By now, most of you know about the resolution that was passed in the Pakistani parliament on December 16 to condemn the execution of notable war criminal and Jamaat leader Quader Molla. The resolution urged Bangladesh to not revive the old wounds of 1971 and to free all Jamaat leaders facing trial for the sake of reconciliation.
The Pakistani interior minister, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, termed the execution as judicial murder, and stated that Molla was executed because of his loyalty to Pakistan during 1971. To make matters more farcical, Imran Khan, former Pakistan captain and leader of PTI, claimed that Molla was innocent according to one of the lawyers who defended him in the ICT.
Now let’s ask a few serious questions. What gave Pakistan the moral ground to accuse Bangladesh of “judicial murder”? Why should Bangladesh even listen to Pakistan and reconcile with war criminals? What makes Imran Khan think Quader Molla was innocent based on the words of a defence lawyer? Actually, I can ask a thousand questions on the issue at hand but let’s just move on and try to answer Pakistan and its “concerns.”
Firstly, I find it hilarious that Pakistan, the country behind the 1971 massacre, thinks it has a moral high ground to accuse Bangladesh. Let’s face it: We proclaimed our independence on March 26, 1971, but Pakistan didn’t give up its rights on Bangladesh till December 16, 1971.
Hence, we all know and saw how it came down upon its “own people” to commit “extrajudicial murders” for 9 months. Moreover, let’s not forget that Pakistan was all set to commit its own “judicial murder” by producing a death sentence for Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in a court whose “international standard” very few across the world surprisingly questioned at that time.
Of course, Pakistan thinks it has a moral high ground. After all, collective national amnesia kicks in when a nation wants to forget its lowest points in history. Please do understand the sarcasm intended here.
However, I must admit that the Pakistani interior minister did get the reason behind the execution partially correct. After all, the root cause of Molla’s heinous crimes in 1971 was that he wanted a united Pakistan, and knew his crimes would go unpunished because of his loyalty to Pakistan, just like the crimes of the Pakistani army officials went unpunished despite overwhelming evidence in the hands of the Bhutto government after the Liberation War in the form of Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report.
Moreover, I must admit that Jamaat-e-Islam Pakistan, and the Pakistani government indirectly debunked a few myths about Quader Molla as claimed by the pro-Jamaat media in Bangladesh. Firstly, I remember an issue of Amar Desh claiming that Molla was a “freedom fighter” himself.
Now, don’t you find it funny that a “pro-Pakistani loyalist” would fight against his own country? Secondly, and more importantly, Quader Molla claimed from time to time that he maintained a relatively low profile during the Liberation War and lived far away from the places he was claimed to be at committing atrocities during the Liberation War.
Now, if Molla was really innocent (or even a freedom fighter as claimed by Amar Desh) and maintained a low profile, how did the Pakistani interior minister claim with conviction that Molla was an ardent advocate of a united Pakistan throughout 1971? You can answer this question for yourself, for I see plenty of friction between the two stories.
On that note, let me talk about Imran Khan too. Actually, I wouldn’t say much except that I was thoroughly entertained by how “naively” he believed that the defence lawyer was being honest, without objectively judging the credibility of the claim. In doing so, he has questioned the judiciary procedure of a sovereign country, for which he should apologise to say the least, especially when the judiciary of his own country is questioned from time to time.
I would like to conclude with Pakistan’s notion of “reconciliation,” as it urges Bangladesh to reconcile with the war criminals. Honestly, I don’t really understand what Pakistan means by reconciliation as it didn’t even have the decency, as a nation, to officially apologise for the atrocities of 1971, let alone pay any compensation and punish those responsible for the heinous crimes of 1971.
Moreover, for Pakistan, reconciliation means poking its “official” nose into the internal affairs of a sovereign friendly state, questioning its judiciary system and terming a convicted war criminal as “innocent” which, in my opinion, are nothing short of acts of implicit hostilities.
Now that Pakistan has shown that it is concerned enough to pass resolution about Bangladesh in its parliament, I look forward to seeing the Pakistani government pass one to officially apologise to us for one of the worst genocides in modern history.