Our nation’s predilection to comment on the affairs of another country
He was one man, killed in one manner for one set of crimes. But the debate on the execution of Abdul Quader Molla in Bangladesh is not unidimensional. This is not a binary, divided into a for-and-against. That was all well and good, because there is nothing better to do in our republic than to split hairs but the matter has unfortunately assumed a diplomatic dimension.
First, there is the issue of the trial. By now, there seems to be a popular opinion – held even by some of those who wanted to see the man hang for his crimes – that the current trial was flawed. Moving to the trial itself, there are those who believed he was innocent, those who believe he was guilty and got what he deserved and those – chutzpah coming up, so brace yourselves – who believe he did what they say he did but so what? This latter point of view is espoused not by his supporters in his own country but his supporters in Pakistan. The man, they say, was a Pakistani and he was fighting a war and bad things happen in wars.
Then, there is the issue of capital punishment. The PPP, for instance, had declared a moratorium on capital punishment and stuck to it, right till the end. It opposes it for people it is convinced are innocent. To this end, the party is more principled than the vast expanse of liberals that decry the party for not being liberal enough. Then why didn’t the party join in the Jamaat-e-Islami-led parliamentary resolution condemning the incident? Because the party said it was the decision of another, sovereign state.
_____________________________________________
‘We need to come to terms with our far from ideal past and move on. If we, as a nation, cannot bring ourselves to apologise for the events of those bloody years, then the least we could do is remaining silent on the issue.’
_____________________________________________
The above is exactly the statement that the foreign office had issued. Trained diplomats, especially ones placed high enough to make a call on as sensitive an issue as this won’t make any other. The problem ensuing from that is the problematic position that the PML-N has taken. The League, as opposed to the PTI or even the JI, is in a bit of a pickle because it forms the federal government. The foreign office has issued one statement but the government of the day has issued quite another. It is precisely this dichotomy that has placed both the foreign office and our missions in Bangladesh in a difficult spot.
To the man whose hanging has set off this commotion: he probably did get what he had coming if, Bangladesh, like Pakistan, does prescribe the death penalty for such crimes. We need to come to terms with our far from ideal past and move on. If we, as a nation, cannot bring ourselves to apologise for the events of those bloody years, then the least we could do is remaining silent on the issue.
In Bangladesh itself, if there was (any) aspect of populist appeal to this decision, then it merits mentioning that it probably won’t yield the dividends that were intended. Things have gone from bad to worse in the country, with mass protests that have left several dozens dead. Which, at its worst, isn’t as bad as the problem of internal unrest that Pakistan itself is facing, for other reasons. How about letting them be and untangling our own mess?