Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus has said that the attacks on minorities, particularly Hindus, following the August 5 changeover were politically, not religiously, motivated. During a meeting with US Senator Gary Peters on March 18, he claimed that the interim government had taken swift action against the perpetrators.
Yunus’ statement implies that “revenge attacks” and “mob violence” by the interim government supporters are justified, even though such acts are a violation of the constitution, rule of law and human rights principles.
The claim of swift actions being taken is also false. The government first acknowledged the incidents of minority repression on December 10, nearly four months after taking office and a day after Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri visited Dhaka.
While denying the facts and neglecting justice in the cases it has acknowledged, the interim government and its supporters are focused on the misinformation campaign in India.
Chief Adviser’s Press Secretary Shafiqul Alam at a press conference said 70 people were arrested in 88 cases of torture against minorities across the country from August 5 to October 22.
On January 11, the Chief Adviser’s press wing came up with the findings of an analysis by the Police Headquarters, claiming that 98.4% of the 1,415 incidents (reported by the HBCOP) of attacks and vandalism against minorities were politically motivated, while 1.59% occurred due to communal reasons. Of the investigated cases, 1,254 were found to be substantiated, while 161 lacked evidence.
However, the government has not yet protested the news report by the Prothom Alo but ignored its content that 560 out of 1,068 incidents had no links to the Awami League.
Yunus made similar comments the previous day to protest the remarks by Tulsi Gabbard, the US Director of National Intelligence, who said, “The long-time unfortunate persecution, killing, and abuse of religious minorities—Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Catholics, and others—have been a major area of concern for the US government, President Trump and his administration.
“The talks are just beginning between President Trump’s new cabinet coming in and the Government of Bangladesh but this continues to remain a central focus area of concern.”
She also said, “The threat of Islamist terrorists, and their overall effort, the global effort of all of these different groups, are rooted in the same ideology and objective—which is to rule or govern with an Islamist caliphate.
“This obviously affects people of any other religion, other than the one that they find acceptable, and they chose to carry this out with terror and very violent ways and means.”
She further said, “President Trump remains committed to identifying the ideology that drives Islamist terrorism, and working to defeat this ideology and their ability to exact that terror on people, the American people and others.”
Her comments reflect the rise of jihadists with impunity since the mass uprising and the August 5 coup by a section of the army in association with the Jamaat-Shibir and other Islamist parties.
Yunus administration pondering clean chit to al-Qaeda terrorist Syed Zia
Jamaat-backed AQIS jihadists out to eliminate Awami League, hit India
Yunus lied about his complicity in govt-ouster plot
Yunus has been promoting mobocracy, provoking such violence and trivializing the attacks by saying that these occurred during the celebration of the fall of the Awami League government on August 5.
In a September interview with Press Trust of India, Yunus agreed that there had been attacks, but these were politically motivated.
“While beating up Awami League cadres, they had beaten up Hindus as there is a perception that Hindus in Bangladesh mean Awami League supporters,” Yunus said. “I am not saying what has happened is right, but some people are using it as an excuse to seize property.”
By saying these, Yunus and his student thugs have established the perception that Hindus vote for the Awami League.
The BNP and Jamaat gave the same argument after the 2001 elections when mob violence against the members of the Awami League, Hindus and other minorities was rampant across the country. After assuming power, the BNP-Jamaat-Hefazat government didn’t investigate the incidents.
The Awami League formed a judicial inquiry committee but didn’t take legal action as per the investigation report from 2009-24.
2001 post-poll violence: Purnima is forgotten
A three-member judicial probe committee, led by former district judge Md Shahabuddin, was formed in 2009 following an order by another High Court. The committee handed over the report on April 25, 2011, to the then-home minister, Sahara Khatun. It found the involvement of several ministers of the BNP-Jamaat government among 26,352 people in more than 18,000 violent incidents.
The government published the probe committee report in a gazette notification on April 1, 2014. Ten days later, the High Court directed the authorities concerned to take legal action against the persons involved in the attacks.
The same bench earlier directed the law enforcers to give protection to the minorities and vulnerable groups across the country.
During a hearing on the matter in 2014, Manzill Murshid, a Supreme Court lawyer who filed the writ petition seeking investigation, told the court that similar attacks had been carried out on the minorities after the tenth general elections of January 5, 2014.
The lawyer blamed the reluctance of the government for the violent attacks, saying it could have been averted had the probe report been made public and proper punitive action taken against the perpetrators in time.
In 2013, the Jamaat-Shibir men carried out attacks on the state properties, including rail tracks, the law enforcers, Awami League supporters, and the Hindus from February 5 and afterwards. They did not even spare the Shaheed Minar from their marauding spree to desecrate the symbols of our national unity and identity. The attacks continued sporadically throughout March when the historic Shahbagh movement gained massive public support.
The attacks escalated when the International Crimes Tribunal on February 27 declared that it would deliver the verdict in the case of razakar Delawar Hossain Sayedee the following day. Jamaat announced a hartal again and started attacks, quite systematically.
From 28 February through March 5, around 60 people were reportedly killed in different parts of the country, including general people without any political affiliation.
Hatred in Pakistan era
Yunus’ hatred against the Awami League and the Hindus is nothing new. His father, Dula Mia Saudagar, and grandfather, Noju Mia, had the same view. The duo supported the Pakistani Army’s genocide in Chittagong city and Hathazari-Satkania areas in 1971, according to Freedom Fighter Siru Bangali.
In 1947, the sons of Dula Mia, a member of the Muslim League National Guard, were deeply committed to the Partition of India and the creation of Pakistan. For seven-year-old Muhammad Yunus, it was a moment of pride that he could feel in his veins. His dreams and hopes were fulfilled that day. “The roaring slogan resounded again and again, from every part of Chittagong—Pakistan Zindabad! At the age of seven, this was the first shot of pride and intoxicating enthusiasm for our people I had felt in my veins. Many more were to come,” Yunus writes in his book Banker to the Poor.
During the 1971 Liberation War, the Pakistani Army and their local collaborators linked to Jamaat and Council Muslim League, and the Urdu-speaking Biharis committed genocide against the Bangalees by targeting mainly the Awami League members, Hindus and other minorities to maintain the unity of Pakistan.
After independence, Jamaat ameer Ghulam Azam campaigned against Bangladesh and Bangabandhu by saying that Hindus had captured East Pakistan, the holy Quran had been burnt, mosques had been destroyed and converted into temples, and Muslims had been killed.
Ethnic (Hindu) cleansing, forced pregnancy of Hindu women, and deliberate killing of Hindu males to exterminate Bangalee Hindus as a race were the key agenda of the Pakistani military during the war.
Two major acts of butchery took place on May 20 and 21, 1971—in Chuknagar of Khulna and Dakra of Bagerhat—after the formation of the Razakar force by Jamat leader AKM Yusuf in Khulna on May 5. Roughly 10,000 people were killed in Chuknagar and over 2,000 in Dakra—mostly Hindus trying to cross the border.
With these two, there is evidence of at least 42 incidents across the country in which the Hindus were targeted and segregated for butchery during the war.
Lt Col Aziz Ahmed Khan reported that in May 1971 there was a written order to kill Hindus, and that General Niazi would ask troops how many Hindus they had killed.
At 9th Division HQ at Comilla, Major Bashir justified the military action by stating that Bengali Muslims were “Hindu at heart” and that this was a war between pure and impure.
His superior, Colonel Naim, justified the killing of the Hindu civilian population to prevent a Hindu takeover of Bengali commerce and culture. Hindus “undermined the Muslim masses”. He said Bengali culture, to a great extent, was Hindu culture, and “we have to sort them out to restore the land to the people.”
Journalist Dan Coggin quoted one Punjabi captain as telling him: “We can kill anyone for anything. We are accountable to no one. This is the arrogance of Power.”
An article in Time magazine, dated August 2, 1971, stated: “The Hindus, who account for three-fourths of the refugees and a majority of the dead, have borne the brunt of the Muslim military hatred. Pakistan Army Eastern Command headquarters officials in Dhaka made clear the government’s policy on East Bengal. After the elimination or exile of Hindus, their property was going to be shared among the middle-class Muslims.”
Hindus were alleged to have corrupted the Awami League. Pakistani soldiers repeatedly boasted to US Consul General Archer Blood that they came “to kill Hindus”. A witness heard an officer shouting to soldiers: “Why have you killed Muslims? We ordered you to kill only Hindus.”
US government cables noted that the minorities of Bangladesh, especially the Hindus, were specific targets of the Pakistani Army. The US consulate reported the methodical slaughter of Hindu men in cities starting in the first 24 hours of the crackdown, named Operation Searchlight.
Army units entered villages asking where Hindus lived; it was a “common pattern” to kill Hindu males. Hindus were identified because they were not circumcised. Sometimes, the military also massacred Hindu women. There were barely any areas where no Hindus were killed. There was widespread killing of Hindu males and rapes of women.
On April 6, Blood sent a telegram to express dissent of US support for the atrocities committed by Pakistan on the Bangladesh people. The Blood Telegram, as it would become known, reported: “Hindus undeniably special focus of animal brutality.”
In August, Democrat Senator Edward M Kennedy, who was the chairman of the US Senate’s Judiciary Subcommittee on Refugees, traveled to India and visited refugee camps along East Bengal’s entire border—from Calcutta and West Bengal in the west to the Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling districts in the north to Agartala in the State of Tripura in the east.
The Hindu community members were the hardest hit, Kennedy said in his report on November 1. They were robbed of their lands and shops, systematically slaughtered, and, in some places, painted with yellow patches marked “H”. All of this has been officially sanctioned, ordered, and implemented under martial law from Islamabad.
“More than 60% of the Bengali refugees who fled to India were Hindus. It has been alleged that this widespread violence against Hindus was motivated by a policy to purge East Pakistan of what was seen as Hindu and Indian influences. Buddhist temples and Buddhist monks were also attacked through the course of the year,” the report said.
According to a report by London-based The Sunday Times, dated June 13, the Pakistan government’s policy was that “when the Hindus have been eliminated by death and fight, their property will be used as a golden carrot to win over the underprivileged Muslim middle class. This will provide the base for future administrative and political structures.”
It said: “The Bengalis will have to be re-educated along proper Islamic lines. The Islamization of the masses—this is the official jargon—is intended to eliminate secessionist tendencies and provide a strong religious bond with West Pakistan.”
According to RJ Rummel, professor of political science at the University of Hawaii: “The genocide and gendercidal atrocities were also perpetrated by lower-ranking officers and ordinary soldiers.”
These “willing executioners” were fueled by abiding anti-Bengali racism, especially against the Hindu minority. “Bengalis were often compared with monkeys and chickens.”
In his book, Rummel describes a chilling genocidal ritual, reminiscent of Nazi procedure towards Jewish males: “In what became province-wide acts of genocide, Hindus were sought out and killed on the spot. As a matter of course, soldiers would check males for the obligatory circumcision among Moslems. If circumcised, they might live; if not, sure death.”
Minority persecution under the Yunus regime
In its report on the first 100 days of the interim government, the pro-Yunus rights body Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) said religious and ethnic minorities, marginalized communities, and those with dissenting opinions have become victims of violence. Six people died, and hundreds were injured in clashes and arson incidents between Bengalis and tribals in Khagrachhari and Rangamati.
The TIB cited the statistics of the Hindu Buddhist Christian Oikya Parishad (HBCOP), which said 2,010 incidents of communal violence occurred between August 5 and 20, resulting in the deaths of nine minority individuals.
Without mentioning the name of Prothom Alo, the TIB said newspapers reported that 1,068 Hindu facilities were attacked, of which 560 had no links to the Awami League.
In the first 100 days, the TIB said more than 50 small and large shrines belonging to a Muslim group were attacked and set on fire in different parts of the country, leaving at least one person dead and 43 injured.
The TIB observed a lack of effective initiatives to identify, verify, and investigate allegations of violence against religious minorities, indigenous peoples, marginalized communities, and those with dissenting opinions, as well as to take appropriate action.
According to the findings of investigations carried out by Prothom Alo’s correspondents all over the country (64 districts and 67 upazilas), attacks on the minority community took place in 49 districts from August 5 to 20.
They saw 546 of the damaged houses and business establishments, that is, 51% of the total damaged structures. Information on the rest was gathered from various sources. In several districts, the attacks were extensive. In some districts, it was comparatively less. There are 49 districts where at least one such incident occurred.
The Daily Star reported that Hindu houses and business establishments were attacked and looted by mobs in at least 27 districts on August 5. The report created severe criticisms at home and abroad, and the pro-Yunus newspaper stopped giving updates.
US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) said in January that there are repeated allegations of violent attacks against Hindus and other minorities and that the police have failed to ensure protection.
Groups promoting extremist Islam are attacking minorities, particularly those from Hindu and Ahmadiyya communities. Ethnic minorities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts endure continued discrimination and violence by the authorities.
Even as many Bangladeshis rejoiced at the end of Sheikh Hasina’s repressive rule, in some places celebrations turned violent. Mobs targeted those perceived to be supporters of the Hasina government, including religious minorities.
The HRW also said that in September, violence broke out in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT). Believing that members of the Indigenous Jumma community had killed a Bengali settler, mobs attacked the ethnic minorities and burned their properties. When Jumma youth protested, the military used live ammunition to disperse the gathering. At least four people were killed in the violence. Independent international human rights monitors and journalists continue to be denied access to the area.
The HRW also criticized the arrest of Chinmoy Krishna Das Brahmachari in a fictitious case. Chinmoy’s crime was that he spoke for the minorities and demanded justice and compensation for the victims by staging large rallies across the country.
Even the biased and incomplete report by the OHCHR said: “Hindus, Ahmadiyya Muslims and indigenous people from the Chittagong Hill Tracts were also subjected to human rights abuses. While some 100 arrests in relation to attacks on distinct religious and indigenous groups have reportedly been made, the perpetrators of many other acts of revenge violence and attacks on such groups still enjoy impunity.”
The National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh said: “Such violation of human rights can tarnish the image of the country. The law enforcement agencies, civil society and students should play an effective role in maintaining communal harmony.”
Farcical trial of Chinmoy
The HRW said Chinmoy does not have legal representation. A Hindu lawyer said: “Lawyers are afraid to represent Chinmoy as there were threats of mob violence. We all have our families to worry about.”
The Chittagong Lawyers Association asked its members not to represent Das and other alleged people responsible for the death of Jamaat-backed lawyer Saiful Islam following violence in the court on November 27.
In the bail hearing, his counsel presented that the sedition case filed against Chinmoy on charges of flag desecration is baseless. The flag that is flown under the ISKCON flag in the video of the rally is actually the flag with a moon and star. That is, it is not Bangladesh’s flag. Also, the plaintiff did not attach any section of flag desecration to the case.
The flag that is mentioned as desecration is also not on the seizure list. As a result, the complaint is not properly proven.
It was also presented in the bail hearing that although Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Bangladesh requires formal approval from the Ministry of Home Affairs to file a case on charges of sedition, it did not happen in this case. No person can file a sedition case without the permission of the state. The court also does not have jurisdiction to consider such a case. There are procedural errors in the case. Since this case is baseless, Chinmoy is entitled to bail.
During the hearing, the lawyers also said that Chinmoy has a specific address, so there is no chance of him fleeing if he gets bail.
On the other hand, state counsel Mafizul Haque Bhuiyan argued that the sedition case is not bailable, and therefore Chinmoy has no chance of getting bail.
English
Leave a Reply