"We are of the view that it [killing of Bangabandhu] is not a case of criminal conspiracy to commit mutiny, rather it is a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and other members of his family," observed Justice Md Tafazzul Islam, the most senior member of the five-member bench, while reading out the order quashing the appeal of the death row inmates on 19th November, 2009, a day that will live as one of the bleakest for the cause of justice, government and humanity in Bangladesh.
And it will not surprise the leader one atom to learn that, when the current Chief Justice retires on December 22, he will be replaced by Justice Tafazzal, by order of the president, a ruling party adherent (under the parliamentary system, the president is a mere figurehead, who carries out the wishes of the prime minister). However, what will surprise the reader more than an atom is the fact that Justice Tafazzal has superseded the most senior judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Fazlul Karim. Furthermore, this is the third time that Justice Fazlul Karim has been superseded, having been twice passed over by previous governments. In addition, Chief Justice Tafazzal will perform his duties for a mere 47 days before he himself goes into retirement on February 7th!
The other day, I attended a dinner party where the host was in agreement with the Supreme Court affirmation of the earlier High Court ruling of guilty. However, what was truly interesting was his view of the judiciary: "This government would never have allowed the convicts to be acquitted". That is to say, the judiciary was simply carrying out the wishes of the executive. This view of the judiciary will be permanent: no one will ever again believe that the judiciary is independent.
As for the view that the killing of Mujib and his family was not a mutiny, the facts belie this contention. Again and again, the counsels for defence have pointed out that none of the chiefs of the armed forces lifted a finger to save Mujib. Then army chief Major General KM Shafiullah did not send his forces to Mujib's residence; indeed, my uncle, the recently deceased Major General M. Khalilur Rahman, who was Director-General of the Bangladesh Rifles, headquartered only a few kilometers away, appeared to have been deaf to the booming guns that woke me up. The entirety of the armed forces connived at or contrived the killing of the Lockean lion.
It would be curious to digress a little, and ask after, not the Lockean lion, but the Hobbesean Leviathan. What would Thomas Hobbes have made of all this? First, he would have found nothing repellent in the murder of a democratically elected leader, for an election constitutes a covenant, which can be revoked at the next election. In the paragraph entitled " Sovereign Power Cannot Be Forfeited" he maintains: --the Right of bearing the Person of them all, is given to him they make Sovereign, by Covenant onely of one to another, and not of him to any of them; there can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of the Soveraigne; and consequently none of his Subjects, by any pretense of forfeiture, can be freed from his Subjection.
That he which is made Sovereign makes no Covenant with his Subjects beforehand, is manifest; because either he must make it with the whole multitude, as one party to the Covenant; or he must make a several Covenant with every man. With the whole, as one party, it is impossible; because as yet they are not one Person: and if he makes so many Covenants as there be men, those Covenants after he hath the Sovereignty are void, because what act soever can be pretended by any one of them for breach thereof, is the act both of himself, and of all the rest, because done in the Person, and by the Right of every one of them in particular."
Therefore, per Hobbes, one does enter into covenant with the sovereign, but only with one another: his theory of despotism is absolute and consistent. On the other hand, with military rulers like General Zia and General Ershad, who came to power by means of military coups, there has not and cannot be a covenant: therefore, these men, being successful, must be regarded sovereign.
This view is very close to that of al-Ghazali. To quote: "An evil-doing and barbarous sultan, so long as he is supported by military force (shawka), so that he can only with difficulty be deposed and that the attempt to depose him would create unendurable civil strife, must of necessity be left in possession and obedience must be rendered to him." Also "the wilaya (political function)"is a consequence solely of military power (shawka)" (quoted in Antony Black's The History of Muslim Political Thought: from the prophet to the present (New York: Routledge, 2001) p 104), italics not original). As Black points out, there was never any doubt in the Muslim world that anyone other than a monarch should rule (p 351).
Thus both Hobbes and al-Ghazali would have found Sheikh Mujib's election strange and exotic, but his murder beneficial and necessary. Therefore, the only philosophy that can make sense of the assassination appears, paradoxically, to be Lockean constitutionalism.
Even as I write, however, the Canadian government is under pressure to send back one of the heroes back to Bangladesh to stand trial and be hanged. "Nur Chowdhury, one of 12 alleged plotters found guilty in 1998 of killing then-Bangladeshi president Rahman, has been challenging the planned deportation because it conflicts with a 2001 Supreme Court of Canada ruling that directs the government in all but the most exceptional circumstances - not to surrender murder suspects to foreign countries where capital punishment is still legal" according to canada.com.
Meanwhile, in Bangladesh, the fanatical followers of the Sheikh dynasty are licking their lips at the prospect of men dangling from rope-ends. Even Mohammad Yunus, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, has voiced his approval (The Daily Star, November 27, page 1); and the Star Weekend Magazine, the soporiferous reading of the benighted middle class, covered its front page with an emotive picture of Mujib, his son and daughter, captioned: "After 34 long years of eluding justice and killers almost getting away with impunity, last week's Supreme Court verdict in the Bangabandhu murder trial comes as a giant step towards establishment of a society based on democracy and the rule of law. As the nation eagerly waits for the execution of the verdict, The Star looks back at the bloody night of August 15, 1975 and its impact on the nation's political life."
The nation eagerly waits for the execution? The nation has better things to do, like filling its chronically empty belly. Amnesty International requested the government not to hang the ex-soldiers: the government flatly declined. Only a fanatic circle of die-hard nationalists wait like vultures for the men to drop down dead. I would urge the Canadian government to grant asylum to Noor Chowdhury on the strength of these famous lines by Oscar Wilde.
It is sweet to dance to violins
When Love and Life are fair:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
