Recently, I came across a newspaper story where our esteemed legal adviser stated: "There is a growing trend of frivolous lawsuits in the country," adding that this has caused him significant personal embarrassment. So much so that he has sought advice from the Judicial Reform Commission. Until this point, everything seemed relatively reasonable. However, I was taken aback by the following quote attributed to him: “During the tenure of the previous fascist government, fabricated cases were filed. These were instigated by the government itself. Now, we are not filing any cases on behalf of the government.” (Prothom Alo, November 12)
Is that really so? On September 5, the Solicitor Division of the Legal Adviser’s ministry issued a notification appointing a chief prosecutor and four additional prosecutors to handle cases at the International Crimes Tribunal. While the appointments themselves have sparked some controversy -- worthy of separate discussion -- the subsequent actions are even more noteworthy. Within six weeks, this "competent" prosecutorial team filed charges for crimes against humanity and genocide, leading to arrest warrants against 46 individuals. Although a comprehensive list of the accused is unavailable, it is presumed to include members of the previous government’s cabinet. It is understandable that those who held executive power must bear responsibility for decisions leading to atrocities, even if they did not directly participate -- much like how Adolf Hitler is universally condemned for World War II.
However, one name on the list that caught my attention is that of Professor Muhammed Zafar Iqbal. As a former student, I have known him for over two decades. Admittedly, during our university years, our relationship with him was a mix of admiration and apprehension due to his strict adherence to departmental rules. Yet, with time, I have come to understand his true nature -- a principled and fair individual.
Interestingly, the chief prosecutor, appointed by the legal adviser, defended the charges on October 17, stating to the media, "He [Prof Iqbal] was identified as an instigator of the July-August genocide. His provocations and support for the then-government’s suppression of protests and acts of violence render him culpable."
The accusation apparently stems from a portion of Iqbal's writings, where he allegedly incited genocide. The specific excerpt cited in newspapers reads as follows: "Dhaka University is my university, my beloved university. However, I don’t think I will ever want to visit it again. Whenever I see its students, I will feel they are the 'collaborators' [Razakars]. And for the rest of my life, I don’t want to see the face of any collaborator. Life is short -- why should I have to encounter collaborators again?"
It appears that the Ministry of Law has access to the internet (given that the former Minister Palak is now incarcerated), and they could have easily reviewed the full article on Prof Iqbal's blog, Sadhasadha Kotha (plain words), before filing charges. The article in question is an unfinished two-page essay, beginning with an observation on the significant participation of female students in the protests. It criticizes the police crackdown on students, discusses both merits and flaws of the quota system, and provides examples of abuse of the system during his tenure at Shahjalal University of Science and Technology (SUST).
The article abruptly halts, likely due to the professor's discovery that protesters were chanting, “Who are you? Who am I? Razakars, razakars!” Deeply hurt, he ended his writing and expressed his dismay, declaring he would no longer visit the university that allowed such slogans.
To the chief prosecutor and his superior, our legal adviser, I pose a simple question: How does this writing amount to incitement of genocide?
I would prefer to separate the legal perspective from the emotional expressions of students. When I first heard this slogan, I wrote that we elders should refrain from dictating the language and grammar of student movements. If their cause is genuine, they will rectify any errors themselves.
Now, as more information emerges, we know that leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami’s student wing had infiltrated the protests. It is plausible that such slogans were introduced by these elements. However, we must also understand that genuine student movements, driven by honest emotions and legitimate demands, rarely resort to vandalism or violence. Acts of destruction require a different breed of individuals -- those equipped with tools, funds, escape routes, and, it seems, guarantees of immunity from investigation or prosecution.
The bottom line is that the July protests were a confluence of various factions, not all of whom were well-intentioned. Those with malicious intent deliberately circulated distorted excerpts of Iqbal's writings, creating the false impression that he opposed the movement. Yet, a complete reading of his work reveals his praise for the protesters and his criticism of quota misuse.
In the final moments of such a movement, some may fail to distinguish truth from half-truths and lies. That is forgivable. But surely the government’s legal team would have reviewed the entire piece before filing charges. Were they unable to discern between incitement to genocide and an expression of despair?
If they have failed, allow me to assist. The chief prosecutor, Tajul Islam, previously served as defense counsel for convicted war criminals Ghulam Azam and Delwar Hossain Sayeedi. In Ghulam Azam’s case, the tribunal’s judgment cites his June 19, 1971, Rawalpindi speech, where he urged the Pakistani army to arm his followers to counter the Mukti Bahini. This is a textbook example of incitement to genocide. Contrast this with Iqbal, who did not plead for genocide but expressed disillusionment and vowed not to visit a place he loved.
Similarly, Sayeedi’s tribunal judgment lists his direct involvement in atrocities. His guilt was not inferred from vague statements but from concrete evidence.
Given this professional history, the chief prosecutor should clearly understand the definition of “genocide” and what constitutes “incitement.”
To the legal adviser, I have only one question: You claim to be embarrassed by the trend of frivolous lawsuits. Yet, are you proud of the genocide charges filed by your appointee against one of the nation's finest minds?
Omar Shehab is a theoretical quantum computer scientist at the IBM TJ Watson Research Centre, New York. His work has been supported by several agencies including the Department of Defense in the United States.
