare this: The son of PM is staying in the country, styding in the country, married as citizen of the country – that opposed our liberation and threatened to block by blocade as you said. Should we term Joy ————— pallying with one who hate permanently!
4. “… We are still paying the price for that lying in prostrate precedent set up by the weak and embarassing foreign policy established by Zia ” …… Deserves no comment.
5. ” – our women are humiliated in the middle east, our boys are taped to camels and our men fall off of construction sites without any compensation and we are labeled illegal immigrants while builidng the global economy.” ……………. And still you crave for their remittance, their earning and PM along with current govt trying to increase manpower export! Try telling PM to stop manpower export.
Bottom line: Does beggar have a choice! Sounds harsh but get the meaning please.
6. “And to your original quote (which is actually incorrectly reproduced) – we dont hear the end of BAKSAL – an attempt to resolve the very discipline and anarchy issues you mention, but Zia as a one-party dictatorship is ok, it is heroic even.” – At the end Zia did open newspaper again, lift publication ban imposed by Mr. Mujib and baksal, allowed return to multipart democracy which was stopped by forming BAKSAL.
7. “Mujib, ……….fighting for democracy, is to be faulted for the temoporary restriction on the democtatic order…………`- Yes – he is faulted factually and historically. That is the irony.
8. “……..(did he live to have the opportunity to demonstrate how shortlived this would be?)……..`Well wer can leave specualtion like this…. Otherwise some one else will come and say, had Zia lived — he would have made Bangladesh most powerful é respectful country in world….only if he lived. Since none lived lets judge them by what they did and not what they would have done if they lived.
9. ` but ZIa’s dictatorship, and making politics difficult for politicians is celebrated as multiparty democracy.`- like it or loath it, BAKSAL stopped multi party democracy. A fact even by your standard if temporary which is debatable since sadly Mujib didn`t live enough to give definitive answer.
10.` You write well, but what you write is nonsense.“- Whoever wrote this did a good job. Nonsense of course it is to one who are destined to pretend to sleep.
Bottom line: This peace was written in memorial of a person who was killed brutally like Mujib. No doubt these two person has done many things good and many things not so good. But can we not be at least generous enough to show them minimum respect while they are no more!
Looks like hatred is in our blood.
Peace to both great leaader.
[Reply]
We have been independent for almost four decades now. Mujib had lived in the country (which was liberated at the clarion call of this gigantic charismatic leader) for only 3-4 years till the cold-blooded assassins took not only his life but of all the stalwarts of Awami League in 1975.
In the following period it has either been brutal military dictatorship under a fascist ironman who savagely killed his own men in the army and did his best to destroy Awami League by resurrecting the killers of 1971 and the assassins of 1975.
Awami League has ruled for hardly 5 or more years. The rest has been run by Zia, his wife and Ershad.
If the country is really in bad shape as repeatedly orchestrated by Khaleda’s parrots in the parliament then they have to be blamed for that. Why did they keep silent for the last seven years when India was unilaterally building the Dam?
What do they mean by ‘respectable’ allocation of seats for them? It is just a facade they are trying to create to resort to unconstitutional means. One day they boycott and the next day they are back in the parliament. The massive defeat handed to them by the people have seriously shaken their confidence and trust in parliamentary democracy. Otherwise there is no reason why they should not be inside in the parliament during the budget session.
This government has been more than gracious to them in spite of the less than 50 seats the opposition have in the Sangshad.
[Reply]
Reading comments above, it becomes evident that hatred towards Zia is a disease, an inherited one. Like a malignant disease, it is virulent beyond logic, sense of proportion and fact.
Nearly 100% criticism made above are beased on completely false assertions.
1. One wrote Zia is responsible for dozens of coups. What a nonsens. How come Zia be responsibel coups plotted against him, aimed at killing him!!!
2. Almost everyone wrote Zia is a dictator, killer of democracy etc etc. The fact is that when Zia came to power, Bangladesh was under constitutionally enforced dictatorship. When Zia died, Bangladesh had a functional presidential system democracy and after his death, peaceful transition of power to the VP took place and an all party participated eelction took place within constitionally mandated 3 months.
3. People are writing that Zia Pardoned killers of Bangabandhu and let them go abroad. The fact is that it was AL leaders like Kh Mostaque etc exonerated them, termed them surjo-shontan, made them de fcato rulers. These kilers were allowed to fly to Bangkok on November 5th 1975 when Khaled Mosharraf was ruling the country and Zia was under house arrest. Yes Zia did not call them back to punish them. Did AL lodge a strong movement demanding that? No they did not. It was AL’s all time best friend Ershad who allowed them to form a party called freedom party. Col Faruque’s Freedome party ( with symbol of Kural) participated in 1986 election along with Errshad’s JP and Sk Hasina’s AL.
[Reply]
Borsha Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 6:10 am
Correct me if I am wrong, Zia placed those killers in different diplomatic positions around the world.Khondokar Moshtaque declared the indemnity act and Zia passed it in parliament. He protected those killers by passing a constitutional amendment indemnifying them. Not calling them back for punishment and making law to protect them are two different things.
[Reply]
Most outrageous of all the accusations was criticism of Zia’s foreign policy. In history of BD, clout of Bangladesh in global politics was at its peak under Zia’s rule. During his short rule, in addition to stabilizing the armed forces, countering dozens of military coups, rebuilding his center right brand of politics, rebuilding democratic system in Bangladesh, Zia made Bangladesh a strong player in global platform. Under his leadership, Bangladesh;
1. Won security council membership in 1978 after defeting global power Japan.
2. Became leading Member of Palestine conflict related IOC 3 member Jerusalem Committee.
3. Zia initiated OIC attemps to stop Iraq-Iran war as the sole member of AL Quds committee.
4. Won membership of NAM bureau in 1977
5. Singned Ganges water sharing treaty called Farakka pact in 1977.
6. Pushed and achieved Framework finalization of tin bigha handover.
7. Reached a Consensus on Talpatti ownership after joint discussion and survey.
8. Ensured Return and rehabilitation of 200,000 rohingya during first Rohingya crisis . When the same crisis recurred after his death, the Rohingyas stayed.
9. Obtained border treaty with Burma.
10. Forced Pakistan to sign assett return and stranded Bihari return agreement. After his death, this could never been materialized.
He saw the potential of our manpower and initiated manpower export. The Foreign remittence in 1971-76 period was 3974 million taka while during 1976-81 period, it was 3772 billion taka. ( Source: Former Foreign Minister prof Shamsul Haq).
[Reply]
I think the importance of Zia’s radio broadcast is often missed. The mud-slinging by both sides from the 80s onwards regarding this broadcast doesn’t help how we look at it objectively, but for someone at the start of a conflict where genocide had already started, to identify himself by name (and leave evidence of treason with the death penalty as punsihment should he have been caught given his position) shows an exceptional degree of courage and risk-taking.
He could have tried to grab power and glory from an incumbent military force of which he was already part – and which was desperately seeking allies – by making an appeal for peace and reconciliation, but didn’t.
I was discussing 1971 with a relative who was in the Indian army and several of his former colleagues when they were having a mini-reunion a couple of years ago. Unprompted, the subject of Zia’s radio broadcast came up. One of those present who was close to Indira Gandhi at the time cited the broadcast as the real wake up call for the Indian establishment and trigger for full blown involvement in the war. His comment went like this: “Prior to that broadcast, we had no idea of knowing whether this was something that would die down in due course, or whether the Pakistanis would manage to wipe out the rabble rousers, or something confined just to Dhaka or the left-leaning groups and the Hindus. When a decorated soldier publicly announced that he was taking a stand for independence from Pakistan, we knew this was not just a political crisis but a war of national liberation and that there was no going back”
No disrespect meant to Mujib or the years of struggle that came before all of this – and I’m deliberately staying away from Zia’s post 75 role – but his contribution in 71 was no doubt without parallel.
[Reply]
Jukti Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 2:26 am
The men who killed Sheikh Mujib (Faroqq & Rashid) were also freedom fighters with a gallant record. Do you want to spend some time writing up their great battlefield heroics and then say “I’m delliberately staying away from their afterwards record”?
If you want to evaluate someone, you have to look at their whole history, not just selected pieces
[Reply]
Udayan Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
My goal was not to evaluate Zia but the significance of one of his actions. You are right, if I wanted to evaluate him, I should look at the bigger picture, which is why I expressly said that i wasn’t going to get into the post 75 issues. And don’t forget, many from the Zia camp will tell you that their perceptions of Mujib are shaped by his performance post-71.
I’m not Bangladeshi, and therefore am slightly removed from the Mujib-Zia emotions – though not entirely. Most Bengalis who know anything about these two will have a preference – it is, at this point at least, almost a binary choice that we are forced to express whether we like it or not.
[Reply]
Reza Reply:
June 7th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Was Zia really a decorated soldier when he made the announcement in 1971? Please clarify.
[Reply]
Jyoti Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 5:50 am
Zia received a gallantry award for leading a company in the Battle of Khemkaran in 1965 War. His company was among the first to capture the village of Khemkaran, in Indian Punjab, around 8-9 Sep 1965. This was the first major Pakistani victory in the Lahore-Amritsar sector. From 6 Sep on, Lahore was under heavy Indian attack, and for a while it seemed that the city’s airport would have fallen. The capture of Khemkaran brought the Pakistan army defending Lahore much needed relief. The actual battle saw some hand-to-hand combat, with Zia capturing the revolver of an Indian major.
Udayan’s original point — that the significance of the radio announcement is often lost — is spot on.
It is important to note that not every Bengali officer joined the war. In 2006, Iajuddin Ahmed nominated someone to the Election Commission who, on 16 Dec 1971, surrendered with the Pakistan Army. Col Qayyum Chowdhury — brother of Shaheed Munir Chowdhury/Prof Kabir Chowdhury/Ferdousi Mazumder — refused to come to Bangladesh and continued to serve Pakistan army until retirement. And there are many other less famous examples.
Given above, Zia simply could have walked away on 25 Mar, and then reported back to duty once Pak army recaptured Chittagong in April. That he didn’t do so, and made a radio announcement identifying himself and thus risking sure death sentence if caught, should be recognised without any political hang up.
Sure he wasn’t the only officer to join the war. Khaled Musharraf and Shafiullah did so simultaneously and independently. Had either been present near a radio station, they may well have made the announcement. But that is the stuff of ‘what if’ that we will never have the answer for. What we do know is that sufficiently large number of Bengali officers did revolt, many of them inspired by the radio announcement. And this large scale mutiny among the Bengali officers is the single most important factor that the Pakistani generals did not anticipate in their plans.
[Reply]
Mohammad Reply:
June 10th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Yes, of course zia’s declaration has profound significance. It started a WAR between arm forces. He revolted and went for the kill. Many followed suit. There was no going back for them. The WAR started even before Bangladesh Govt in exile took form . The political leadership was completely disconnected for those few days after 25th march. Zia’s declaration was the first challenge to take on Pakistani Army. He made it known that their actions will not go unchallenged. Remember what zia said ? He proclaimed that Pakistani Army will be annihilated if they do not surrender !! Bangladesh needed that . Sheikh Mujib needed that. Make no mistake , Sheikh Mujib was the Leader of the time. Zia never denied that. I wouldn’t take Zia’s one as declration of independence . That’s quite a different subject !!!!
[Reply]
Since we are not only discussing Zia but his ideological opponents and those, according to the author of the post, who have wasted no opportunity to villify him, let us also be objective and look at Zia’s own record and those of his ideological/mercenary supporters and what their track record is.
1. When Zia took control, assuming full reign over media and academia, he could have kept neutral about Mujib. Instead, he removed all mention of Mujib from textbooks, history books, official speeches on independence day, victory day etc. Is it any wonder that he aroused hostility from those trying to preserve the true history, who did not return to power for 21 years.
2. He proactively launched a viscous program to try and construct bogus intellectual theories to try and make Mujib irrelevant. Examples are his attempt to show that “Bangladeshi Bangla” was a separate langauge from West Bengal (he was extremely insecure about his identity on this front) and trying to show ethnic differences etc. The only relic of this to survive is “Bangladeshi nationalism”
3. Is there any examblpe of such vile and disgusting behaviour as the fake birthday celebration? You all know what I am referring to. It was not a case that the brithday really fell on this day and one chose not to be private in respect but commemorate it with pomp regardless. To actively change the date, is like committing the gruesome crime over and over again, both on a personal level targeting certain individuals, and on an ideological level as well. We all know this.
Do you really expect the other side to keep quiet in the midst of all this?
[Reply]
Juthi Reply:
June 6th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Very disgusting indeed!
Fake birthday date and fake certificates for someone who had not passed SSC exams.
She kept the tradition of spreading and then establishing ‘lies and damned lies’ alive after the death of the self-appointed DCMLA, CMLA and finally a totalitarian autocrat.
[Reply]
Only in a underdeveloped country like Banngladesh attempts are undertaken to transform a little known junior officer in the Pakistani Army into a heroic figure.
It was because of Zia I lost my father in the turbulent era following the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and many more innocent politicians, soldiers and officers. His lust for power was so intense that he did not care if it resulted in so many children orphaned during his megalomaniac, blood-spilled dark age in Bangladesh’s history.
It is very sad to realize that no democratically elected government has ever cared to reach out to us to console us. Those traumatic memories of the violent seventies still sends shivers down my spine.
A madman’s greed for unconstitutional power has cost us irreparable loss.
[Reply]
Zia was a demagogue. His intellect was too shallow. He ruined the spirit of 1971 by inducting opportunists and war criminals in his cabinet.
His wife and sons are just replicas of what he was.
[Reply]
Zia was responsible for injecting the poison that is communalism into our politics and national life. And he knew that once it was in (constitution) it would be impossible to take out without another 1971 because of the hypocrisy and narrowmindedness of a significant amount of our people.
Today, the Pakistan govt has said that if we pursue war crime trials, it will negatively impact on our relations. No word on acknowledging guilt or responsibility, but simply saying, if you pursue the truth, you will pay. Yet shedding our self respect, dishonoring our martyrs and human rights victims from 1971, sacrificing our right to reparatinos all for the sake of “brotherliness” (while at the same time injecting hate among our own people) is Zia’s legacy. You may call it “muscular” foreign policy, but the truth is we will pay for a long time for that lack of national esteem and mercenary greed from Zia.
[Reply]
Jazee Reply:
June 8th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Zia belonged to the generation who believed in a Muslim Pakistan and a Hindu India. You have such mean communal people on both the countries. Bangladesh also harbors such Muslim die-hard section who could not accept Pakistan’s breakup. This section had to grudgingly accept Bangladesh’s independence. But soon they hatched a conspiracy to kill the founding father and re-implant the seeds of religion-based politics in sovereign Bangladesh. At this point in time, Bangladesh witnessed the ascent of people like Zia, Khondokar Mushtaque, Shah Aziz, Abdul Alim who totally wiped out the sprit of 1971. Some very low stature spineless lawyers like Sayem and Abdus Sattar should also be blamed for siding with the fascists.
[Reply]