Pakistan Observer
28th April 1967
AROUND THE COURTS
MARCH 20 PALTAN SPEECH CASE
SHEIKH MUJIB CONVICTED
(By Our Court Correspondent)
Margistrate Mr. Afsar-ud-Din Ahmad convicted Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, President of East Pakistan Awami League of prejudicial speech, and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 15 months under Rule 47(5) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules.
The Magistrate pronounced the judgment on Thursday afternoon inside Dacca Central Jail. He later rejected a petition moved by the defence for the bail of the accused in the case.
According to the prosecution, the East Pakistan Awami League on March 20, 1966, held a public meeting at Paltan Maidan which was attended by about 15,000 people. The accused presided over the meeting and delivered a forceful speech in Bengali which was recorded by three Government reporters.
Quoting the speech the prosecution said that the speech was likely to bring the Government cution said that the speech was likely to bring the Government of the country established by law into hatred and contempt and to excite dissatisfaction towards the same Government and to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between the people of the two wings of Pakisan and to cause fear and alarm to the public. The speech, it added came under the mischief of Rule 41 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules.
Mujib’s plea
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman pleaded not guilty. He submitted that he had not delivered any speech which was intended to bring the Government into hatred or contempt. He said he had criticised the measures and policies of the Government in an objective manner and had suggested remedial measures so that lasting feelings of brotherliness might grow up among people of the two wings. He added that this was possible only through the removal of economic disparity.
Sheikh Mujib added that he had not said or done anything which might prejudice the defence of Pakistan. He had suggested adequate measures for the defence of Pakistan. It was added.
He further submitted that his speech was not noted in full and in many places it was incorrectly noted.
He contended that his speech taken as a whole would go a long way towards national integration and better defence of the two wings of the country . He said when he had spoken of “Sangram” (struggle), he clearly uttered that it must be a constitutional and peaceful struggle. He never meant violence, Sheikh Mujib added.
Circumstances he added, a public speech of prejudicial nature by a political leader could certainly have an effective repercussions upon the minds of the public for the worst result.
The Magistrate ruled out of consideration the defence contention that the speech read and considered as a whole was not offensive and quoted, in justification, the following excerpt from the speech.
“We are being oppressed. We have reached the climax of oppression. The Government is doing nothing for East Pakistan”.
Quoting another excerpt “During the last September war, God had saved us. No soldier could come from West Pakistan. Here there were only a broken plane and one Division of soldiers”. The Magistrate held that this expression was quite likely to cause fear and alarm in the minds of common men.
The judgment quoted the speech further : “You will be amazed to hear about the defence of Bengal. I know Ayub Khan Saheb will destroy us at the roots. He will oppress upon us. He will send us to jail. You be prepared for struggle, you be prepared for sacrifice. We earn foreign exchange, but it is spent in West Pakistan. You are a “bazar”. We do not want to be a “bazar”. The headquarters of Army, Navy and Air Force are all in West Pakistan. Capital is in the hands of West Pakistan. All the big Industries are in West Pakistan. East Pakistan has been looted for 18 years. Gold sells at Rs. 150 in East Pakistan but Rs. 120 in West Pakistan. The Capital, the Central administration and Capital formation are in the hand of West Pakistan.”
By these utterances, the Magistrate observed, the accused made a drect imputation towards the Government established by law. It was not a criticism of the Government in a constructive way, he added.
Continuing the Magistrate stated that the defence tried to discredit prosecution witness who said in his cross-examination that he had attended other meetings before and after the present one. But he could not remember who spoke and what they spoke about in those meetings.
Referring to the above evidence. The Magistrate said that he could not accept the defence contention not to rely upon such a witness.
In throwing the contention off. The Magistrate stated that the statement of the witness rather showed that the expressions made by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman “were so effective, meaningful and prejudicial that they made permanant impression upon the mind of the witness and he could not forget those expressions.”
“And because other speeches of other people,” the judgment went on, “were not so effective and volcanic as those made by the accused, the witness reasonably could not recollect them in the witness-box.”
He concluded that there was nothing to discredit the witness and there was no reason to disbelieve him.
The court at first only delivered its order of conviction and sentence on the accused. Not content, the accused wanted the court to pronounced the full judgment which was fairly lengthy..
As the court finished its pronouncement. The 47 year old Awami League Leader smiled and said: “there will be a big feast in the Governor House this night, I suppose.”
Advocates Messrs Abdus Salam Khan, Zahiruddin, M. A. Rob, Abul Husain & others appeared in defence of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Mr. Mesbahuddin Ahmad, Assistant Public Prosecutor and Mr. M. A. Khaleq, DSP, conducted the prosecution case.
সূত্র: সংবাদপত্রে বঙ্গবন্ধু তৃতীয় খণ্ড: ষাটের দশক॥ দ্বিতীয় পর্ব