As BNP chief Khaleda Zia faces sedition charge for questioning the death figure in the Liberation War, the International Crimes Tribunal yesterday ruled out any possibility of a debate saying that the history is undisputed and settled.
The three-member tribunal 1, led by Justice Anwarul Haque, came up with the observation while delivering verdict in a war crimes case against two razakar leaders.
In the judgement, the tribunal said: “The undisputed history says that the Bangali nation and the freedom fighters fought for nine months to get their homeland Bangladesh free from the capture of the Pakistani armed forces.
“Three million people laid their lives, hundreds of thousands of women sacrificed their supreme honour for the cause of freeing their dear motherland Bangladesh. Besides, about 10 million people were deported to India as refugees while million others internally displaced.
“This settled history is now indisputably mingled with the nation’s holy emotion and the glory of the war of liberation through which the nation achieved its motherland Bangladesh.”
The tribunal also mentioned that the Appellate Division acknowledged the three million death figure while disposing of the review petition in a war crimes appeal case.
Three-time former premier Khaleda stirred a fresh controversy recently by expressing doubt over the number of martyrs. “It is now said that this many people were martyred. But there is debate over how many people were actually killed during the Liberation War. Many different views are presented in books,” she said at a discussion on December 21.
Leaders of her party and alliance welcomed the remark but it drew massive criticisms from the Awami League and war crimes trial campaigners. Later the Home Ministry approved filing of a sedition case against the BNP chief in which she would have to appear before a Dhaka court on March 3.
The tribunal earlier condemned and warned British journalist David Bergman for his writing on the death figure in 1971. “Mere criticism made on the issue of ‘death figure in 1971’ though does not constitute any contempt, it was in no way in the ‘public [interest] and the attempt on part of the contemnor was not in ‘good faith.’”
