Read part 1 : http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-936812

How can “phashi” (hanging) be justified for Razakars, but not for other crimes?

War crimes are different from civil crimes in that they are  invariably carefully planned, and cannot often be established with proof  that a person directly ‘pulled the trigger’.

That is why, in cases such as the Nuremburg Trial, only the top  leaders of the organization committing mass atrocities were tried for  symbolic justice, although numerous others were guilty of the same  crimes. In this case, the Razakars under trial were the primary decision  makers in the organizations committing the mass murders and rapes, and  therefore need to be given the highest punishment under prevailing  Bangladeshi law, if convicted.

The issue of banning capital punishment is a separate fight  altogether, and needs to be fought sooner than later, but that shouldn’t  prevent the highest punishment for these war criminals at this point,  when the prevailing law dictates death sentence for grave civil crimes.

If Shahbagh is indeed a powerful, unrelenting demonstration  of citizen power then why can it not take us to a world where a  sentenced war criminal can be kept in jail forever? Do we not have  enough faith in this movement?

Far too many times, the people of Bangladesh have been ‘betrayed’ by  political parties, who have sided with war criminals and their  respective parties for political gains. These criminals have also gone  to the extent of becoming Ministers. All it takes for a convicted  criminal to get out is a Presidential pardon, and the President in  Bangladesh is a political appointee.

Should this protest be only for one demand? Capital  punishment for war criminals? What about other pressing issues in the  country? Sagar Runi case, Padma Setu etc.?

The Shahbag movement has so far been about a singular demand related  to bringing under law all individuals, parties and organizations that  led or aided the mass atrocities and genocide in 1971. Whether other  demands come to the forefront is for us to wait and see. At some point   of the movement, organizers made a statement that once the issue of  trial of war criminals is resolved, they would deal with other issues  too.

What about demanding punishment of all war criminals including Pakistanis and those who are now involved with AL-BNP politics?

At the peak of the liberation war, there were tens of thousands of  active Razakars all across the country. It is not practical to trace  everyone with evidence and try them. That is why war crimes typically  are tried for symbolic justice, in effect prosecuting the top Razakar  decision makers during the war.

Is the movement anti-Islamic?

Although the Shahbag movement has philosophical and ideological roots  in secularism, the movement started off as a singular demand for  justice for mass atrocities in 1971 and bringing under law the  identified Razakaar leaders, parties and organizations. The movement,  from the start, has been respectful and sensitive to all religions. On  the 11th day of the protest, an online activist was brutally murdered in  front of his residence. Simultaneously, a group of online bloggers  (supposedly sponsored by Jamaat) started off a propaganda machine  dubbing him as a propagator of anti-Islamic slurs, in an effort to try  to undermine the Shahbag movement as a whole as anti-Islamic. Since  then, the movement organizers have repeatedly and emphatically expressed  their solidarity and respect for Islam and all other religions. It is  widely believed that this was a shrewd tactic by the anti-Shahbag forces  to jeopardize the integrity of the movement and shift focus and divide  up support and sympathy for the movement.

Will the the banning of Jamaat be legal?

The Shahbag movement organizers are calling for a legal process which  will prosecute all organizations that are identified as having led the  mass atrocities in 1971. If this process results in the banning of  Jamaat, it would indeed be a legal outcome.

Will the banning of Jamaat be democratic?

If the banning of Jamaat is done through a legal process under the  democratic laws of the country, rather than through a decree, then it  will be democratic.

Ref: http://projonmo.info/frequently-asked-questions-2/