Defence: Immediately after independence was there any investigation committee regarding the matter of killing of intellectuals made by the Government?That was the end of cross examination of Mr. Witness. And the court was adjourned.
Witness: As far I can remember immediately after independence an investigation committee was constituted with some respected citizens which was presided by Zahir Raihan (a famous writer and film maker). After disappearance of Zahir Raihan that committee failed to perform any active functions on this issue. But on behalf of the Government the rule-makers and other assigned officials took a number of initiatives regarding the matter of mass killing especially on the ‘killing of intellectuals’ issue.
Defence: I am repeating my question that was there any investigation committee regarding the matter of killing of intellectuals made by the Government?
Witness: I don’t remember further.
Defence: The committee which was made by Zahir Raihain, was he the head of that committee?
Witness: He led the committee.
Defence: After his (Zohir Raihain) disappearance were the related necessary documents given to the then Government or someone journalist from Kolkata (West Bengle of India) took them away.
Witness: There are lots of rumors regarding this. Among them one is a journalist from Kolkata took all the documents of Zohir Raihan’s investigation committee. But its veracity never can be determined. As far I can remember that the inventory of such documents was never made. But some documents was given to advocate Mr. S. R. Pal for the sake of suit filing but the truth is that, the authenticity regarding these documents was never be determined.
Defence: Was Barrister Mr. Kamrul Islam a member of that committee?
Witness: I don’t know exactly, because we knew it as Zohir Raihan’s committee. He was the head of that committee and that time any committee was known by the name of the head.
Defence: Did you ever investigate the members of Zohir Raihan’s committee regarding the related matters in going through your own research?
Witness: No, I didn’t.
Defence: Do you know, after independence in BTV (Bangladesh Television) a drama named ‘Ranaggone Dingulo’ directed by Nasiruddin Yusuf was telecasted or not?
Witness: No, I don’t know but I know this kind of drama is telecasted by ‘Channel i’ (a private channel of Bangladesh) not BTV.
Defence: Mirpur (an area of Dhaka city) was free from enemies in 31st January 1972 by a rescue operation and Zohir Raihan disappeared from that operation. Do you know anything about it?
Witness: From the Newspaper report of then as far I can remember that Zohir Raihan went to Mirpur to search his elder brother Shohidullah Kaiser. I didn’t hear that he became disappeared joining the rescue operation.
Defence: Did you know that Zohir Raihan died in Mirpur?
Witness: I heard the news of his disappearance not his death.
Defence: Regarding the disappearance of Zohir Raihan did you read the book of Julfikar Ali Manik?
Witness: I can’t remember I read this or not.
Defence: Do you know that on that very day of Zohir Raihan’s disappearance someone named Mastana called him (Zohir Raihan) over telephone to Mirpur.
Witness: No, I don’t know.
Defence: After liberating Mirpur from Pakistani enemies, around 10/12 thousand people were arrested from there, do you know that?
Witness: No, I dont know anything about it.
Defence: In the year of 1972 taking account the confession of an arrested non-Bengali Rajakar, from the house of an ex- minister of Pakistan named khan-e-sabur lots of documents regarding the killing of intellectuals was rescued. Do you have any knowledge about that?
Witness: No, I don’t know anything about it. It’s completely a new information to me.
Defence: Did you take any interview of General Niyazi and some other related officials on the killing of intellectuals for any Pakistani channel?
Witness: Yes, I did.
Defence: Do you know that Rao Forman Ali and General Niyaji wrote books giving the descriptions of those incidents.
Witness: Yes, I know.
Defence: Niyaji mentioned in his book that, Rajakars were controlled and directed by the Pakistani Army, do you know anything like this?
Witness: In that period main control was in the hand of Pakistani Army but every activity was done by them, was not true. It was also mentioned in their book that the then political group those who are their followers helped them in every possible way.
Defence: Did Rao Forman ali give any interview to you?
Witness: Yes, he did.
Defence: Pakistani General Niyaji told in his book that, ‘I don’t believe any political leader. In making any rules and regulation we follow our own decision.’ How do you respond to that?
Witness: Niyaji was familiar as a clown in Pakistan Army. Nobody gave any value to his words. All of his sayings were scrutinized by some other data and information. What you have told if it is the part of my interview, I couldn’t say anything about it without seeing my documents.
Defence: You have a question to Niyazi that whether the forces Rajakar, Al-badr, Al-shamsh were under Niyaji’s control and in answering that question he told that, ‘is it? People say like that, they are under Jamat-e-Isalami’s control. But I don’t agree with this. There was an influence of a German ruler’s theory in naming two main auxiliary forces Al-badr and Al-shams. He (German rular) was the inventor of this idea and I took that idea.’ Was it true?
Witness: You mentioned here a part of my interview. It doesn’t prove that Niyazi was absolutely right. And I told you before that all of his sayings needed to be scrutinized by some other data and information.
Defence: In your interview Niyazi told about Rajakar, Al-badr and Al-shams that, ;they were not the followers of Jamat-e-Islami. I hate politicians. Those who do politics I don’t allow them to enter into cantonment. So how could I tell them to help Pakistani Army?’
Witness: The answer of this question is found in my last answer. But Jamat’s historical Selim Monsur told totally reverse of this speech. So whatever is told by Pakistani Army if they are not scrutinized by other data and information, authenticity couldn’t be ensured.
Defence: What are you saying about Selim Monsur is that he told a totally different thing. Which publication of Jamat published this?
Witness: From Jamat-e-Talaba I guess, but as it is an Urdu words my pronunciation may be wrong.
Defence: From any Jamat’s publication no such book has been published. It’s not true.
Witness: From where it has been published I know its a Jamat’s concerned organization.
Defence: Inclusion of Rajakars as an auxiliary force was decided not by the eastern command but by the central command.
Witness: I told it before that in 1971 everything was decided central command, there was no eastern command or western command.
Defence: Do you think that Professor Golam Azam has any power to give direction or give any decision or prevent Pakistani Army from doing any activities?
Witness: No one can directly command any Government specially if it’s a military government. But one can give advice, can instigate, can help in making plan, can induce even one can take part in their conspiracy.
Defence: Al-Badr, Al-Shams forces were not different force from Rajakars. They are parts of Rajakar force.
Witness: This is a new information but I want to say according to my opinion, Rajakar, Al-Badr, Al-Shams, the members of peace committee as they are treated as different organizations but a percent of the members of them were from Jamat-e-Islami political party in other words it can be said that percent of Jamat-e-Islami were turned into Rajakar, Al-Badr, Al-Shams.
Defence: As you don’t know exactly the total number of Jamat-e-Islami party members that percent of Jamat-e-Islami people were Rajakar, Al-Badr, Al-Shams, how could you say that?
Witness: I don’t agree with you. As Jamati leaders also do not reveal the total number of their group members.
Defence: Could you tell the political identity of those Rajakars, Al-Badr, Al-shams who were identified by you?
Witness: I never say that I have specifically identified anyone. The identity which is revealed by the newspaper I just told about this.
Defence: How many Rajakar adjutants were identified by you?
Witness: I have to see books to answer this question.
Defence: The interpretation that you gave of the speech of Professor Golam Azam, it’s your own interpretation and it’s not true.
Witness: No, it’s not true.
Defence: You from your political belief took the position against Jamat-e-Islam and carried on defaming them.
Witness: Before identifying my political identity, it’s not possible for me to answer the question. But what you have told is not true.
Defence: In 1971 Professor Golm Azam’s role was merely political.
Witness: If killing, rape, looting are the political ideology then your speech is true.
Defence: In 1971 Professor Golam Azam did not commit all these crime. You are giving false evidence against him.
Witness: This is not true.
At this point defense witness Mr. Defence mentioned some contradiction with the deposition made by the Prosecution witness. The Defence said that you didn’t tell this and this portion of your deposition to the I.O. and the witness replied that I told him but whether he wrote it down or not I don’t know.
Defence: You said that some press censorship was imposed in 1971 on newspaper. Was that imposed on some specific newspaper or on all newspaper.
Witness: The rule of press censorship is normally similar for all newspaper.
Defence: I will tell you now two unpleasant truths. You got Mercantile Bank Award. The chairman of that bank was Mr. Jolil who was a leader of Awami Leage.
Witness: The chairman doesn’t decide who will get award. It’s the jury board. So I don’t find any problem with that.
Defence: When you were the research director of Bangldesh Freedom fight and Research Institute, the former Government got some evidence that you were misusing the power and going beyond the rules and regulations, and you took Tk 861,480 illegally.
Witness: It’s not true.
Defence: Because of this reason, for avoiding suit filing you did this in compliance with the direction of present Government.
Witness: This is not true.
Defence: You did not do any work in favor of freedom fight.
After asking this question prosecution expressed their anger that and prosecution lawyer Mr. Malum told to the Tribunal that, this is a shameless try to include everyone as a Rajakar. At last the question was taken.
Witness: This is not true.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
After the Nizami case, the cross Examination of the first prosecution witness, Muntasir Mamun in the Golam Azam case continued (following on from this day)