People understand politicians more than they do the people
As a politician when you are accused of doing something wrong, you have two options: either you have done the felony and you admit the guilt, or you have not done it and you yell to the world to prove that you are innocent. That is the case if we are talking of beyond the Bangladesh borders that the ten trucks of arms could not cross, or by crossing which JMB has taken arms training and in thankfully reciprocating educated the Rohingyas in bomb-making. These are not new dimensions in border trading. These are new news to us.
See how easy it is to divert an issue.
The third and major option practised wholesale in Bangladesh is to call a press conference and without blinking an eyelid or a flutter of the heart or any chinta of hellfire say in a microphone that you are a victim of political altercation and that you are being harassed by the government. This style may have worked, when it was true perhaps, but being tricked innumerable times, the public of the day are unable to digest such an approach any more. They judge every case by its merit. The fanatics still throng the meetings, less as support for the party, and more to save their own skin, which is very very thick.
Talking of press, it nowadays means to press, that is to work at getting out the truth, rather than the press where newspapers were once upon a time printed.
See how easy it is to divert an issue.
One thing you (as an accused) do not definitely do is to find any fault in the accuser. That is a different issue to be dealt with separately, if indeed that is the case. That stance (that they do not have the right accuse/try/punish) is a sure giveaway of your being very much involved in the crime, whatever it is your name Vinegar or Andhokar. That is because you are not addressing the issue.
What does it matter who accuses you? Who cares whether they who accuse you are qualified to do so or not? We care whether the charge is true or not. So should you.
We are not in the mood to see the exacting of an ideal court case, and let the party guilty of shamelessly pilfering public money from the highest pedestal of public service go scot-free.
Let us assume a teacher accuses a student of cheating in an exam. We do not consider it convincing if the student defends himself (that is not to say only boys cheat) by responding that he is innocent because the teacher who caught him was supposed to be invigilating in that particular classroom, and therefore ahem 'I was not cheating'. How heavy a load of crap would that be?
So you walk into a large shop and lift a packet of whatever it is, hide it in your body (not speaking literally) and try to walk out without paying for it. You get caught at the gate by security, red faced. You! Not the security. You then start shouting that if the security is going to hand you over to the police and bring charges against you then they should apprehend all the persons who before you managed to pilfer packets of this and that. That is a separate issue. Another person being guilty of a crime does not, has never, let a culpable chap off the hook. It should not. Every person answers individually to the people, to the court and to Allah (swt).
These legal faak-fokors may keep you out of jail for a while, even for life, which is also a while, but the people will know forever that you were a thief. More importantly, you know too. What about the afterlife?
Some politicians have this funny idea that just because they are a member of or support political parties apparently advocating Islam, and they have a large masjid in the neighbourhood where they too go for regular prayers, and they fast and give alms, and they are working only for the people who vote for them (so lots of doas), therefore they can go ahead and indulge in or support the politics of hatred and killing, a living style involving alcoholism and adultery, illegal arms trading and misappropriation of public funds, etc. No, you cannot say that the grenade attack sounded great just because an opponent was the victim, and then head for Asar prayers. And it was awful because a party colleague was killed or hurt.
Say, you support a political party and therefore support every wrongdoing of that party and its members killing, rape, pilferage you are then damaging yourself, the party, the nation, and the future generation. It is not right, and therefore sinful.
See how easy it is to divert an issue. And yet the issues are related.
If after committing a crime you start finding loopholes in the system to save your political future, you are then furthering the damage process that basically started with your wrongdoing.
You are perhaps allowed to lie to save your life under certain circumstances. e.g. you could tell a Paki soldier in 1971 that you have nothing to do with the War of Liberation when he was about to kill you. That would not make you a razakar. People understand.
If you love this country, stand up and prove you did not do the wrong you are charged with, not with the muscular or political backing of your party, but with documentary evidence. Fight, by all means, to prove your innocence. People understand you more than you do the people.
If you love this country, and perchance you are guilty, then own up for the sake of everyone, mostly your children and grandchildren. A man or a woman can make a mistake, but it is more man or woman to admit one's fault. Believe me, people understand you more than you do the people.
Therefore, let the guilty party or parties stand up and walk out of the House.
(R) thedailystar.net 2009