More on Zia - a dialogue with A. O. Chowdhury
Ref: http://www.weeklyholiday.net/met.html#01
In his rejoinder, Mr. Chowdhury bemoans the fact that I had used the title Major for Zia and not his higher titles that he subsequently earned. My preferred use of “Major” was only to highlight his popularity with that title, especially after reading the prepared statement from the Kalurghat Radio Station declaring independence of Bangladesh as “Major Zia” on behalf of “Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.” As far as the original text of the statement is concerned, it had nothing to do with either Lts. Oli or Shamsher Mobin Chowdhury.
I am also aware that Zia was a year senior to Shafiullah in getting to Pakistan Army. [His family is personally known to me.] Promotions of people, superseding others more senior and qualified, are nothing new in any profession; they are natural parts of our world that we live in. If one is looking for examples, tomes of books can be written with supporting evidences. For our purpose here just ponder on how Gen. Colin Powell was promoted over many of his superiors and more qualified peers to become a 4-star General in April of 1989, during the presidency of H.W. Bush. [He was a C-grade student in Geology at City College of New York (see, e.g., the TV interview with Ted Koppel soon after he was sworn in, and also his graduation speech at the Marymount University in 2006).] However, we don’t have to go to that far: why was Moeen U. Ahmed chosen over A.T.M. Zahirul Alam (who received the Sword of Honor) by the BNP government?
Bottom line is: people (in all walks of life – from political arena to corporate world) like to surround themselves with only those perceived to be less threatening to their position, more helping and cooperating in a crisis, and possessing superior leadership qualities. It is all a matter of perception, prejudice and preference, and not always correct. In choosing Moeen over Zahir, the BNP leadership did not expect 1/11, which backfired on its own face. In choosing Shafiullah over Zia, Sk. Mujib could not escape the fate of 15 August 1975 (irrespective of whether or not Zia was an accomplice to the assassination plot, as is often accused of him by many historians). Allah had different plans for them. Many such promotions within the Army happen based on reports made by several groups including the Military Intelligence. I understand that General Osmani preferred Shafiullah over Zia for a plethora of reasons. Mr. Chowdhury’s own write-up provides further credence to the fact that Zia did not like Osmani either.
Mr. Chowdhury’s statement “Mujib had little love left for Zia who had the 'audacity' to declare independence, even though on Sheikh Mujib's behalf” belies fact and is very problematic showing deplorable prejudice. He himself testifies that Sk. Mujib was the uncontested leader of Bangladesh. In spite of his many flaws, Mujib was a lionhearted individual – a fact that is known to his friends and foes alike. [I can cite dozens of citations to support my assertion here – but resist the temptation because it will open a new discussion altogether, which is outside the scope of this inquiry into Zia.] The mere suggestion of Mr. Chowdhury is preposterous, let alone insulting, to assume that Mujib felt jealous about Zia. If Mujib had felt anything ill about Zia, he easily could have retired him. It was that easy for him. That would possibly have been the end of the story.
Mr. Chowdhury finds my information on Zia’s family as to how Sk. Mujib tried to keep the family together in the post-liberation period “news” to him. I don’t expect everyone to know everything. We all have our limitations. In his own admission, however, he states that Mrs. Zia was “kept under military custody in Dhaka” during the war time. Whatever may have happened during that duration of custody, upon his return from the battlefield, Zia initially did not want to accept his wife. Mujib helped to intervene and reconciled the family.
I am also aware of where Begum Mujib was kept under military protection in Dhanmondi. Next door to hers lived a very close of friend of my father Dr. Abul Bashar whose wife (a physician by profession and mother of Drs. Lisa and Rosa Bashar – then kids) was killed on Dec. 16, 1971 when she tried to enter the premise to give the good news of Pakistan Army’s surrender. [The Pakistani soldiers guarding the house had not by then surrendered, and were still stationed on the roof-top.]
I am aware of Mr. Shamsher M. Chowdhury’s piece in the New Age. [The newspaper and its older flagship - the Weekly Holiday - have been publishing my articles for a long time on a plethora of issues.] As an Ambassador to the USA, he and I had spoken a few times in 2005. When the BNP-MP (Prime Minister’s Adviser on Parliamentary Affairs) Salauddin Q. Chowdhury’s own son Fayyaz and goons had illegally grabbed my Family-properties in Khulshi, Chittagong, evicting 16 tenant families and demolishing nine homes, he was instrumental in arranging my meeting with SaQa in the Prime Minister’s office in late April of 2005. [Although my meeting with SaQa did not sway him to withdraw from our properties, I appreciate Mr. Shamsher Chowdhury’s indulgence to help us.]
Having said that we should not be oblivious of the ex-Ambassador’s strong BNP-partisanship. In recent months, he is a trusted political adviser to Mrs. Zia. Nevertheless, in what follows, my comments to his article reviewing Bill Milam’s book are provided.
Suffice it to say that like all BNP die-hards, Mr. S. M. Chowdhury had difficulty accepting the people’s verdict in the recent election. Thus, he alludes to “a second voter’s list, without photos whose authenticity is yet to be measured.” One can only take pity with such unfounded claims. Maj. Gen. Shafiq was in charge of the voter ID. I have trust in his transparency and honesty. By any measure Dec. 2008 election was the fairest in Bangladesh’s history. People dumped the BNP-Jamat coalition in favor of the coalition forged by the AL.
Because of people’s preference to vote along the party-line, unfortunately, not all the honest candidates were elected and some culprits like SaQa and Babu managed to get elected. [BTW: my cousin sister’s husband, an ex-MP from the BNP, lost his election bid in Chittagong in a highly contested race to a criminal from the AL.] Some irregularities were reported in some precincts. But those were more like exceptions than the norm. I remember during the post-Mujib era, when Zia ran against Osmani in the Presidential election, my father and I could not cast our votes simply because our votes had already been cast by Zia-supporters. And that happened in the early hours of the day with a very low turnout! That is how stage managed our election was during the Zia’s rule! The election of 1973 was a stark contrast to that stage-managed election of Zia.
In those days, the popularity of Sk. Mujib and his party was still very high. As rightly pointed out by Milam since that election win, Mujib’s popularity was on a downward trajectory – the ‘beginning of the end’ for Mujib. Sk. Mujib got more and more isolated by the sycophants (chamchas). Not surprisingly, when the BKSAL was formed, many chamchas including university VCs praised the initiative, and Shafiullah and Zia both joined the party. Such opportunism was quite rampant and Zia was not blameless either. Only few guys had the moral conscience to say that it was wrong and against the very principles that Mujib had fought all his life. That has been the sad saga of our unfortunate nation! As a nation, alas, we have failed to evolve into a rational, level-headed citizenry that knows the harm of chatukarita (undue praise) and what it does to their iconic leaders!
Milam has rightly pointed out the crux of current leadership crisis in Bangladesh – the hair-splitting rivalry between the two jono/gono netris. Milam blamed the ‘poisonous, zero-sum’ political culture of the major political forces in Bangladesh for creating the opportunity for a return of the military in January 2007. As noted by S.M. Chowdhury’s review, Milam detailed how this zero-sum game was played out in the fifteen-plus years of civil political rule since 1991, resulting in a violent and confrontational political culture where the only real losers were the very voters who had entrusted these very politicians with their fate. In retrospect, historians need to answer: is our people more secure today than they were in the Mujib-era? As a neutral observer, I am sad to say that the subsequent leadership has miserably failed in that most important test.
I am rather intrigued by Milam’s characterization of Zia as one who “used corruption to ensure loyalty but was incorruptible himself.” That says a lot about how corruption would increasingly become institutionalized and become the order of the day, a cancerous process which will later see scoundrels like Falu and drop-outs like Tareq to become filthy billionaires in Bangladesh. I have never known of any person in history who can escape from being condemned for buying loyalty through corruption. And yet to many robotic sycophants Zia is viewed as an angelic figure! Whom are they kidding?
Finally, Milam says that Zia’s “political legacy involved an authoritarian system of almost personal rule. While this might be justified because of ‘his success in bringing the country back from the brink’, it was liable to misuse by less scrupulous politicians.”
I doubt Milan’s evaluation of Zia is all that rosy that any blind admirer can feel comfortable about without feeling the pinch of thorns.
In his rejoinder, Mr. Chowdhury bemoans the fact that I had used the title Major for Zia and not his higher titles that he subsequently earned. My preferred use of “Major” was only to highlight his popularity with that title, especially after reading the prepared statement from the Kalurghat Radio Station declaring independence of Bangladesh as “Major Zia” on behalf of “Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.” As far as the original text of the statement is concerned, it had nothing to do with either Lts. Oli or Shamsher Mobin Chowdhury.
I am also aware that Zia was a year senior to Shafiullah in getting to Pakistan Army. [His family is personally known to me.] Promotions of people, superseding others more senior and qualified, are nothing new in any profession; they are natural parts of our world that we live in. If one is looking for examples, tomes of books can be written with supporting evidences. For our purpose here just ponder on how Gen. Colin Powell was promoted over many of his superiors and more qualified peers to become a 4-star General in April of 1989, during the presidency of H.W. Bush. [He was a C-grade student in Geology at City College of New York (see, e.g., the TV interview with Ted Koppel soon after he was sworn in, and also his graduation speech at the Marymount University in 2006).] However, we don’t have to go to that far: why was Moeen U. Ahmed chosen over A.T.M. Zahirul Alam (who received the Sword of Honor) by the BNP government?
Bottom line is: people (in all walks of life – from political arena to corporate world) like to surround themselves with only those perceived to be less threatening to their position, more helping and cooperating in a crisis, and possessing superior leadership qualities. It is all a matter of perception, prejudice and preference, and not always correct. In choosing Moeen over Zahir, the BNP leadership did not expect 1/11, which backfired on its own face. In choosing Shafiullah over Zia, Sk. Mujib could not escape the fate of 15 August 1975 (irrespective of whether or not Zia was an accomplice to the assassination plot, as is often accused of him by many historians). Allah had different plans for them. Many such promotions within the Army happen based on reports made by several groups including the Military Intelligence. I understand that General Osmani preferred Shafiullah over Zia for a plethora of reasons. Mr. Chowdhury’s own write-up provides further credence to the fact that Zia did not like Osmani either.
Mr. Chowdhury’s statement “Mujib had little love left for Zia who had the 'audacity' to declare independence, even though on Sheikh Mujib's behalf” belies fact and is very problematic showing deplorable prejudice. He himself testifies that Sk. Mujib was the uncontested leader of Bangladesh. In spite of his many flaws, Mujib was a lionhearted individual – a fact that is known to his friends and foes alike. [I can cite dozens of citations to support my assertion here – but resist the temptation because it will open a new discussion altogether, which is outside the scope of this inquiry into Zia.] The mere suggestion of Mr. Chowdhury is preposterous, let alone insulting, to assume that Mujib felt jealous about Zia. If Mujib had felt anything ill about Zia, he easily could have retired him. It was that easy for him. That would possibly have been the end of the story.
Mr. Chowdhury finds my information on Zia’s family as to how Sk. Mujib tried to keep the family together in the post-liberation period “news” to him. I don’t expect everyone to know everything. We all have our limitations. In his own admission, however, he states that Mrs. Zia was “kept under military custody in Dhaka” during the war time. Whatever may have happened during that duration of custody, upon his return from the battlefield, Zia initially did not want to accept his wife. Mujib helped to intervene and reconciled the family.
I am also aware of where Begum Mujib was kept under military protection in Dhanmondi. Next door to hers lived a very close of friend of my father Dr. Abul Bashar whose wife (a physician by profession and mother of Drs. Lisa and Rosa Bashar – then kids) was killed on Dec. 16, 1971 when she tried to enter the premise to give the good news of Pakistan Army’s surrender. [The Pakistani soldiers guarding the house had not by then surrendered, and were still stationed on the roof-top.]
I am aware of Mr. Shamsher M. Chowdhury’s piece in the New Age. [The newspaper and its older flagship - the Weekly Holiday - have been publishing my articles for a long time on a plethora of issues.] As an Ambassador to the USA, he and I had spoken a few times in 2005. When the BNP-MP (Prime Minister’s Adviser on Parliamentary Affairs) Salauddin Q. Chowdhury’s own son Fayyaz and goons had illegally grabbed my Family-properties in Khulshi, Chittagong, evicting 16 tenant families and demolishing nine homes, he was instrumental in arranging my meeting with SaQa in the Prime Minister’s office in late April of 2005. [Although my meeting with SaQa did not sway him to withdraw from our properties, I appreciate Mr. Shamsher Chowdhury’s indulgence to help us.]
Having said that we should not be oblivious of the ex-Ambassador’s strong BNP-partisanship. In recent months, he is a trusted political adviser to Mrs. Zia. Nevertheless, in what follows, my comments to his article reviewing Bill Milam’s book are provided.
Suffice it to say that like all BNP die-hards, Mr. S. M. Chowdhury had difficulty accepting the people’s verdict in the recent election. Thus, he alludes to “a second voter’s list, without photos whose authenticity is yet to be measured.” One can only take pity with such unfounded claims. Maj. Gen. Shafiq was in charge of the voter ID. I have trust in his transparency and honesty. By any measure Dec. 2008 election was the fairest in Bangladesh’s history. People dumped the BNP-Jamat coalition in favor of the coalition forged by the AL.
Because of people’s preference to vote along the party-line, unfortunately, not all the honest candidates were elected and some culprits like SaQa and Babu managed to get elected. [BTW: my cousin sister’s husband, an ex-MP from the BNP, lost his election bid in Chittagong in a highly contested race to a criminal from the AL.] Some irregularities were reported in some precincts. But those were more like exceptions than the norm. I remember during the post-Mujib era, when Zia ran against Osmani in the Presidential election, my father and I could not cast our votes simply because our votes had already been cast by Zia-supporters. And that happened in the early hours of the day with a very low turnout! That is how stage managed our election was during the Zia’s rule! The election of 1973 was a stark contrast to that stage-managed election of Zia.
In those days, the popularity of Sk. Mujib and his party was still very high. As rightly pointed out by Milam since that election win, Mujib’s popularity was on a downward trajectory – the ‘beginning of the end’ for Mujib. Sk. Mujib got more and more isolated by the sycophants (chamchas). Not surprisingly, when the BKSAL was formed, many chamchas including university VCs praised the initiative, and Shafiullah and Zia both joined the party. Such opportunism was quite rampant and Zia was not blameless either. Only few guys had the moral conscience to say that it was wrong and against the very principles that Mujib had fought all his life. That has been the sad saga of our unfortunate nation! As a nation, alas, we have failed to evolve into a rational, level-headed citizenry that knows the harm of chatukarita (undue praise) and what it does to their iconic leaders!
Milam has rightly pointed out the crux of current leadership crisis in Bangladesh – the hair-splitting rivalry between the two jono/gono netris. Milam blamed the ‘poisonous, zero-sum’ political culture of the major political forces in Bangladesh for creating the opportunity for a return of the military in January 2007. As noted by S.M. Chowdhury’s review, Milam detailed how this zero-sum game was played out in the fifteen-plus years of civil political rule since 1991, resulting in a violent and confrontational political culture where the only real losers were the very voters who had entrusted these very politicians with their fate. In retrospect, historians need to answer: is our people more secure today than they were in the Mujib-era? As a neutral observer, I am sad to say that the subsequent leadership has miserably failed in that most important test.
I am rather intrigued by Milam’s characterization of Zia as one who “used corruption to ensure loyalty but was incorruptible himself.” That says a lot about how corruption would increasingly become institutionalized and become the order of the day, a cancerous process which will later see scoundrels like Falu and drop-outs like Tareq to become filthy billionaires in Bangladesh. I have never known of any person in history who can escape from being condemned for buying loyalty through corruption. And yet to many robotic sycophants Zia is viewed as an angelic figure! Whom are they kidding?
Finally, Milam says that Zia’s “political legacy involved an authoritarian system of almost personal rule. While this might be justified because of ‘his success in bringing the country back from the brink’, it was liable to misuse by less scrupulous politicians.”
I doubt Milan’s evaluation of Zia is all that rosy that any blind admirer can feel comfortable about without feeling the pinch of thorns.
Zia is my hero but I see Sheik as a fallen vilain. I had so much of passion for Sheik Mujib, in other words it was unbelieavable. But I was lucky I could came out of his mesmeriam the earliest what others could not. Perhaps, he was not as bad a leader as we see in the recent times. But Sheik Mujib lied to the nation and for his myriads of mistakes, not millions but lakhs of lives have lost. I was a mini-organizer, I always claim, of our so called independence war. I don't see this independence with such high price, a sea of blood, has any worth. We did earn a ragged piece of cloth what we called national flag, a very vulnerable border or territory and a national anthem, not fully acceptable to everyone as it's authored by the great poet who once opposed the people of our part of Bengal.
ReplyDeleteFrom 1971 with the war of independence we really started a very big bigenning of human tragedy. And it has brought human catastrophy and been continued. Now we see the mess in the administrative systm in the east and the west, once united Pakistan and both of it are on fire and I believe, the middle, the Inda won't be spared of its heat and because it was involved with the same sin.
Most leaders I have seen, known, and studied are not all dedicated to improve the lots of common people. They talk about independence, freedom, patriotism, peoeple's prosperty and chage, so on and so forth but they get addicted to power when they get it and forget people. Sheik Mujib was the typical of a such.
If the independence has any value [to me not of iota], its declaration credit goes to Zia. And however, how his 5 years' rule is viewed and how his legacy has been defined doesn't matter much to me butI recognize his role in the criticial juncture of our early existential hsistory. Moreover, he salvaged democracy and slavaged post-humoous Awami league after BAKSAL. His, this type of naiveness, maybe the cause of two-party political crisis in Bangladesh.
I do conclude here this chat.
Thanks.