Someone may think that DNA in politics – what a new word? It is known to everybody that DNA is related with medical science to make out identity of parents. This is being used to identify the criminals involved in rape incidents. Then how it is related with politics? But it is relevant – claims Subhash Singh Roy. Subhash is a student of science. He is the strong voice in favour of the Liberation War. He presents his arguments in the talk-shows excellently. Actually, the theory behind his claim is that - DNA is relevant to identify a person’s affiliation, when the politics in Bangladesh is divided into two forces – one is pro-Liberation and the other anti-Liberation. Dr. Sammi Ahmed, Secretary of AL’s Foreign Affairs Sub-committee has the same view. It is unfortunate that the divisions are still exists in BD politics even after 50 years of independence. There are many in the country who has taken stance towards the pro-Liberation group even their forefathers were Razakar. Journalist Naimul Islam is a vivid example, who criticizes his father publicly. But, there is a majority of the descendants of Razakar who are making efforts to turn the country into a Pakistan once again. Still they have the feeling of Pakistan and chanting slogan ‘Long Live Pakistan’ likethe sons of Saka, Mir Kashem Ali, QuaderMollah, Sayedee, Chokha Mia Razakar, Jadu Mia, Sabur Khan etc. They are sometimes trying to show their allegiance towards pro-Liberation forces.
A few months ago, I had participated in a talk show. One Reader of International Relations Department of a Public University was also present there. When the topics of Liberation War and role of India came up, the Reader said that discussionson Liberation War is not relevant now-a-days. He denied the Liberation War directly. However, on the issue of recent conflict between India and China, he expressed his support to China saying that China has done the right thing as India had denied McMahon line in 1949. I had an opportunity to know some fundamental issues of International laws as my wife studied international relations in the UK. I became surprised - how a Reader of International Relation Department could say like this. He should know very well that the McMahon line was drawn as per Shimla agreement between the British govt of India and Tibetin 1914. That time Tibet was a separate state. China had also signed the agreement as a witness. International laws say that if a country get merged into other country after signing any agreement, the merger country is liable to oblige the conditions of that prior agreement. It cannot violate the agreement unilaterally. Therefore, China is liable to comply the agreement signed by Tibet in 1914, as Chinaoccupied Tibet in 1950. Similarly, India is liable to comply the agreement including the Shimla agreement which were signed by British govt of India.
I realized that the forefathers of the Reader were probably anti-India. In this regard, I made a query to know about him from a former VC of the University, who could not provide any detail information. Then, I went further and came to know that his father had joined 47 Long Course of Pakistan Army when the Liberation War was underway in August 1971. A person who joined the Pak army during Liberation War could not be other than a Razakar. He was definitely in favour of Pak govt and against the Liberation War. That sentiment carried on to his descendants through DNA. Otherwise, it was not possible for him to say that discussion on Liberation War is irrelevant and China had done the right thing by attacking India. Those, who did not want Bangladesh to be liberated, are against India. Because, India was a supportive force for the Liberation of Bangladesh.
After retirement as a Major, the Reader’s father got job of Director of a Sports Institution with the help of Khaleda Zia.
Recently, an English article by the Reader came to my notice. The article is full of false information and anti-India propaganda which he got from his father. He wrote that a political help of India was required in 1971, but it was not the only considerable issue. He added that India joined the Liberation War on Dec 3, 1971, just 13 days before the victory. The Reader forgot all those things that - apart from giving political support India sheltered over one crore refugees, provided food, health facility, arms and training, Indira Gandhi travelled across the world to garner support to free Bangabandhu from jail, 16000 Indian soldiers sacrificed their life etc. It is not clear whether the Reader was ignorant about these information or he was expressing his anti-India concept received from his father.
Mr. Reader has mentioned that India has taken a pro-Myanmar stance over the Rohingya issues, as India has a sweet relation with Myanmar. Mr. Reader has forgotten that it is China which kept the Rohingya issue alive. He should not forget that China gave veto whenever the issue was raise in the UN Security Council. UNSC has power to resolve the Rohingya issue. Further, Myanmar knows that China would save the country in case any issue over the Rohingya Muslims rose in the UN. China has been supporting Myanmar blindlybecause it has lot of interests in Myanmar. The Reader is either ignorant on the issue or telling lie as a descendants of anti-India family. It is true that India has a good relation with Myanmar, but not as much good as Myanmar-China relation. Recently, India refrained from voting for a resolution by UN on Myanmar, while China voted in favour of Myanmar.
The Reader lied blatantly when he said that Bangabandhu had maintained equal relations with India and Pakistan. The relation between India and Bangladesh has been better than any other foreign country. This has no comparison. The Reader can do a search in this regard to find out that, during a rally in Kolkata in 1971, Bangabandhu had categorically mentioned that contribution of India was not forgettable. That time Bangladesh had a friendship agreement for 25 years, and several disputes like enclaves problem could have been solved due to friendly relations. But the relation with Pakistan is only at the diplomatic level. Bangabandhu had demanded on regular basis from Pakistan the due share of state money and repatriation of stranded Pakistanis. When Bhutto visited Dhaka in 1974, Bangabandhu raised those demands openly, which continued till his killing in 1975. Even now, senior ministers are saying that Bangladesh has a relation of blood with India, which has no comparison.
The Reader has humiliated the Supreme Court by calling Ziaur Rahman as ‘President Zia’. In several rulings including in the verdict on Fifth and Seventh Amendment to the constitution, both the divisions of Supreme Court stated that Zia was not president of Bangladesh in the eye of laws. Therefore, the Reader should be punished for defying the Supreme Court ruling. In his write up, the Reader reflected his love to Pakistan which he received from his forefathers. He also suppressed the facts that - Bangladesh govt expelled three Pak diplomats including one Deputy High Commissioner in the previous years, Pakistan was involved in the killing of Bangabandhu and Aug 21 Grenade attack, and two Pakistanis have been convicted in this regard. Further, two Pakistanis were caught red handed for funding militancy in Bangladesh and one PIA officer under cover was arrested during a raid in Uttara.
The Reader proved his love towards BNP-Jamat by saying that India had supported Awami League in the elections of 2013 and 2018. It is obvious that those who did not support the Liberation of Bangladesh in 1971 will be supporting the BNP-Jamaat. We are concerned that this pro-Pak and anti-India Reader, who bears the blood of anti-Liberation War might have brainwashed many of the students. We should be careful about that.
BDST: 1945 HRS, JUN 03, 2021