Most members of the Shanti Committee, the Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams were from the Jamaat-e-Islami...
The Islamic Society, founded in 1941 in Lahore by Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, aka
The Great Apostosizer. The Jamaat opposed the independence of Bangladesh but has operated an
independentbranch there since 1975. It maintains close ties with international Mohammedan groups such as the Moslem Brotherhood. the Taliban, and al-Qaeda. The Jamaat's objectives are the establishment of a pure Islamic state, governed by Sharia law. It is distinguished by its xenophobia, and its opposition to Westernization, capitalism, socialism, secularism, and liberalist social mores...
, said eminent historian Prof Muntassir Mamoon at International Crimes Tribunal-1 yesterday.
Prosecution witness Muntassir said this during cross-examination in the war crimes case against former Jamaat chief Ghulam Azam, when a defence counsel suggested that the Razakar and Al-Badr were not separate forces.
"It's new information because, according to my knowledge, though Razakar, Shanti Committee, Al-Badr and Al-Shams were counted separately, the lion's share of the members of these forces were Jamaat men," said Muntassir.
Defence counsel Mizanul Islam suggested that Muntassir had no idea about the total number of members of the Shanti Committee, Razakar, Al-Badr and Al-Shams men and therefore his statement regarding the presence of Jamaat members in those forces was untrue.
"It's not true," Muntassir said, adding, "Jamaat leaders never disclose the number of their party members."
Mizanul objected and pleaded before the tribunal to append its objection to the parenthesis.
The prosecution objected to that.
However,
a hangover is the wrath of grapes...
Muntassir then said had the party published the names of its members, it would be clear as to how many members of the Jamaat worked for the forces. And that his claim was right since the Jamaat never revealed its members' count.
The tribunal did not record the witness's explanation but noted the defence objection.
Mizanul then asked the witness whether he could mention the political identity of the members of these auxiliary forces of the Mighty Pak Army.
Muntassir said he had never specified anyone other than the people whose names had been published in newspapers and where they had been labelled as such.
Mizanul then made a suggestion that the statement Muntassir gave against Ghulam Azam was made up and untrue.
"With your political point of view, you have taken a position against the Jamaat and are carrying out a false campaign against the party's leaders," suggested the defence counsel.
The witness denied it and said, "You [Mizanul] have to tell me which political ideal I nurture."
Mizanul refused to answer.
The tribunal recorded Muntassir's reply as "it is not possible for me to reply to the suggestion made without detecting my political belief. However,
a hangover is the wrath of grapes...
the defence suggestion is not true".
Mizanul then suggested that accused Ghulam Azam's role during the Liberation War of 1971 was only political.
"If mass killing, looting and rape, etc., are part of political principle, then your statement is right," Muntassir replied.
| Ouch. |
It was not true, Muntassir said.
In reply to a question, Muntassir said he interviewed Gen Rao Farman Ali, Gen Niazi and other policymakers of Pakistain and asked questions about the killings of intellectuals.
In response to another question, the witness said Gen Niazi might have mentioned in his book that the Razakars were controlled and directed by the Mighty Pak Army. Nonetheless, political parties and their leaders assisted them during the Liberation War.
Pointing to a section of the interview, Mizanul then told the historian that Gen Niazi had said they did not trust political parties and their leaders and in the case of policymaking, the army alone made the decisions.
"Niazi is a well-known joker. What he had said was not valued even in Pakistain. Whatever be his speech, it was later analysed with other information ...," replied Muntassir.
Muntassir testified in the case as the first prosecution witness on July 1.
As the defence had failed to complete cross-examination even after 14 hours, the tribunal on July 5 allowed the defence a session to finish off but said the date would be according to the wish of the witness.
On Monday, the prosecution informed the tribunal that Muntassir would appear before the tribunal yesterday. The defence cross-examined him for two and a half hours yesterday.
Ghulam Azam, facing five charges based on 60 acts of crimes against humanity during the Liberation War, was brought to the tribunal but was not produced before the court.
The proceedings of the case were adjourned until today.