Truth commission: An impractical proposition in Bangladesh context

Truth commission has now become a great controversial issue in our national politics. This term originated in South Africa, fathered by Nelson Mandela . Under what circumstances he set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission may be reviewed.
Later, a few other countries implemented it in different forms. These countries include El Salvador, Chad, Chile, Ghana, Guatemala, Serbia, Sierra Leone, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Uruguay, Panama, Peru, Bolivia and Nigeria. It has to be understood that the situation in those countries is not the same as in Bangladesh. Problems existed in those countries for which UN peace-keeping forces had to be deployed in most of those countries. Truth commission was not constituted to protect the corrupt people.
South Africa is a country of Christian majority. In their daily life and even in state administration, the Christian religion plays an important role. In addition, they have the colour problem. Black leader Nelson Mandela was in jail for much of his life. Following continued protests, he was released and became the president of the country through a national election.
Having coming to power, Nelson Mandela formed a Truth and Reconciliation Commission based on the principle and ethics of Christianity. Catholic Christians who so desire go to church on Sunday and confess their sins to the priest, wanting to be forgiven. The priest advises them to follow the path of truth, shun acts of sin, and lead a good life. Nelson Mandela was imbibed by the principles of religion when he formed the TRC.
Having coming to power, he did not choose to retaliate, and instead forgave the white minority who had inhumanly oppressed the blacks. Nelson Mandela proved his greatness as a political leader by forgiving the white minority. He realised that if the whites were brought to trial for murders and inhuman torture against the blacks, South Africa would descend into a serious riot between the blacks and the whites and peace could not be established.
In order to root out racial conflicts and forge national unity, he decided to forgive the culprits in exchange for an apology by the whites. Nobody was subjected to trial for any criminal act. The blacks also took it in the spirit that if Lord Jesus can forgive sins on admission, why they could not so. This led to the end of apartheid in South Africa and peace was established. The above realisation is totally absent in our country, hence the present state of affairs.
I come back to the issue of the truth commission. Such a situation arose soon after achievement of our independence. General amnesty was declared but the culprits were not required to ask for any forgiveness. That was a blunder for which the country is suffering till now. Bangabandhu declared general amnesty for the war criminals and the agents of the Pakistani junta and for that they neither had to ask for forgiveness nor face any trial. As a result, they have no repentance.
For that matter, the question of war criminals against liberation is coming up again and again. If Bangabandhu had insisted that the criminals ask for forgiveness and then declared the general amnesty, things would have been different today. Since formation of a truth commission was not done then, why should it be done now?
Moreover, we are not in the same situation as truth commissions set up in other countries. I have many times said that one government or a faction may fail but not the whole nation, a particular group may be corrupt but not the nation, a particular class may take to terrorism but the whole nation does not support it. That the business community after admitting their fault will be absolved of all guilt cannot be an acceptable proposition. That some will suffer in prison for corruption and some will merely ask for forgiveness and go scot-free cannot be a principle of rule of law.
Businessmen who will appear before the truth commission with folded hands and admit their guilt will perhaps be forgiven. Who will be these businessmen who fall in this category to be forgiven? All politicians are presumed guilty. Some businessmen have turned into politicians and some politicians are engaged in business. How can they be separated to face the truth commission?
Even some terrorists have their businesses. Some terrorists have become commissioners or elected representatives of the people and are doing business. Will they appear before the truth commission, ask for forgiveness, and get away with all their misdeeds? Is it acceptable? Another question may arise to what extent a businessman will be eligible for forgiveness by the truth commission. Some of them may evade taxation, be a smuggler, bank defaulter, illegal user of power and gas, usurper of other's land and property, be a godfather of terrorists, a murderer of his business rival, a hoarder of consumer goods, or an adulterator. Will all these categories be set free by the truth commission?
Our political leadership is definitely at fault. Two big political parties have brought the businessmen into politics to cling on to power. They deprived the real political leaders and workers and nominated the wealthy businessmen to come to politics for their money. Political leaders are responsible for this because the businessmen have been used as their political weapons. Will all of them be set free by the truth commission?
Politics, democracy and election system have all been polluted by some wealthy businessmen. Without having any eligibility or political experience they have made their place in politics by strength of their money and have become public representatives. They have lavishly spent their black money in the election and created cadres of miscreants and terrorists. It has made the election a matter of muscle and money. Then these public representatives have been very active in recovering the huge expenditure they incurred in the election. They have used their political power in their personal business.
Of those who have been taken to custody are under trial or convicted since 1/11, the proportion of politician turned businessmen form the majority. Therefore, the political leadership who brought the businessmen to polities has done great harm. The businessmen have elbowed out the genuine politicians by using their strength of money and have also used political power in their business. They have indulged in corruption. They will go free and others will be punished -- there cannot be two standards of law in the same country.
It also will be a violation of the country's constitution which guarantees equal rights to all citizens.
All businessmen are not corrupt. Majority of them want to do honest business. There are some who look for profit-mongering in illegal ways. Formation of a truth commission only for the businessmen is not correct. It is disrespectful when people know that a particular corrupt businessman asked for forgiveness before the truth commission and has been set free. Some claim that formation of the truth commission is right. I feel condition for formation of truth commission does not prevail in Bangladesh. Those who commit any crime can be tried under existing law of the land. If a person has done no wrong but complaints are made against him from some quarter and he faces the commission and walks free: is it honourable for him?
Let me explain my bitter experience. After I handed over power, BNP filed all sorts of cases against me. I have recently been acquitted of all charges in the "gold smuggling" case. The charges were that I was involved in gold smuggling at Dhaka Airport when I was the president of the country. Trial was held and the accused persons were punished. Then BNP made me an accused by a supplementary charge sheet. The investigation officer told the court that I had no involvement in that case. The IO informed the court that he gave the supplementary charge sheet under pressure to save his job. I got unconditional release. But I was harassed in the case for more than a decade and I had to appear before the court for innumerable times.
Who will make good my personal sufferings? After each trial date the newspaper head lines said: "Ershad gold smuggling case continues for date shifted." How embarrassing and dishonourable it was for me! The world was astonished that Bangladesh is a country where the president is involved in smuggling. Involvement of the president of a country in smuggling -- is it honourable for any nation? The post of the president has been undermined. It is disgraceful that the president of an independent country can himself be a smuggler. What has been the impression for the outside world?
If all are given the opportunity to appear before the truth commission and some people desiring to avoid harassment want to be forgiven -- it will be a disgrace for the innocent. Hence, I strongly feel that formation of a truth commission is impractical, unnecessarily controversial, and, above all, unconstitutional. Rather, the country needs a free judiciary, quick trial, and justice without harassment or victimisation.
H.M. Ershad is the former President of Bangladesh.