BanglaCricket Poll: Who Has Been the Best Head of State in Bangladesh?

[Navo]

Originally Posted by BANFAN
I guess you are too much of an AL... not that there is any problem...

In fact during zia's time there were too many coup attempts ... And they were tried by the martial law court, the general punishment for such mutiny in Military law is death sentence... Had he not executed those verdicts...there would be total anarchy in the country. I believe you know the actual situation of the country in post Khaled Mosharraf period. People who say Zia killed officers are propaganda freaks. Only Taher's execution was something he did deliberately and there were reasons for that, which off course is controversial... Zia has killed a small fraction of what Rakkhi bhahini killed ... Even Ershad executed more people in one shot ..more than Zia..after the Manzoor incident.. If you call those killings...to be honest true killings have always been done in abundance during the AL rule...be it Mujib or Hasina...

I really don't think it's propaganda. Anyone who has read articles from the Economic and Political Weekly, TIME, Newsweek, Guardian, etc. from the relevant time period, would know that he had a hand in the murder of numerous military officers. I would share them here but I don't know if anyone would read them...

[BANFAN]

Originally Posted by Navo
I really don't think it's propaganda. Anyone who has read articles from the Economic and Political Weekly, TIME, Newsweek, Guardian, etc. from the relevant time period, would know that he had a hand in the murder of numerous military officers. I would share them here but I don't know if anyone would read them...

Novo...the references you have cited, don't be sure that they are above propaganda campaigns... Zia's inclination towards the Islamic world makes a good case for that. I have had the opportunity to discuss these issues with may contemporary military officials and that's the fact, Zia hasn't assasined officers or haven't planted paid killers .. There is no such possibility inside the military. If he executed a person within the army it has definitely been processed through mil courts and its all related to mutiny cases... Just find out how many coup attempts were there during his time and consider the situation of the country at that time....he didn't have any option but to be ruthless following the judgements of the courts to bring things under control... We couldn't afford to have continued the same anarchy that continued since 72-77, within the army and the country....someone had to be tough enough to stop these nonsense. He is the one ultimately tamed the army, disciplined them and bonded then under some law...that's why we had a relatively stable country and have one of the best Armies in SA today.

So those are mostly propaganda against him... No innocent was killed intentionally ... That's what the people (non party affiliates) who were in the Army during his time says... Otherwise why hassn't AL or any government ever brought out those verdicts to challenge or at least to make point?? .... At least if those were injustice it would come out...like Taher's one clearly was controversial ... So it saw the light. He was executed before the law was passed subjecting a retired person to be tried under the military law...

[Navo]

Originally Posted by BANFAN
Novo...the references you have cited, don't be sure that they are above propaganda campaigns... Zia's inclination towards the Islamic world makes a good case for that. I have had the opportunity to discuss these issues with may contemporary military officials and that's the fact, Zia hasn't assasined officers or haven't planted paid killers .. There is no such possibility inside the military. If he executed a person within the army it has definitely been processed through mil courts and its all related to mutiny cases...

And why is the word of 'contemporary military officers' any more reliable than contemporary journalists and academics, especially those who write for internationally respected publications? Are those officers not susceptible to bias?

Military tribunals, even if they are used, are deeply problematic as they are very secretive about their proceedings and judgements. It is very difficult as a civilian to know what's going on and we have to take their word for it. How do we know what process was followed and the causes for any mutiny?

[BANFAN]

Originally Posted by Navo
And why is the word of 'contemporary military officers' any more reliable than contemporary journalists and academics, especially those who write for internationally respected publications? Are those officers not susceptible to bias?

Because they get no benefit lying to a friendly person, in their homes in friendly environments. Journalists have agenda and I said in my previous post, why they are likely to have an agenda. They are professionals and they don't necessarily get paid for truth, but for producing pieces to suit the agenda on the media publishing it.

Come up with some names who has been served injustice by him...not A blanket allegation.

Originally Posted by Navo
Military tribunals, even if they are used, are deeply problematic as they are very secretive about their proceedings and judgements. It is very difficult as a civilian to know what's going on and we have to take their word for it. How do we know what process was followed and the causes for any mutiny?

That's precisely the problem, not knowing doesn't mean that it's not ok. If justice wasn't served by these courts, the organization would have fallen apart like the govt/public sector orgs. They are much more efficient and impartial in Serving justice than the corrupt judiciary in bd.

MBML = Manual of Bangladesh Military Law
ARR- Army Rules Regulations
ARI - Army Rules Instructions

.. These are open books of law passed by the parliament and it's on every lawyers book shelf. They have described clearly how the proceeding of a court martial will go ahead, if you read it you will find it logical. Well civilians can't attend that court, but that's open for all the military persons whoever likes to attend. Accused gets to chose his defending officers from anywhere within the army and they try their best to defend him, even for his own career, since his success earns him reputation, like the defense lawyer in a civil court. Yes you can't buy or sell judgement in those courts. So 99% cases, justice will be done... If Zia would indiscriminately kill people, the org would fall apart, but instead it grew and the abolished Rakkhi bhahini guys could be successfully absorbed, because there was justice, otherwise they would run away.

I like to trust my own country men who didn't embrace politics having opportunities and lived with reputation, much more than those agenda driven foreign journalists. Listen, Any army of this world, they may do anything with his enemy or the civilians when they confront, but they are just within themselves, because that's the key to keep the organizations intact and leaders to lead during crisis.

And it wasn't one or two, I verified it from many of them. Have you ever heard any of those victim families coming up with the claim for injustice? In this opportunistic Bangladesh, if there was any, it wouldn't take time for them to surface in favorable political situation. If there was executions, I'm sure they deserved it as per military law.

Well, as the army chief and president, he could have excused many of them, but he proffered not to, because of the situations/reasons described in previous posts. He had to take a firm stand against coups to stop the trend...But we can't make him a killer for that.

[PoorFan]

Originally Posted by BANFAN
... Zia has killed a small fraction of what Rakkhi bhahini killed ... Even Ershad executed more people in one shot ..more than Zia..after the Manzoor incident.. If you call those killings...to be honest true killings have always been done in abundance during the AL rule...be it Mujib or Hasina...

Can you elaborate those bold parts more in detail one by one? I like to hear at least what you know/learned of your claim, be it reliable source or not ... lets hear you out. Dont want to miss any piece of your claim, so let me put those in sequence ...

1. Zia killed a small fraction
2. Rakkhi Bahini killed more than Zia killed.
3. Ershad executed more [in one shot] than Zia [after Manzoor incident].
4. [True] Killings have always done in during AL rule [Mujib or Hasina].

It would be good learning for many of us if we manage to find some facts [more or less], other than intended propaganda from some sects.

[Sohel]

I'm not at all surprised to see the results so far, having been at BC for 5+ years. Luckily from my decidedly partisan POV, most of our countrymen and women are very different.

That being said, I'm surprised to see no one voting for Khaleda (91-92) and Hasina (96-99)! More recent examples of relative peace, growth and common prosperity.

[nasimul]

Tajuddin Ahmed, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman has had led the nation when the country was not built up yet as an institute and faced immense difficulties on their time. Their main task was to reconstruct the country and each of them tried in their own way, but this is an another discussion. Therefore it should not be fair to compare them with the last three options we have had. So voted for what I have witnessed and gone for Khaledas govt for 91/92 period, but as a leader she is not the best option you have. Nevertheless as also Sohel bhai mentioned, it initiated slowly but the country started to go ahead until her govt messed up with the caretaker govt and few other issues. Moreover, it should be forgotten that her counterpart did every possible thing to unrest her govt from the very beginning and succeeded quite well. But the political culture the nation has experienced and gone through in that period, that we have not been able to come out yet.

IMO Ershaad has had the best possible platform to lead the country and no one will ever enjoy such an opportunity. Law and order of the military hold on to reestablish before he took over the power and he didn't face any significant political or other resistance except some natural disasters, until 1989.

[Matribhasha]

Can anyone comment on what permanent damage Sheikh Hasina's current Awami League govt. has done to the country ? Actually, a thread on how the govts of these 5 ppl (you know who they are) have permanently helped and damaged Bangladesh, would be a good one. Permament may be next 25 years since or forever, moderators can decide best ? I know it will help me learn a lot about Bangladesh.

[Navo]

Originally Posted by Matribhasha
Can anyone comment on what permanent damage Sheikh Hasina's current Awami League govt. has done to the country ? Actually, a thread on how the govts of these 5 ppl (you know who they are) have permanently helped and damaged Bangladesh, would be a good one. Permament may be next 25 years since or forever, moderators can decide best ? I know it will help me learn a lot about Bangladesh.

I think this should be the subject of another thread - please feel free to open it!

In any case, if anyone is interested in reading a relatively non-partisan overview of Bangladesh's political scenario, leading up to elections next year, please read the full report of the International Crisis Group available here: http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/region...he-future.aspx

This is the Executive Summary:

"Bangladesh: Back to the Future
13 June 2012

Bangladesh could face a protracted political crisis in the lead-up to the 2013 elections unless Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government changes course and takes a more conciliatory approach towards the political opposition and the military. In December 2008, following two years of a military-backed caretaker government, the Awami League (AL) secured a landslide victory in what were widely acknowledged to be the fairest elections in the country’s history. The hope, both at home and abroad, was that Sheikh Hasina would use her mandate to revitalise democratic institutions and pursue national reconciliation, ending the pernicious cycle of zero-sum politics between her AL and its rival, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Three and a half years on, hope has been replaced by deep disillusionment, as two familiar threats to Bangladesh’s democracy have returned: the prospect of election-related violence and the risks stemming from an unstable and hostile military.

Instead of changing the old pattern of politics, the AL government has systematically used parliament, the executive and the courts to reinforce it, including by filing corruption cases against Khaleda Zia, the BNP chairperson, and employing security agencies to curb opposition activities. Most worrying, however, is the AL-dominated parliament’s adoption of the fifteenth amendment to the constitution, which scraps a provision mandating the formation of a neutral caretaker administration to oversee general elections. The caretaker system was a major practical and psychological barrier to election-rigging by the party in power. Removing it has undermined opposition parties’ confidence in the electoral system.

The fifteenth amendment carries other dangers as well. For example, anyone who criticises the constitution may now be prosecuted for sedition; new procedures have rendered further amendments virtually impossible; and the death penalty is prescribed for plotting to overthrow an elected government – a thinly veiled warning to the military, which has done so four times in as many decades.

The fallout from these changes is already clear. The BNP gave an ultimatum to the government to reinstate the caretaker system by 10 June 2012 or face battles in the streets. To this end, it rallied 100,000 supporters in Dhaka in March for a protest that turned violent. With the deadline passed and no action from the government, it is now calling for nationwide political agitation. A BNP-led boycott of the 2013 general elections may be in the offing.

Meanwhile, the military is visibly restive. On 19 January, it announced it had foiled a coup by mid-level and retired officers who sought to install an Islamist government. This followed an assassination attempt on an AL member of parliament in October 2009 by mid-level officers seething over the deaths of 57 officers in a mutiny by their subordinate paramilitary border guards the previous February. Large-scale dismissals, forced retirements, deepening politicisation and a heavy-handed approach to curb dissent and root out militants have created an unstable and undisciplined force. While a top-level coup is unlikely, the prospect of mid-level officers resorting to violence to express their suppressed anger is increasingly high.

Should the situation deteriorate to the point that the army again decides to intervene, it is unlikely to be content to prop up civilian caretakers and map a course to fresh elections as it did in 2007. This time the generals could be expected to have more staying power, not to mention less reluctance to carry out “minus two” – their previous plan to remove Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia from politics.

Even if such a worst-case scenario seems remote, it is clear that a new electoral stalemate threatens to erode Bangladesh’s democratic foundations."

(Source is same as above)

[Alien]

The poll title should be, "Who has been the least terrible Head of State in Bangladesh"

[Navo]

This is a VERY illuminating interview by David Frost. In particular note from 1:40 on-wards where Frost asks: "There is that old quote, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. How will you stop power corrupting you?"

Mujib's response: "You know that if a man comes to power by accident, he can be corrupt but if a man comes through a process, struggling, suffering, fighting, whatever power you give him - he will not be corrupt. Because there is also a process. And as far as my party and I are concerned, every leader has suffered jail, my every leader has ruined their families, my every leader has lost their houses, many of them have lost their family members and has struggled long for 25 years after that so-called Independence (from British rule). My people have come to power now and if they get absolute power now, there is no chance of corruption!"

It's also interesting to note the leaders he admires: "Abraham Lincoln, Mao Tse-tung, Lenin, Churchill, JFK, Suhrawardy, Fazlul Haque, Nehru, Bose, Attaturk, Sukarno"

[TigerEz]

ami kare/kishere vote dilam, ami nijei janina ! but whatever...

[Sohel]

Here's SBA's tribute to Shaheed Tajudiin Ahmed, may GOD rest his soul in peace, on his 87th birth anniversary.

A remembrance of Tajuddin Ahmed is surely the role he played in crafting the Mujibnagar government into shape in April 1971. He it was who undertook the task of locating all the senior leaders of the Awami League then making their way across the frontier into India in the face of all-round genocide and bringing them together as a wartime administration. There were those who clearly felt uneasy about Tajuddin's playing the foremost role in organising the war; and they went overboard in trying to push him aside. Lawmakers elected on the Awami League ticket at the December 1970 elections were made to gather, the sole objective being a removal of Tajuddin from the leadership of the movement. Tajuddin did not waver in his overriding goal of seeing the nation through to victory. He survived, to wage war in Bangabandhu's name. On December 16, 1971, Tajuddin Ahmed's place in history was firmly etched in the human consciousness.

There was, in Tajuddin, a proper man of principles. His diaries, dating from the late 1940s, are but a window to the thought processes working in him even at that young age. Move on, to the early 1970s. As Bangladesh's first finance minister, Tajuddin's understanding of the priorities before the nation was without ambiguity. Alone in the cabinet, he believed that Bangladesh's future lay in its use of its human resources. A nation which had gone to war and come back home in triumph could achieve greater wonders. Hence there was little need for the World Bank, for the IMF, indeed for aid from the capitalistic West. He felt it was pointless to speak to Robert McNamara in Delhi in February 1972. And yet, in October 1974 when he did see McNamara in Washington, he must have felt the irony of it all. The government he was part of had changed gear, toward the West. He had not. Disillusion had taken over. Only weeks later, he would be out of government.

READ MORE

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by Navo
... It's also interesting to note the leaders he admires: "Abraham Lincoln, Mao Tse-tung, Lenin, Churchill, JFK, Suhrawardy, Fazlul Haque, Nehru, Bose, Attaturk, Sukarno"

Interesting mix of pluralists and brutal dictators, won't you say? Now the classic Marxist intellectual dishonesty, doublespeak and hypocrisy still prevent many from recognizing guys like Mao, Lenin and to a lesser Kemal for they became with their "my-way-or-death-and-torture" approach to consolidating power without real accountability, but the facts speak for themselves. Glad he didn't glorify Guevara!

Anyway, at least he was clear on why he admired them so much. It was the idea that a great, righteous struggle for freedom made them great leaders and not the other way around. It was also interesting to see him not mentioning Bhashani in that list. I guess only dead South Asian leaders were good enough to find a place in his pantheon where he himself, of course would also be rightfully inducted.

Thanks for posting this video from 1972 Navo. I have fond memories of sitting on this incredibly loving, affectionate and approachable man's lap and getting his undivided attention even in the middle of a large crowd during Eid day in 1974. Russell and I went to school together in ULab and Sheikh Shaheb had great respect and admiration for my family, even when things went horribly sideways because of BAKSAL and Tajuddin Shaheb's ouster. So I always experienced his magnanimous and loving side.

On a side note, the PM has inherited her late father's conversational style. I remember Kamal Bhaiya to be totally different. More boisterous yet also deeply sensitive and emotional. Russell was like that too. Never really spent time with Sheikh Rehana or Sheikh Jamal but they seemed reserved and unapproachable like Mrs. Mujib.

BTW, I've just finished reading Sheikh Shaheb's recently published unfinished autobiography in two languages. He had the deep love of Bangladesh I wish we all had. He was a remarkably fearless guy with charm, big muscles and street smarts to get things done. But he also had great respect for men of intellect.

I found his somewhat closeted sectarian attitudes disturbing. Now, my family had told me about this but reading his own words to that effect was disconcerting. I suppose he developed this attitude while defending the Muslim community in Kolkata during the attempted ethnic cleansing there in the 40s. That would explain him not having a great issue with the Quader Chowdhury family and even proactively protecting them after Liberation. Interesting how Suhrawardy, Bhashani and later Tajuddin kept his sectarianism in check because of their uncompromising belief in equal rights and fair treatment under the law for people regardless of faith we call secularism in Bangladesh.

Please read the book. The government has made sure of its wide availability everywhere, including London and NYC.

[Crisis]

Originally Posted by Naimul_Hd
Poor turn out at voting poll shows people specially young have no interest in Bangladesh politics, neither they have any idea about previous political era. I know, major portion of the members don't live in Bangladesh and they hardly bother about political situation in Bangladesh.

You are right. Probashis or young Bangladeshis have absolutely no interest in politics. We don't see results / improvements.

I am glad to see no one likes Khaleda. Utter lawlessness results when she comes to power. I also do not like Ershad as he started politics in all govt. unis and colleges. And, what has happened because of this is is just evident.