It’s been more than two months since former PM and Awami League leader Sheikh Hasina was arrested and sent to jail. Looks like, in this 2 and half months, people have already forgotten her. They have forgotten the fact that this leader could not talk to any of her children during the last 75 days. The elder sister of the family, this leader, who lost both her parents, all her three younger brothers, uncles, aunts, cousines in one night: depends very much on he children and the only surviving sister for needed emotional support. She has been deprived of all these. And people have already forgotten that only five months ago she was being prevented from returning to Bangladesh from US and UK. She had the option of staying either in US or UK as a fee person with her sister and children. But she decided to return and face the justice in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is too strong a stake for her.
Similarly, the other leader, Khaleda Zia, two time former PM and leader of BNP, is also in jail for a month. People also started forgetting her. And they alreday forgot that only 5 months ago, these leader, with her son Koko, daughter in laws, grand children, were almost forced out of the country. Lavish royal hosts were waiting to greet them, aircrafts were ready to fly them out. This leader, Khaleda Zia, who lost her husband at her 30s, raise two boys as single mom, among all the political doldrum, resisted the extradition and decided to stay at home. She knew both she and Koko would be arrested, yet opted to face justice at home. Impending jail was preferred over a royal host.
These are just reminders. While these two leaders rot in jail and face justice, its worth mention that both of them had the option to evade this ordeal. They decided not to do so. While you remain gleeful and cheer the jail and your prejudgement, just remember that they dared brace it.
Just remember that.
And also please remember that the other person, who took over the chair these two ladies occupied for the 15 years, had an option to opt for Bangladesh but he declined that. It is alleged that in 1971, while all the Bangalis all over the world mobilized to help independent Bangladesh, he, studying in USA, remained a loyal Pakistani CSP for the sake of his career. And even after Bangladesh became independent sovereign country, he maintained his pakistani citizenship until late seventies. He finally decided to return, as he may have thought that move would help his career. It indeed helped his career.
Remember that.
September 25, 2007 at 4:15 am
wow… what a good read! It felt like I was reading a “choto-golpo”.
I wonder how many people took the Bangladeshi citizenship in post-71 after a strategic .delay and how many actually took part in war while staying in the country.
My idea is: “Vodrolok” usually avoid freedom fight or street protest as it has always been a job of middle or lower class people.
Vodroloks only take the benefit!
September 25, 2007 at 7:28 am
boroloks use chottoloks as pawns, feeding them great expectations and using their emotion to capture power.
September 25, 2007 at 9:40 am
Was Fakhruddin more of a bhodrolok than Justice Abu Sayeed Chowdhury or Dr. Kamal Hossein? Was he more of a bhodrolok than all the Barristers in training who protested against the Pakistani Government in London? Let’s label him for who he is, an opportunist.
September 25, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Good read Rumi bhai. Good reminder.
September 25, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Rumi, thanks for the post. So how many years has the Chief Advisor actually spent in Bangladesh. Is it about 6 or 7 years (including his 8 months as CA)?
September 25, 2007 at 7:11 pm
We should not depend on allegation, especially on a matter as serious as 1971. It shouldn’t be difficult to do the research to find out the facts. Hope someone will do it
September 25, 2007 at 9:47 pm
I am not too surprised at the connection and access of Ittefaq reporter. But here is the recap of the case against Khaleda as five ministers spoke today.
http://www.ittefaq.com/get.php?d=07/09/26/w/n_zykvkx
September 26, 2007 at 1:39 am
Rumi,
Did the two phoenixes, in the words of Dr. Talukdar Moniruzzaman, prefer to stay in Bangladesh for the sake of making a difference to the lot of the country, or to take any chance, in future, of returning to power?
September 26, 2007 at 10:32 am
Ahbab Aziz, does it make a difference? They may have stayed for the most selfish of reasons, but they still stayed. In the end, I predict, that is what the people of Bangladesh will choose to remember.
September 26, 2007 at 10:37 am
When Bangabandhu called for Muktijudhdho, didn’t he do it for becoming the leader of the new country? Or when General Washington faught against the colonial forces, did he only do it to be the president? Or when Walessa defied communist dictators, didn’t he do it to rule the countrty? What about the struggle of Castro or Che?
And Aung Sun uu kyi, why did she return? To play flute along Burmese rivers?
September 26, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Ask a stupid question, get an awesome answer! Game, set and match Mr. Aziz.
September 26, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Rumi (#10),
Thanks for exposing your true self by making all the leaders power-hungry!!! You have only belittled yourself by comparing Khaleda-Hasina with the likes of Castro, Che, Washington and so on.
September 26, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Ahbab
This blog is a place for serious policy discussions. A lot of work, time and passion is spent daily updating this blog. This blog initiates discussions on issues of national importance and expects well researched debates, civilized discussions on the subject in question.
And it is definitely not a place for uninhibited tantrum of some pathetic sick mind.
You have been warned before, now you are notified that you will no longer enjoy unmoderated privilege in this blog. If you ever have discussions worthy issues to bring up, please feel free to post. You comments will wait in moderation queue for approval.
September 26, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Which moron thinks that leaders are not ambitious. I mean, come on!
Great leaders are ambitious and work in the best interests of the country. The two are not mutually exclusive.
September 26, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Rumi,
Thanks for exposing your true self once again – this time by blacklisting me simply for my innocuous arguments!!!
Mash,
Have I ever said that leaders cannot have ambition of going to power, or it is a crime to have any such ambition? My point was merely this that Khaleda-Hasina’s refusal to leave the country under threat, without understanding the reason behind it, does not mean any difference.
October 1, 2007 at 2:52 am
We really need to get away from turning to 1971 to make a point about today. Let’s debate the deeds and misdeeds of the regime on their own merit, not what FUA did or did not do during the Liberation War.
IMO, there are two types of people who ought to be criticised for their actions around 1971. First, the war criminals – not simply those who supported Pakistan, but those who committed rape/arson/murder etc. Second, those who didn’t contribute to the struggle in any meaningful way (merely running away to the village or India is not a contribution) but claimed benefits such as promotion etc using ‘freedom fighter’ status.
Unless FUA was an Al Badr, or he claimed to be an organiser for the struggle in Princeton when he did no such thing, his actions in 1971 shouldn’t be a matter for debate.
October 1, 2007 at 2:54 am
And of course the war criminals should be tried – it’s never too late. As for those who claimed false credits, I guess we can name and shame, but for all practical purposes, that discussion is probably just academic.
October 1, 2007 at 7:52 am
Jyoti,
Your post on #16 answered on of my personal dilemma! It was about the current diaspora!
Some DU students, having the first-hand experience of recent protests, accused the diaspora for keeping a safe distance from the actual battle-ground… for pursuing their career when Bangladesh is in deep trouble!
No matter how I highlighted the activities diaspora initiating from abroad… it was hard to convince those who are experiencing the “interrogation” and teargas…
So I think, we need to leave the 1971 debate to your conclusion!